The Terrorists of 4chan

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/the-terrorists-of-4chan/

Source info at the link.

Terrorist
[ter-er-ist]
noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Emma Watson is being attacked by terrorists at 4chan (see the definition above) for saying that men and women should work together to improve the relationship between men and women. Evidently such a statement of common sense is now a threat to rape freaks, pedophiles, and other woman-hating scumballs, so those members of 4chan fitting that description issued terroristic threats against Ms. Watson:

Over the weekend, Harry Potter actress Emma Watson delivered an impassioned speech aimed at ending gender inequality — to which group 4chan responded by creating a site called “Emma You Are Next,” which alleges to count down the time until a 4chan user will release nude photographs of her.

“The more I have spoken about feminism, the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with ‘man-hating,’” Watson said. “If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. For the record, feminism, by definition, is ‘the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.’”

Such elements have made Watson a target of intense interest, of which the 4chan site “Emma You Are Next” is merely the latest instance. The site includes a countdown clock set to four days from Monday, September 22; an image of Watson wiping away tears; and the message, “Never forget, the biggest to come thus far.”

For preaching equality, the motherf***ers at 4chan are using threats in order to punish this actress, and try to silence her. Got that? She is merely reinforcing what is in the friggin’ Constitution, ferchrissakes. But to serial rapists and other sex offenders, that is a bad thing.

Here are a few pictures of other terrorists who also hate equality:







This, Gentle Reader, is what happens to anyone who speaks out against terrorism and in favor of the rule of law: terrorists attack the speaker. Whether it’s beheadings, rape, beatings, public shaming, or unjust incarceration, terrorists do not like being called out for their terrorist acts, and they are s***-scared of those who stand up to them.

No wonder Anonymous bailed on 4chan. What a bunch of needle-d***ed, wussy, woman-hating, terrorist jerkoffs. Go, Emma. We, the non-psychopaths of the world, support you and salute you.

[seabeyond]

1. Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=50750

The abuse of women on the internet, like the hacking of female celebrities' naked photos, is not just intended to hurt the individuals involved. These are deliberately outrageous acts designed to create a spectacle and to instil fear in a target population - in other words, terrorism.

*

These codes provide cover for a pastime as old as patriarchy: punishing women who step out of line. The nude photos of female celebrities, including the actress Jennifer Lawrence, were presumably hacked for the lulz – as well as for bitcoins, which a 4channer initially requested in exchange for them. Now it seems that half of Reddit’s users have decided it is their chivalrous duty to find the identity of the 4chan user who hacked the pictures. The other half are busy uploading the photos to the internet every time an image-hosting service removes them. Somewhere out there, I hope, a psychology student is gathering material for an excellent thesis. In the meantime, something strikes me about both the celebrity photo hack and the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian and Z. This is a form of terrorism. (Sarkeesian agrees: “There is just no other word for it,” she tweeted on 31 August.)

What we are witnessing are deliberately outrageous acts designed to create a spectacle and to instil fear in a target population. Where Osama Bin Laden watched in approval as every news network endlessly replayed the footage of a plane hitting a tower, the hackers and harassers must feel thrilled by all the carefully search-engine-optimised headlines above articles decrying the latest leaked pictures. It is a function of successful terrorism that the media becomes unavoidably complicit in spreading the terror. There is no way to report the story without increasing its potency. We cannot stop looking.

As for the target population, tell me that young women aren’t supposed to look at the harassment of Sarkeesian for being a public figure and get the message: “This could happen to you, you uppity bitch. Watch your mouth.” The leaking of the celebrity nude photos has the same impetus as revenge porn. As the internet heaves under the weight of freely exposed nipples, violation has become a form of titillation. (If you must see an actress’s breasts, may I recommend watching pretty much any 18-rated movie made this year?) Any expression of women’s sexuality moves them into Camp Slut, where they are fair game for punishment and humiliation.

*more

i loved this article. i do not think enough people read it. outstanding in my view. and hten look what you posted. i would like this to follow along. i think it very complimentary to what you say.

[seabeyond]

2. and thank you for clarifying the definition of terrorism. we found people needed the definition. nt

[seabeyond]

3. a tool. a weapon. shame, humiliate, degrade women thru their sexuality. nt

[riqster]

6. Too many people have a limited definition of terror.

The article you reference is a very good one.

[seabeyond]

7. thank you. your post is excellent in insight. nt

[seabeyond]

10. as i am continually kicked off the board, in no shame at all. regardless how others would like me

to feel. i do not think what you say has any baring at all to my decisions.

[alp227]

145. No worries, that poster has been auto-removed! nt

[seabeyond]

146. and there you go. lmao. why would i give a shit. lol. thanks for heads up. nt

[riqster]

11. A perfect summation of the message.

That is exactly what these terrorist fuckwits are saying to women.

[seabeyond]

12. i suggest he may be a .... well. that he gives the choice in seriousness.

one post, and directed to me.

[riqster]

14. Well, I alerted, just in case.

[seabeyond]

18. lol. i forget that tool sometimes. lets see. someone so obvious easily gets the boot,

so i generally ignore, comment and move on. the inevitable happens.

[riqster]

28. It was done quickly. Yay MIRT!

[seabeyond]

30. yep. btw. i think your OP/thread is awesome in thought. big thumbs up.

things to do, and thank you.

[riqster]

32. Thanks back atcha. I learn a lot from your posts.

[AngryAmish]

4. How does one become a member of 4chan?

What is the vetting process?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Go read and post?

It's a forum site like DU. Absolutely anyone can post there, with zero vetting, and completely anonymously if they want.

Want to go discuss your problems with your herd of sheep? Go hit http://boards.4chan.org/an/ and put up a post.

Want to show off your mad origami skills? http://boards.4chan.org/po/

Got a question about a Fibonacci sequence? http://boards.4chan.org/sci/

Want to be a total ass and flaunt your racism, sexism, or homophobia, or simple level of childishness? http://boards.4chan.org/b/

Like DU, it's a site will a lot of different forums, and one or two of them are sandboxes to separate out people who want to be trolls. The one the OP is about is /b/ from what I've seen.

[Initech]

8. Ah 4chan, the jnternets' equivalent of international waters.

Somehow this does not surprise me.

[riqster]

49. Never went there. And after this, I sure as Hell never will.

[Initech]

58. Yeah same here.

I will never post there and I stopped posting at IGN a long time ago because I got tired of the narcissistic posters, the wannabe moderators, the ultra conservatives, the gay and liberal bashers, and the other nonsense associated with that board.

[Warpy]

101. I have. At it's best it's dreck with the occasional flash of genius

However, it's rarely at its best. Having no boundaries means the people who have the fewest boundaries (narcissists, psychopaths, borderline personalities) quickly took it over.

Now it's just a sewer and about the only variety is between floaters and sinkers.

[riqster]

102. Uck. My stomach wouldn't survive the experience.

[Warpy]

103. I haven't been back in over a year

It's turned into a hostile environment for all normal people.

[Taitertots]

13. Oh great, even progressive have started calling anything they don't like "terrorism"

The word has officially become meaningless and irrelevant

[seabeyond]

15. or... one can actually read the definition and use the word appropriately. nt

[Taitertots]

29. Are you going to post the definition?

Bluntandcranky isn't a dictionary.


Here is what an actual dictionary says about it.
"1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

[seabeyond]

31. ok. so?

[Taitertots]

35. You are ignoring the definition and using it inappropriately

But don't let that stop you from misusing words to sensationalize crimes.

[seabeyond]

37. i disagree with you. nt

[riqster]

39. And you used the wrong definition, as I point out down thread.

[ieoeja]

106. "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

4chan users say they will release nude pictures of Emma Watson if she speaks about gender equality. So either:

- the above is not a threat
- it is not meant to intimidate or coerce, or
- gender equality is non-political.

Which one is it?

[riqster]

107. Nice post.

[freshwest]

139. K&R

[yardwork]

286. The definition sounds spot on to me.

[riqster]

38. I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com

Here is the link. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist

Also, you used the definition of terrorism, not terrorist. The thing is not the person.

[DavidG_WI]

164. Save that real terrorists actually kill and bomb to promote...

their agenda, because terrorism is a propaganda tool.

While /b/'s trolls go away when ignored. The few escalations to hacking have come from people that kept falling for the bait over and over again and eventually got themselves social engineered into giving their passwords to the trolls.

Just like they did to Sarah "Dinosaurs Are Jesus Ponies" Palin's Yahoo Mail account and revealed her illegal dealings.

[riqster]

168. No, that is your own definition of a terrorist.

Spreading and using terror is what makes one a terrorist. Would you say that someone who tortured but did not kill an innocent was not a terrorist because the victim did not die?

[DavidG_WI]

173. Trolls don't use terror.

[seabeyond]

175. ya. they do. i have had enough trolls use threats, throwing out sexist slurs, ect....

they very much use terror. now. much of terrorism plays in the mind. having no triggers, ect... it pretty much rolls of me, hence being able to endure and experience time after time after time. you know. the forever repeated troll that gets kicked off du, and then signs up with a new name to attack the same people over and over.

ya. for at least a handful of bottom feeders, it is about a low level of terrorism. i am just not a prime target for them.

[riqster]

182. Read the definition.

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. You are relying purely on the 'frightens others' definition; but she wasn't frightened

First of all, it's silly to use that definition - it could be applied to a horror movie director, or a Republican who wants to abolish Obamacare. But Ms. Watson was not frightened:

Emma Watson Not Intimidated by Threat of Nude Photo Leak

Hollywood star Emma Watson did not seem intimidated by the threat of having her nude photos leaked online by hackers.
...
The Harry Potter actress posted on Twitter on Tuesday that a change in laws as well as mentalities would be required to establish "common sense." She did not post anything which might have reflected her reaction on the threat. Instead, she promoted the "HeForShe" campaign she had earlier launched at the United Nations to unite women and men for gender equality. Watson also delivered a "powerful" speech at the United Nations on gender equality. Shortly after the speech, she was threatened that her nude photos would be leaked online.
...
Watson earlier voiced her opinion against the nude photo leak of Hollywood celebrities. She condemned the violation of women's privacy on social media but found it "worse" that people who had commented on such leaks lacked "empathy." Several users admired her opinion as one of them commented: "And this is why you are respected & admired, Emma." While some blamed it on the lack of security on the Apple iCloud, one user defended it. "The world's governments are not 100% secure. You expect that little iCloud to be 100%?" the user said.

It is only a matter of time to know if the threat of Watson's leaked photos is real or just a prank. However, she is apparently paying no attention to it at the moment.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/567321/20140924/emma-watson-intimidated-threat-nude-photo-leak.htm

[seabeyond]

203. because she was not intimidate does not negate a threat and a message to women on the net.

this is a tool, weapon, readily used on women consistently and constantly.

good. i am glad to hear. i have been target also. i do not make a good target. i have no triggers, it rolls off my back. regardless, it does not mean the threat was not given.

[muriel_volestrangler]

205. I don't think it is common to say you're going to post naked pictures of someone

It does happen, but to announce it beforehand is very rare. But I don't think it's "terrorism". It doesn't fit the normal usage of the term.

[riqster]

208. The normal usage of the term is part of the problem.

To some Americans, terrorist = Moslem. That is standard usage, and it is wrong.

Same in this case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

209. Oh, rubbish - I'm talking about the normal use in the English language as a whole

not the bollocks that Fox News puts out. The problem with your use here is there there is no 'terror' involved (even if it had been someone with the pictures, rather than a hoax).

You are trying to say that the normal accepted definition is wrong; just like someone who restricts it to an act by Muslims is trying to say the normal definition is wrong.

[seabeyond]

210. to terrorize a person or group. what does that look like to you? in "normal" usage. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

214. People in fear of their life or significant physical harm (nt)

[seabeyond]

217. that is your only definition of terrorizing a person? a very narrow usage.

i choose to use all of a word. not nearly so limiting. i love my words. and the meaning. words matter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

219. So, apart from this ridiculous application to Emma Watson, in what other situation

outside physical harm would you use it?

Yes, words matter, and that's why this is a silly OP.

[seabeyond]

220. i think our girls that are isolated, raped by groups, videod, distributed as porn, are terrorized

to the point of them killing themselves, is pretty significant. you think? or our gay boys that have experienced the same.

they were not fearful for their lives, but a life was certainly lost.

[muriel_volestrangler]

223. Rape is physical harm, but terrorism is also about more than physical harm

A mugger is not a terrorist, even if they kill their victim. Terrorism intends to make a group change their actions because of the induced fear.

The Oxford English Dictionary:

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims; (originally) such practices used by a government or ruling group (freq. through paramilitary or informal armed groups) in order to maintain its control over a population; (now usually) such practices used by a clandestine or expatriate organization as a means of furthering its aims.

[seabeyond]

225. create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.

ter·ror·ize
ˈterəˌrīz/Submit
verb
create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.


webster

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

dictionary.com

noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


FBI definiiton

Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

[muriel_volestrangler]

232. You've put your problem in bold; "a civilian population"

The acts must "Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population ...". Terrorism is about acts intended to intimidate a civilian population (or a government).

Though you didn't embolden the " acts dangerous to human life" bit. That's a necessary part of the FBI definition too.

[seabeyond]

233. i give you the relevant highlights that contradict your narrow definition.

that would be the disagreement. i did post, where it meets your definition. but, you have issue cause i did not highlight it? for real?

[muriel_volestrangler]

238. No, I'm saying what you did put in bold contradicts your position

The intent must be to intimidate a population. Not just an individual, like Watson, or the target of a rapist. The FBI also limits it to "acts dangerous to human life", which is another problem with applying it to Watson, or rape; Webster's points out it needs to be systematic. dictionary.com's definition of "use of violence and threats" means, I submit, threats of violence. A threat to sack an employee would not be 'terrorism'.

[seabeyond]

239. the intent is to silence all women in going after watson and other women consistently, constantly

by threatening with humiliation, degradation, shame. as i repeatedly and continually state.

[riqster]

212. No, I am saying that your "normal use" definition is wrong.

The dictionary is right. People try to say things like "common usage" as if it makes revisionism OK. It does not.

We need to acknowledge the prevalence of violent misogyny in America, and one good way of doing that is to call some spades.

That is what I am doing. I and some pretty hard-core feminist thinkers.

Terrorist is as terrorist does. Or if you prefer this phrasing: terrorizing someone means the person doing the terrorizing is a terrorist.

[riqster]

19. Just using the dictionary definition.

Or do you think that dictionaries are somehow involved in a liberal plot?

[pnwmom]

44. Oh great. Even a progressive doesn't understand that denying women a voice

is denying them power. And that threatening to expose a woman for her thoughts is, yes indeed, terrorism.

[LostInAnomie]

75. +1

[alp227]

149. So 4Chan's threats towards Emma Watson are "things we don't like"

rather than what they are...threats? terrorism?

[Ikonoklast]

170. Oh great, those who consistently take the right-wing stance on every issue on this board are upset.

Good.

[Bragi]

16. So, then, according to that definition...

Threatening to release nude photos, and cutting off heads, are one and the same?

I'd posit that is correct in the same way as one can say an ocean and a glass of water are one and the same.

[seabeyond]

20. wow. you do not think in degrees. nt

[riqster]

22. Both are using threats as a coercive measure.

Your analogy fails, because you are trying to create a false equivalence between actions and objects.

[DetlefK]

24. Yes, they are the same. "Terrorism" is a method, not a specific action.

Those guys from ISIS cut off heads and you will live in fear of them for the rest of your life.

Those guys from 4chan post personal information of you and you live in fear of further violations of your intimate space for the rest of your life.

Control through fear.

[riqster]

27. Well said.

[pnwmom]

45. A terrorist could threaten to blow up a building. Even if the building is empty of people,

it would still be terrorism.

And in this case an actual human being is being threatened by a member of a group that wants to keep all women down.

[Bragi]

80. Blackmail does not equal terrorism

It's a false equivalence. I think a better definition is needed than an act simply being coersive.

[pnwmom]

82. This isn't blackmail. No one's asking for money. They're trying to silence her with personal

threats, on an issue that matters to a large class of people.

[Bragi]

85. Blackmail doesn't require a financial demand

Anyway, I find the definition offered here for terrorism to be wrong and unhelpful. This matters because, as a civil libertarian, I want counter-terrorism efforts, at minimum, focussed on serious instances where public safety and security are threatened. Releasing nude photos of any sort, however odious that may be, isn't terrorism.

[KitSileya]

118. Blackmail is personal

It is case-specific. Blackmail is meant to get one person (or corporation) to do or not do one specific thing or string of things.

Threatening Emma Watson to stop talking about feminism isn't blackmail, because it is also meant to force all young female celebrities, and even all women, to stop talking about feminism. It is meant to get more people than Emma Watson to stop doing something. What they want to achieve is the sending of the message - the threat. That is why they are terrorists and not blackmailers.

[riqster]

83. Per the definition provided and cited, it's a terrorist act.

The fact that the perps aren't fitting a stereotype does not invalidate my argument.

Rather, it points out the need to make my argument.

[Bragi]

86. Your definition is wrong

It conflates any kind of coersion with violent threats against public safety and/or national security.

[riqster]

87. Do you think that individuals cannot be the targets of terrorist acts?

The definition in the OP comes from Dictionary.com, and it is not strictly focused on government-level threats.

Your posts are a prime example of the misinformation we have been given regarding terrorists and terrorism.

[seabeyond]

89. it is using blinders to define. nt

[riqster]

90. It's easier for some people. nt

[Bragi]

91. "a prime example of misinfirmation"

I've not a clue as to your point. I don't accept the definition being used here.

You have a nice day.

[riqster]

93. You don't accept a bog-standard definition of a simple word?

Tells me all I need to know.

[Bragi]

99. Ever noticed this?

Respectfully, I've noticed that the louder around me people are shouting "Terrorism", the more my civil liberties shrink.

Hence I'm usually unenthusiastic whenever someone wants to enlarge the definition of terrorism to encompass an additional set of existing, non-violent offences. Posting a naked photo of someone may be a crime, but it isn't the crime of terrorism.

[riqster]

100. Respectfully, the dictionary is the agreed-upon source for definitions.

We don't get to pick and choose those definitions that make us comfy.

And the other, more troubling aspect of your post, is the implicit minimization of the crime being committed against Ms. Watson. I find that deeply troubling.

[Bragi]

111. the implicit minimisation of the crime?

Just because I don't agree with calling the leaking of photos "terrorism" doesn't minimize what it is, it just characterises it more accurately.

As for your point about the tyranny of dictionaries, it's surprising we have more than one.

[riqster]

186. Dictionaries are not tyrannical. They are important reference works that help us communicate.

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

And tend to agree, far more often than not.

People who communicate effectively use them in order to establish clarity and a common basis for understanding.

[DetlefK]

17. It's seems, young men in online-communities are especially pretentious, whiny women-haters:

That is merely one of many examples of "putting a woman in her place". Whether it's torture or rape or a terrorist threat, the goal is always the same: to exert control over the decisions somebody else will make.

The threat to release nude pictures of her has the purpose to make her uncomfortable and to make her scared. (I've read that Taylor Swift said in an interview that she checks every bathroom and every dressing-room she uses for hidden cameras. Everywhere, all the time.) It's the same method as using rape as a punishment for a social crime: Don't you dare being independent.



http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/
Not so long ago, another woman faced a full-on online-assault and smear-campaign: She was in the gaming-industry and had made a game. It recieved good reviews from videogame-journalists.
Then she left her boyfriend. He complained online that she had cheated on him.
Then other gamers piled on: Those good reviews? She whored herself out to get them.
Death-threats, calls for her suicide, "I'm not a bad guy but I want to see her dead", posting of personal information, calling her father and telling him his daughter is a whore...
The gamers called on the gaming-industry to disavow her. They refused. "OMG, she's also fucking those guys!"
"OMG, those guys defending her are feminist white-knights licking the boots of their queens."
And she was also somehow singlehandedly responsible for "ruining" a game that was developed to cater to a broader base than hardcore-gamers.

The rage boiled down to two core-sentiments:
1. How dare she?
2. She couldn't possibly have achieved that on her own merits.

[seabeyond]

23. Taylor Swift said ...

she checks every bathroom and every dressing-room she uses for hidden cameras.

women have been doing this a couple decades. i still do it. naturally, instinctively. since i am responsible for my own privacy. even given a hotel room.

decades ago, young. i traveled often by myself. loved it. often getting a hotel very late at night and htne off on my way early morning.

i remember one hotel where i had an absolute creep vibe. i got to the hotel room, and looked as closely as i could thru out and thru the night aware of possibility of being recorded while in that space for that amount of time.

what swift does is what so many women and girls do.... thru out life.

just another daily experience, men do not even consider.

[riqster]

98. Disgusting. No one should have to deal with that.

[freshwest]

151. The goal is to waste the energies of the target so they can't participate at a higher level,

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

in political, economic and social life, until they are self-confined to the role they are told they need to play to do anything of meaning.

Herding them into a pen to be less than they could be is obvious. Everyone who is not actively involved in that herding, recognizes subsconciously what is going on. Whether they agree, many will simply attempt to excell within the jail created for them.

Being the best stay at home woman possible behind the aegis of a man has been the role of women for centuries, a division of labor that is ripe for abuse. It can be profitable for a family of a certain standing economically. Those who cannot survive without both spouses at work, face stigma based on genes and social class.

Being best at anything is good, but not all are born wanting homemaking as their prime function to be what they want to do with their life. Some are frustrated by it, but others embrace it and their work is worthy of respect. But for those who are coerced as your OP states, their full freedom and use of their energy is thwarted. It all depends on whether those choices were made freely or coerced.

The kind of freedom that women ask for is most studiously dismissed by those who claim to be for civil libertarianism, yet don't speak out about the violation of women's bodies legally and socially. It is not their problem, so they will say women should stop restraining those whose actions violate women's sovereignty, while they insist on their own:

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1014519458#post12

Part of the reason we don't see women in the streets marching for their own causes, is that they percieve the patterns around them. The big marches and changes in the sixties and seventies came from a generation of women who believed in the Constitution and since the men around them also did, they supported their rights as individuals. That was the backdrop, that no longer exists, for as America hates all of its leaders and government, it also dismisses the ideals that fostered civil and human rights.

Women see this. They know deep inside that they will be wasting time fighting off all kinds of attacks and while they do that, they still will not be heard. People expect a result for their efforts, and see none. They have been heard by Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212801

But he, and now they, by association, are actively despised, treated as the losers in a Koch driven media game. So they will give up on their own sovereignty in the public realm. They dedicate themselves to whatever the herders tell them to do, to feel accepted and their work matters.

It's not Equality under the law or in society. It's just a life predetermined by biology without any respect to the individual, which is confined to the default true individual, the heterosexual male. Equality is being lost in this country and around the world and is a danger to civil society and any kind of democracy. The struggles of women and minorities should be embraced by those who claim civil liberties are tantamount, but they are not doing that:

Dismissing the rights and concerns of people of color and women is reactionary. It is way more reactionary than Third Way. There is nothing progressive or liberal about it, and I don't consider people who do so to be leftists. Period. ~ BainsBane

She was a determined Leftist who should have been seen as an ally:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10025442750

But she kept dabbling into a forbidden zone. Just an example of the censorship of women by society, if they insist on going against the grain:

About BainsBane

Epitaph:

She was taken down by two hides for pointing out she found hurtful comments that focus on the failings of victims of domestic violence rather than the violent abusers who break the law. As a survivor of domestic violence, I do indeed find such comments hurtful, yet two juries have insisted I have no right to say so. When it is okay to say "some women will do anything for money," but it is not okay to point out victim blaming hurts people, something is seriously wrong. If community standards truly do sanction victim blaming but do not allow survivors to talk about how they experience those comments, that is not a community that values justice, non-violence, or freedom of speech.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=291098

No one will have to be bothered by her again, if she finds a better place. So it was Mission Accomplished. Was it on the level that your OP states?

No, it wasn't really that public. She didn't have a voice in the media. Her words on women did her in as well as supporting Democrats and attacking Libertarians.

[riqster]

152. An excellent post. Thank you!

[DavidG_WI]

162. Then explain...

Why the vast majority of women seem to have the perfect spying device grafted to their hand? Wireless anything is inherently insecure.

When you add a camera, a microphone, GPS, Cell network, bluetooth and wifi radios together in a single device that will rarely if ever receive a security update, that every application they install requests full access to all hardware and files and will automatically upload any photos or videos to a cloud server which if you read the TOS hands over ownership of all uploaded files to said cloud service that women take nude photos of themselves with such a device?

Does nobody remember stuff like the bluetooth/wifi sniper? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4599106

The dozens of ways o crack wifi encryption in minutes with GPGPU?

Packet sniffing/browser watching with Firesheep?

[riqster]

213. More victim-blaming, misogynistic tripe.

And here is how I know it's true, boyo: you mention only women as being prone to a risk that technology does not restrict by gender.

Men are also thus exposed, but somehow you don't think of them when writing such twaddle. Tells us a lot about you.

[riqster]

26. I work in IT, and there is lot of that.

Partly it's because many of us are social maladroits, partly because of a historical tendency to be a male-centric environment.

Responsible people are working to clean up that festering cultural dung heap, but it will be a long tough slog.

[malthaussen]

40. That "socially inept" excuse is getting old.

There is a large difference between making a dumb comment, showing pitiful ignorance, and making a violent threat or attack. I do not see that "oh, the poor boys just don't express themselves too well" flies as an explanation for the threat to humiliate another person. I dig that you are not making that argument yourself, but both "social ineptitude" and "male-centric traditions" read to me like variations on the theme "boys will be boys." Maybe if we started calling vicious assholes vicious assholes, and socially ostracizing them for being vicious assholes, we would see some improvement. Worth a try, anyway.

-- Mal

[seabeyond]

42. i am in. i agree. nt

[riqster]

46. Indeed, I am not making the argument. Thanks for acknowledging that.

That is, however, the boulder we are trying to roll up the mountain: tens of thousands of racist, sexist, xenophobic nitwits who have been coddled in that environment by greedy, short-sighted employers who stick the geeks in the back room.

The creation of this sick culture took decades and involved a lot of people other than the geeks ourselves. Creating a new, healthy, inclusive culture of empowerment starts with bricks upside the heads of the workers...but it can't end there.

[malthaussen]

51. As a tactic, I favor insulting their intellects.

Point out how absolutely lame-brained and inadequate it is to comprehensively lack empathy and imagination. Ought to hit 'em where it hurts. Sometimes, though, I think that this sort of mentality is a form of making a virtue of necessity: take pride in your ineptitude, since you surely can't improve it. So, methinks, undermining that pride is a necessary first step.

-- Mal

[riqster]

57. In some cases, it can work.

Depends on the target. As someone whose day job includes cleaning up the cesspool, I prefer presenting a barrage of facts that prove their long-held opinions to be wrong.
Then say, "you are obviously intelligent people who respect data, so let's all act on this information". That works regardless of whether the louts have too much self-esteem or not enough.

That plus a policy of firing those who exhibit unacceptable behavior works for the average case.

[malthaussen]

66. Intellectual arrogance can cut both ways, though.

I think one of the reasons Miss Watson's statement arouses such fury is that by proposing a dialogue, she implies that men have something to learn. Even though that wasn't her intent.

Do you find that your fact-barrage can sometimes degenerate into "duelling experts?" As with climate science, men can always find "facts" to back up their prejudices. I think there is a whole industry of "experts" who make coin by feeding the boyez what they want to hear.

Having the power to fire them, though, that must be nice. If only a complete negative-feedback loop could be constructed, it might have good results. But our society still seems to encourage assholery, rather than discourage it.

-- Mal

[riqster]

67. I don't offer it as a dialogue. Company policy dictates non-hostile work environments.

Plus, like I tell the kiddies, "just because there are two sides, doesn't mean they are of equal validity".

[malthaussen]

70. Okay, now I'm really envious.

Officially not having to put up with their crap? Oh, you lucky dog, you.

So, given your profession, I have a question: in your professional experience in creating a non-hostile environment, how much of the misogyny/bigotry that you have to deal with would you attribute to ignorance, and how much to pure malevolence?

-- Mal

[seabeyond]

72. last sentence... such a good question. excellent. nt

[malthaussen]

76. Yeah, I hope he catches it, it was an edit. n/t

[riqster]

73. One of those rare cases where company policy is on the side of the angels.

Plus, the lawyers and PR types love it too. When the bean counters, the sharks and the flacks are on board, the old fart (me) has unusual leverage.

Rare situation, so I enjoy it while I can.

As to your second question, I have a hard time assigning motivation to one or the other in such cases: because ignorance can morph into malice, given time and environment.

In fact,malevolence requires a degree of ignorance (increasingly willful as time progresses) to succeed, because without a false premise, the construct can't be created in the first place.

(Answered via edit.)

[steve2470]

115. agreed ! nt

[freshwest]

140. K&R

[MineralMan]

21. 4Chan is a safe haven for nasty, obscene little boys

of all ages.

4Chan - A Sociopath's Paradise.

[seabeyond]

25. respectfully, i am done giving this behavior to little boys. even in man form. it has become an

excuse of boys will be boys.

my little boys. all the little boys i know. never behaved in this manner. hateful. hateful is learned. the opposite of our little boys.

[hedgehog]

33. Good point - I also see a lot of bad behavior described as "adolescent" behavior

when I know that my kids and their friends would never have behaved that way!

[MineralMan]

34. Nasty and obscene are the keywords.

I don't know any boys or men who have those attributes. I do know that they exist, though.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

84. yes.

maturity is not an age.

childishness is not gender.

nasty and obscene is childish behavior no matter the sex/gender.

some people need to grow up.

[prayin4rain]

36. Agreed. I have a little boy who has a precious heart.

This disgusting behavior was learned somewhere.

[TransitJohn]

114. Nice broad brush you got there

A lot of people think a lot of things about this site that you would find nuance in, don't you think? Painting a website with a userbase in the millions with such a simplistic label should be beneath you.

[MineralMan]

128. Whatever you say...

[TransitJohn]

153. Oh, okay then, continue with your prejudice.

n/t

[DavidG_WI]

163. Thats because they've never been...

The media only ever focuses on the antics of /b/, ignoring that the site is massive and has boards for every topic, all of the anonymous, but most of them not overtly offensive or trolling, save for the constant wingnut wars in the political board.

[fbc]

41. I guess we'll see, but I think y'all are getting trolled.

Trolls harvest outrage... this is a banner crop.

[seabeyond]

43. having a thought out and insightful conversation is not being trolled. regardless of the outcome.

[riqster]

47. I think it a worthwhile convo in any event.

Alerting people to the phenomenon and discussing it raises awareness.

[VScott]

48. Uhhh yup.

They've had an unusual fascination with Emma Watson for years now... long before any feminist/equal rights
speech she made.

They're working that particular angle in because it works for them in order to elicit the most attention.

There are at least 4 threads over on /b/ right now discussing this (if you can even call it discussion, it's more like
trolling each other).

And by that I mean they're yakking it up about the media response and outrage, and not any actual plans to proceed
with their scheme.

[seabeyond]

52. welcome to du vscott

[VScott]

109. Thank you.

[JVS]

122. Good call.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/emma-watson-threats-actually-stunt-to-shut-down-4chan/5766882

[Blue_Adept]

50. I think it was just under a decade ago...

when members here would roll their eyes and get upset about how everything was seemingly labeled terrorism by the Bush administration.

[seabeyond]

54. no. bush defined only brown skinned people terrorists. there were plenty of

conversation of our home grow, white male, kkk or skin head or white supremacy terrorism going on. just hte refusal to label a white man as a terrorist.

[LanternWaste]

59. I think it was just under ten minutes ago when members here would trivialize and minimize actions...

I think it was just under ten minutes ago when members here would trivialize and minimize actions such as "using threats in order to punish this actress, and try to silence her" by moving the goalposts, changing subjects and using red-herrings.

(Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and each as meaningless and petulant as the other)

[Marr]

53. Internet you don't make eye contact with.

I recently heard... I believe it was 4chan, described that way, and it's very accurate. 4chan is this horrible, horrible place from which a surprising amount of pop cultural tidbits come.

[riqster]

62. Sounds right. A road accident that people gawk at.

[hifiguy]

55. Parts of 4chan have been the hellholes of the internets

for a long time and I doubt it is going to change.

[riqster]

63. No doubt. But being aware of the hellholes is a good idea all by itself.

[riqster]

167. Terrorizing people makes the perp a terrorist.

There is no point in minimizing their actions.

[DavidG_WI]

172. Labeling trolls on the internet diminishes the actions of real terrorists...

and gives internet trolls more power.

[riqster]

180. Read the definition. The shoe fits.

[JTFrog]

194. LOL.

Says the banned internet troll. I don't think your superpowers are doing you much good here.



Thank you admin for taking out the trash.

[seabeyond]

197. was he banned? he did well to stay quiet for a while. got overconfident. interesting. thanks. nt

[JTFrog]

200. Yes indeed. n/t

[riqster]

215. His other posts remain on the thread.

[seabeyond]

218. i am not opposed to a good smack down and understanding of his positions. it behooves us all,

to understand his position on this thread and others. piece of cake. and posting privileges denied giving us support.

[Recursion]

56. Not all trolls!

(Sorry)

[riqster]

60. OK, that's funny. Or...

#NotAllTerrorists
#NotAllMotherfuckers
#NotAllPondScum

Lots of possibilities.

[Recursion]

61. Exactly (nt)

[ismnotwasm]

64. Yeah I read about it that

It's disgusting, criminal -- as well as typical--but also so stupid I can't express myself very well

[riqster]

65. Stupid can still be dangerous.

In fact, especially so, sometimes.

[ismnotwasm]

68. Totally agree

And a roomful of stupid, or a group of stupid-- you get actions that cascade into dangerous very easily.


They should have a term for a group of dangerously stupid people. Maybe "4Chans"

[hifiguy]

77. When stupid is gathered in groups

the stupidity increases geometrically, not arithmetically. It can hit critical MassStupid very quickly.

[ismnotwasm]

88. Heh!

[riqster]

95. Not to nitpick, but I think it's "exponentially".

[hifiguy]

96. You are correct and thanks for the catch.

The brain seized up and wouldn't find "exponentially", and I knew "geometrically" wasn't right.

My point still stands, though.

[riqster]

97. Indeed it does.

[marble falls]

69. What a dismal, dismal site.

[daredtowork]

71. It's an International Cultural Complex

This culture has particular venues which I'm not allowed to mention here because it's Not Relevant to DU when women bring it up. But there is a war on woman, and it is useful to know what the sources are. 4chan always seems to get invoked as the ultimate source of the "cool", which men then carry into the cultural contexts they are immersed in: social exchange in an environment where they are unchallenged by women's interests (which women are not allowed to mention here because it is Irrelevant when women, and only women, bring it up) and this behavior starts to seem normal. So normal that the people who do challenge it start to look like killjoys and rapidly become targets themselves.

However 4chan isn't the problem. You could shut down 4chan today, and eventually another site would build up enough critical mass to become the black hole source of all jackassery. The problem is in how those ideas are transmitted, entrenched, and normalized. Society is structured to enable misogyny in a lot of ways. Society is also structured to prevent people from talking about how this happens. Women aren't even allowed to show where the talking points were issued.

Sorry to be so vague, but I'm not allowed to talk more specifically about it. It's irrelevant to DU. But apparently 4chan isn't.

[seabeyond]

74. example, revenge porn. how many participate that did not set it up. +1 to your post. nt

[daredtowork]

78. Yep.

And thanks.

[riqster]

79. 4chan IS relevant as an individual case of gender terrorism.

Just as Bundy is an example of domestic terrorism.

Granted, seeing the big picture is important. But the macro does not render the micro harmless. It provides context in which to fully understand the individual example.

(On edit: the big picture is a valuable topic in its own right. Sorry if I sounded like it wasn't.)

[daredtowork]

81. It's absolutely relevant

I agree. Congratulations for being allowed to communicate that.

[NobodyHere]

92. I'm sure the folks at 4chan

are laughing their asses off at this thread.

[riqster]

94. They have a good understanding of how to use the law as a shield.

So I am sure they are.
But the individual 4chan users who are actually issuing the terrorist threats...if they are laughing, they have less reason.

[Agschmid]

104. 4chan is a cesspool of jerks...

Nothing else.

[riqster]

108. So the fact that they are threatening Emma Watson is just boys being jerks?

And do you similarly minimize such misogyny on a regular basis? Say "just jerks" when women are subjected to such crimes?

Sweet lord Jesus, I hope not.

[Agschmid]

117. I said no such thing.

I had no intention to convey the message you say I did. I find your accusations that I minimize misogyny false, and hurtful.

I typed out a big long response to what you said and then... I deleted it, this is the internet so no matter what I say I know it will be distorted.

Just know your post was hurtful to me.

[riqster]

119. I am sorry that I hurt you. I responded to what you wrote in response to my OP.

My OP said that certain 4chan users were terrorizing Emma Watson, and that this was terrorism aimed at subjugating women.

Your response was that 4chan were nothing but a bunch of jerks.

I took that to mean "no big deal", because that is pretty much what your post said.

Thus my response. Frankly , I was surprised to see you minimize the matter. I did not make an assumption that you were only minimizing a part of the matter, because there is no way for me to know which part you might have been minimizing.

I feel that dismissing a group of people who are acting in a misogynistic manner as nothing more than "jerks" does in fact minimize the nature of their actions, because it implies that these are garden-variety jerks acting in a manner typical of what we see. My OP says quite the opposite: these are not just buffoons, they are using terroristic means to silence a woman from speaking out on feminist subjects.

I understand that you did not mean to minimize their actions, and am sorry for my literal interpretation of your post. I hope this explanation will help you to understand why I said what I did.

[Agschmid]

127. Thanks for the response, sometimes my short replies get me in trouble.

These people who would do such a thing are lower than low. Actions such as this should be a crime and should have consequences. In my mind there is really no such thing as boys just being boys, and it certainly shouldn't be an excuse for anything, ever.

I'm glad we are on the same page.

[riqster]

129. I hear you. Being laconic has caused me some issues as well.

It is good to be in sync.

[seabeyond]

130. this is the point. we really need to update our criminal code, to allow this to be a crime.

and hte ability for the police to step in. this stuff is visible to all of us. it is not a hesaid/shesaid, like they use to excuse rape.

[Agschmid]

131. I agree.

[Kurska]

105. DU

Where we play down the threat of and mock those worried about ISIS in one thread, then declare with absolute certainty that a group of neckbeards on 4chan are on a reign of terror.

P.S I have no doubt 4channers are currently laughing their butt off at this thread. They feed off exactly this kind of thing. They want to be viewed as big and important, the best thing you can do is ignore them.

[riqster]

110. I consider both groups to be terrorist organizations, albeit with different methods and foci.

Emma Watson is being subjected to a terror campaign, as are other women in this country. It happens every day.

To sweep it under the rug by ignoring it is a horrible thing to do.

[Kurska]

112. As stupid, heartless, idiotic and cruel as what 4chan is doing

Putting is on the same level of genocide (which ISIS is guilty of) is asinine. 4chan is to isis as shoplifter is to home invader. You're also assuming 4chan is some sort of organized force with central direction or at minimum organized sub-units. 4chan is just another online forum (with admittedly has a fairly vile userbase) of whom 99.999999999999% haven't ever hacked anyone. All you're doing is mythologizing them in a way, which only encourages other bad actors to seek attention.

"4chan" isn't any more capable of doing anything than reddit or even du is. There is no official 4chan twitter threatening her, it is users who individually do it and then sometimes post on 4chan about it.

4chan has TWENTY MILLION unique users a month. Calling them all terrorists because of tiny fraction of them is absolutely ridiculous.

Funnily enough, we have a thread howling about how bad 4chan is, yet more often than not talking about the threat of ISIS is met with laughter and derision.

[riqster]

120. That is a misreading of my post, coupled with an unjust attribution.

First, the attribution: I never found ISIL to be a laughing matter. If other DUers have done so, feel free to take it up with them, and don't use the behavior of others to try and invalidate my argument.

And the idea that all criminals of a certain type are precisely equivalent is absolute rubbish. We wouldn't say that someone who stole a dollar is the same as a bank robber who steals a million dollars. Nor would we say that a violent thief is the same as a non- violent thief. In fact, the law and our culture clearly do delineate between types and severity of theft (and most other categories of crime).

This is also true of terrorism.

Oh, and I did not say that all 4chan users were terrorists. Only that there are terrorist using 4chan for their purposes.

[Kurska]

154. No you said 4chan is a terrorist organization.

"I consider both groups to be terrorist organizations"

Oh and I never claimed you said ISIS is a laughing matter. I was just commenting on the general irony of some of the posts and posters in this thread.

The people who actually RUN 4chan had literally nothing to do with this and if you're not claiming visitng 4chan makes you terrorist, that looks like a doubly ridiculous assertion in light of that. All you're left with is that "terrorists' visit and post on 4chan. Actual terrorists who kill people and commit genocide visit and post on facebook and twitter, does that make them terrorist organizations too?

[Kurska]

155. HAH hilarious

4chan apparently didn't even do this

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/people-behind-the-emma-watson-leaked-photo-claims-have-been-identified

[riqster]

166. Read the post of yours to which I responded:

You described the terrorists as "a bunch of neckbeards". That is not all of 4chan, now is it? And that is the wording to which I responded.

Stop the lying. I didn't say all of 4chan was a terrorist organization. You can pretend all you want, but I did not say it.

[Kurska]

171. Oh lord

So what is this nameless terrorist organization? This is some amazing mental gymnastics.

"No wonder Anonymous bailed on 4chan. What a bunch of needle-d***ed, wussy, woman-hating, terrorist jerkoffs. "

YOU LITERALLY CALLED 4chan terrorists in you first post. Keep dancing around it though.

Fling around terrorist accusations in a situation you objectively didn't understand. Call innocent people terrorists. Use the word terrorist organization and then claim "wait no I really just meant individual people!".

Rantic Media admits this was a smear campaign against 4chan and you happily participated in what turned out to be a witch hunt. Then do you show the slightest sympathy for the people you accuse of AT MINIMUM of harboring a terrorist, nope.

[riqster]

179. So it's OK to commit terroristic acts as long as it is a smear campaign?

Christ on razor wire. Misogyny and sexual harrassment are OK WITH YOU IF YOU LIKE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED???

Jesus fucking Christ. I truly hope that what you just said is not what you meant.

Terrorist acts, by definition, are what the perps used via 4chan.
Period.
End of story.

[Kurska]

184. No, it is wrong to call innocent people terrorists or accuse them of harboring them.

And you undeniably did at least one. Just because there is an undeniable wrong here, doesn't excuse you going off half-cocked and attacking the wrong people. Nor does it mean I don't sympathize with the primary victim if I point out that is what you did.

"Terrorist acts, by definition, are what the perps used via 4chan"

Still at it are you? Keep digging that hole.

You got it WRONG, you called innocent people awful things in your zeal to jump to conclusions. You called 4chan a terrorist organization, you said awful things about people who go there painting with the broadest brush AND THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

People warned you that this is the exact kind of think that got the bush admin into trouble, which you glibly dismissed, whoops!

[riqster]

206. The marketing firm used 4chan to promulgate its terroristic material.

So, you are still lying about what I said, and about what happened.

[Kurska]

221. 4chan is no more responsible than twitter.

The website was not hosted by 4chan, there is no evidence that any actual 4channers were involved. In fact, 4chan is an open and anonymous image board so any negative material that did originate directly from 4chan very well could have come from the marketing firm itself. Most of the threats were actually delivered via twitter, not 4chan (I find it doubtful Emma Watson goes on 4chan, so threatening her there would be rather useless if the intent is to frighten her).

The only thing you can prove that ties 4chan directly to this sideshow is their name, which we now know was indisputably used without their permission for a money making scheme by outsides who don't care if 4chan burns or thrives.

So no 4chan is not anymore culpable in this than twitter or Facebook would be. Frankly, you called them terrorists, you degraded and insulted them in rather crude ways ("What a bunch of needle-d***ed, wussy, woman-hating, terrorist jerkoffs" sound familiar?). You continue to attempt to tie people who you CAN NOT PROVE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS and are best described as secondary victims, to the crime, it is getting old.

An apology to those you have insulted would probably be far better, I somehow doubt one is coming.

[riqster]

241. Correct, because I have not insulted anyone except those who sent the threats.

[Kurska]

243. Ahem

"No wonder Anonymous bailed on 4chan. What a bunch of needle-d***ed, wussy, woman-hating, terrorist jerkoffs."

[sufrommich]

181. Rantic Media doesn't give two shits about 4Chan,they aren't

some noble organization trying to right wrongs,they did it for profit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025580729


Please stop repeating that lie.

[Kurska]

185. Regardless of the motive.

It doesn't change the fact 4chan didn't do this.

[seabeyond]

187. and, regardless of the motive, this woman was attacked on the net with the weapon

to humiliate, shame and degrade to silence.

[Kurska]

222. Which no one is contending is right or okay.

There is universal consensus on that being a horrible thing. No one here is okay with that. We're talking about the fact that innocent people were labeled terrorists and continue to be labeled terrorist, because someone used their name without their permission to make them look bad. Some people however seem absolutely okay with THAT one though.

[seabeyond]

227. bullshit. i linked to a di thread, of du men, with different names, who... do not give a shit.

http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=60198

they have to pretend here. they do not have to pretend there.

[Kurska]

229. We're talking bout DU, this thread.

And the innocent organization whose name you drug through the mud.

[seabeyond]

231. lol. du men. bubba. du men. and they do not care. cause the very men have to pretend here.....

doesnt make it fact. especially when they are known, and go to that site. and make clear... really really in our fuckin face clear, they do not give a shit this woman was threatened. or that the other womens photo exposed withOUT consent.

[Kurska]

235. I see absolutely no one I recongize

Nor anyone posting in this particular sub-thread. It simply isn't relevant to the discussion I was previously having or how wrong it was to fly off the handle and call innocent people terrorists.

[riqster]

211. 4chan was used to do this.

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

4chan is a resource. It is used by lots of people for lots of things. 4chan as a thing in itself does nothing. People make things happen via 4chan, in this case being terroristic threats.

4chan as a matter of internal policy exerts almost no control over what is done with it. Most resources are not quite that libertarian, but it's how 4chan operationalizes its philosophy.

Two things you are distracting from via your inaccurate and inciting posts on this thread:

Users of 4chan sent threatening, terroristic messages to an innocent victim in response to her speech.

A marketing firm used those terroristic threats so as to earn a financial profit.

All you are doing is trying to take the focus off of these criminal behaviors, by indulging in unwarranted attacks and specious statements. Transparent and revolting.

[Kurska]

224. No 4chan is a website with a userbase and you can't prove that userbase sent anything.

Rather than owning up to this, you continue to claim that 4chan and it's users were even remotely involved, which you can not prove. In fact this company SPECIALIZED in astroturfing while 4chan is an anonymous imageboard. Your claims that 4chan users sent any harassing messages to the victim was completely unsupported by any hard evidence. And like I said, these threats were actually delivered via twitter, not 4chan, so why is it that 4chan deserves to be damned if it is only being used as a platform for outside forces (like how twitter was)?

Insulting me like you insulted the innocent posters of 4chan, does not change this fact.

Again, an apology for your insults like "What a bunch of needle-d***ed, wussy, woman-hating, terrorist jerkoffs" to the innocent posters on 4chan would be far more efficient.

[riqster]

246. I have been in IT since the the 70's, and know a bit about how the Internet works.

No apology will be coming from me, because I specifically identified the users involved. And as a father, I can tell you that my language would have been a lot more vulgar had a bunch of dickless, pimple-popping, woman-hating, kiddie-porn addicted, semi-literate, money-grubbing, narcissistic, chicken-shit keyboard commandos sent terroristic threats at MY daughters.

Note this, back on topic: in your libertarian zeal to defend an Internet resource that allowed said users to do these acts, you are forgetting that they are not victims. Women are.

4chan is not a victim. They set up their little corner of the Internet as a free and open space. They get praised, and they get vilified for their choice to allow such behavior. Since they freely chose to set it up that way, 4chan is not a victim. Emma Watson IS a victim, because she did not make a choice to be threatened by 4chan users.

The terrorist little fucksticks who sent the threats out are not victims, because they freely chose to act in a terroristic manner, and are dealing with the consequences of their choice. Emma Watson IS A VICTIM, because she did not make a choice to be threatened by 4chan users.

So while you wring your hands over the fate suffered by the willing participants in the affair, you noticeably care nothing for fate of the unwilling victim thereof.

That is most revealing, I must say.

[Kurska]

247. You're really just demonstrating your lack of knowledge about 4chan at this point

On 4chan this sort of behavior (raiding) is actually against the rules. You get banned for it. So no, you don't actually know what you are talking about. This is information you can get by reading through their FAQ which lists what looked like hundreds of rules. So your assertion that 4chan is a free and open place where anyone can post anything and are therefore responsible for the attacks (which again, came from twitter and an outside website.) are doubly laughable.

Go check it out. Go look up their rules. So are you going to admit you're wrong or keep doubling down on the insults?

The threats were sent through twitter, the website was not hosted by 4chan and yet you continue to attempt to link 4chan to this. Why? Do you just like telling innocent victims of a hoax that their penises are tiny or something?

Gosh, maybe it is time to stop digging this whole?

[riqster]

250. Since you keep changing your "explanation" of the technology, there isn't much point in this.

Either you know less than you think about technology, or never learned how to debate, or both. Hardly matters, really.

Your value here has been to expose a pervasive phenomenon: masking a misogynistic agenda by arguing peripheral matters ad nauseum.

The harm suffered by the women who are victimized does not come up in your posts: instead, you worry about someone quite else being called out for either causing or facilitating said harm.

About Ms. Watson and other victims of this repugnant behavior you care not a whit: their suffering is unimportant to you.

That is a prime example of why feminism is so crucial: the terror suffered by women just doesn't matter to you or people like you. No, far more urgent is it to defend libertarian web providers, and the people who run scams and enrich themselves via terror.

People like you are feminism exists. People like you are why I am an ally. People like you are why men like me stand with feminists.

Because all people are supposedly created equal. And our actions determine our worth. Defending those who deliberately inflict harm on others without their consent is the sort of thing one expects from those who count women as "less than".

In closing, ere I bid you adieu on your voyage back beneath your trestle, I thank you for illuminating and exemplifying the mindset we are trying to address. The fact that you actually mean what you say merely adds urgency.

[Kurska]

254. Um, this isn't about any particular aspect of technology.

It is about the rules of a website, which are readily available in the FAQ. My grandfather could read those and then not make the mistake you just made. You keep getting issues wrong (identity of the place behind it, the rules of that place and where the threats are even coming from), yet demand you be taken seriously on the matter. Here is an idea, if you want to be taken seriously as a advocate for something...

try not to be wrong about absolutely every specific detail of it.


That was a righteous rant about how I'm such a very bad man, because I said you were wrong about something. I think it ended with you taking your ball and going home though, so farewell my friend.

[riqster]

255. Such rot. You fail to explain how I was wrong, and to answer my post.

I'll be here. I just shan't be feeding you for a while.

[Kurska]

256. I thought you were done responding though.

Good to see you again

[freshwest]

113. Thanks...

[Rex]

116. VR terrorism. Thanks, someone had to speak up about 4chan.

Virtual reality, reality...stalking is stalking. Terrorism is terrorism. 4chan is a pox on the WWW that needs to be removed.

[riqster]

125. S'truth. Thanks.

[intaglio]

121. These nasty little 4chan kids also plan campaigns via IRC channels

As was shown by Zoe Quinn
Zoe Quinn’s screenshots of 4chan’s dirty tricks were just the appetizer. Here’s the first course of the dinner, directly from the IRC log

The 4channers express their hatred and disgust towards her; they express their glee at the thought of ruining her career; they fantasize about her being raped and killed. They wonder if all the harassment will drive her to suicide, and only the thought of 4chan getting bad publicity convinces some of them that this isn’t something they should hope for.

Hat-tip to David Futrelle at "we hunted the mammoth"

[riqster]

126. But they aren't wearing turbans or blowing shit up, so supposedly they aren't terrorists.

People can be blind sometimes.

Thanks for the link. Worth reading!

[AngryAmish]

123. It appears the terrorists you decry are as phony as Bush's yellowcake.

You got trolled.

[riqster]

124. They acted in a terroristic fashion. They are terrorists. QED.

[AngryAmish]

133. You realize the threat to Ms. Watson was a viral marketing campaign, yes?

And unless you were in on it, you were suckered by it.

[seabeyond]

134. why is this the new meme? why is there such a push from some men to take over the conversation

that others were suckered.

there was always the likelihood that no pictures would emerge. that it was a hollow threat. and threat is was, for her speaking out as a feminist.

that is the conversation. not whether or not they were able to follow thru on the threat.

but... i have seen certain men, the same group of the certain men, work hard to push that people discussing this are suckers.

what is the point? creating a strawman argument, that never was, to insult people discussing this issue of men, using hte net, to threaten women who speak out, denigrating and humiliating them thru their sexuality.

what is your intent?

[AngryAmish]

138. The threat itself was a false flag.

It was done to either make 4chan look bad or as a viral marketung self promotion.

On edit: I don't see how anything could make 4chan look worse than it already is.

[seabeyond]

141. yet the point you, others totally ignore is that they did it because this is what 4chan and the net

have been doing this to women for half a decade.

all the market group did, was pick up what the net does and did it themselves. big fuckin whoop, on the giving shit that it is a hoax.

that is not the discussion. the discussion is that the net uses this as a tool, as a weapon to attack women on a regular fuckin' manner.

degrade. humiliate. shame. a woman thru her fuckin sexuality.

that has been the continuous argument.

do we know where the threat came from? no. the net. do you know that there will be a follow thru? no! the net. has there been men, that steal pictures and without consent put on line, for men to then pornify these women to get off on.... WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.... making these women porn? YES!

your point... only strengthens mine and others argument.

so, who is the sucker?

[riqster]

150. Well put. Doing a terroristic act for other purposes doesn't take away the terrorizing behavior.

[riqster]

135. Using misogyny and terror for marketing? That is not exculpatory.

Saying "har de har har" does not excuse the speech. Frankly, monetizing hate speech makes it worse, not better.

[AngryAmish]

137. The title of this thread is the terrorists of 4chan

Turns out there was a firm who now claims they were paid to make threats against Ms. Watson to make 4chan look bad via those threats and get 4chan shut down.


Or it could be viral self promotion by the marketing firm itself.

Folks took the bait and created an uproar, which includes this threat. I have no doubt of the good faith in the posters who denounced the threat. But pointing out their error of believing something said on the internet may educate them not to always believing things just because it confirms their prejudices.

[riqster]

142. Using terroristic tactics for another purpose does not change the terroristic nature.

If I called in a false alarm, causing the evacuation of a building, and then said "hey everybody, this was a viral marketing campaign for my fire alarm company", would you say I didn't call in a false alarm?
Of course not.

But if someone "pretends" to terrorize a feminist for speaking out, then the viral marketing campaign somehow negates the original action?

Once again, of course not.

[Kurska]

158. So does it matter at all to you that you identified the wrong "terrorists"

Or would it be okay to accuse an innocent man of a murder, because gosh dang it someone killed that person!

[Hosnon]

285. Exactly. The unwilingess in this thread to acknowledge the error is silly and sad. nt.

[freshwest]

132. K&R

[riqster]

136. TY.

[GusBob]

143. the daily beast is posting it was a hoax to get the website shutdown

The Internet is so mashing itself these days. Cant trust a word you read

[riqster]

144. The behavior described in the OP is not changed by the disclosure.

And frankly, the idea of a "fake" attack on a feminist actress by threatening her with sexual violence as part of a marketing campaign... well, I think that is even worse.

Intimidation, coercion, terrorizing an innocent person, in order to accomplish a hidden agenda? That strikes me as being downright inhuman.

In closing, I'll say that if it is true that a marketer did this, that marketer is still a fucking terrorizing motherfucker who should be locked up for a long time, with no Internet access.

[seabeyond]

147. marketer is still a fucking terrorizing motherfucker who should be locked up for a long time, with n

ya.

and

duh.



thank you DUDEEEEeeeee

[riqster]

148. I wish it were that obvious. Sadly, it appears not to be.

[Kurska]

157. Sooo, you gonna apologize to 4chan for calling them a terrorist organization?

If I called someone a terrorist and it turns out they were actually a victim of a troll attempting to attack their character, I'd probably do more apologizing and less justifying.

Gee it is almost like all those earlier posts cautioning you throwing around the terrorist allegation is just as wrong as when the bush admin were doing it didn't deserve to be so offhandedly dismissed either.

[pnwmom]

160. Exactly. Both groups of men attacked high profile females for their own purposes.

This second group is just as guilty as the 4chan people.

[Kurska]

156. Looks like you got punked

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/people-behind-the-emma-watson-leaked-photo-claims-have-been-identified

[pnwmom]

159. Not really. Emma Watson WAS terrorized, but by a different group of "pranksters."

And she was targeted because she was a high profile female.

The only people who got punked are the ones who think it matters which group of guys attacked her for their own purposes.

[Kurska]

174. Rantic media claims this was a smear campaign on 4chan

And y'all bought it look at the OP

""No wonder Anonymous bailed on 4chan. What a bunch of needle-d***ed, wussy, woman-hating, terrorist jerkoffs. ""

That is what I'd call buying it.

[seabeyond]

176. "buyint it" would be buying the line it was about going after 4chan. they did it for clicks. $.

seems to be the evolution of the story here. so i guess that makes you.... what you are pointing at and giggling at others.

reality.

i do not give a shit about 4chan, and did not from the start. i do not give a shit about rantic. it was a crime, and whomever needs to be prosecuted.

i do care that the internet is consistently used to go after women using humiliation and degradation as a weapon to shut them up.

your 4chan defense is what i would call "buying it"

[pnwmom]

199. A group of anonymous creeps targeted a high profile woman. It doesn't matter which group

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

of creeps did this, or for what supposed purpose, the effect was the same.

If they wanted to make a point without victimizing someone, they should have found a celebrity willing to play their game. They didn't. They just chose Watson because her name was in the headlines. They were as bad as 4chan.

[LittleBlue]

188. Yeah these "terrorists" comparable to the KKK

were hoaxers.

We can take the terrorism threat level back down to orange... for now.

[seabeyond]

190. wrong. that is the meme others are trying to create. wrong. because....

that is not the argument.

repeatedly.

watson was threatened to shut up, or she would be humiliated, degraded and shamed.

that is the argument. that is the only argument. it is a tool that is often used on social media. it is not something anyone would be silly enough to deny. facts... proof show us over and over, women attacked on the net. that the weapon used is to humiliate, degrade, shame, into silence.

that is the only argument.

[LittleBlue]

191. The purpose of the threat was to shut down 4chan

It was an amateurish operation targeting a website, not a genuine threat against Watson. For all we know, she never put nude photographs on her phone and wasn't alarmed at all.

[sufrommich]

192. No, the purpose of the threat was to make money:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025580729

Nor was it done by amateurs. It had noting to do with shutting down 4Chan.

[LittleBlue]

195. Your links don't contradict that 4chan was targeted

They were trying to make money, and also target 4chan

But as the clock struck midnight early Wednesday morning, the site didn’t reveal nude photos of Watson: instead, it redirected to Rantic.com, the website of a fake viral marketing company that claimed to have instigated the Emma Watson nude photo hoax as a way to get 4chan shut down for good. Essentially, Rantic claims that it’s trying to get 4chan shut down for threatening women by … threatening women.

The hoax wouldn't have been discovered without a reddit user. That's why I called it amateurish, since their host was easy to trace to hoaxers. They were caught, they didn't reveal themselves.

Point is, this was not targeted at Emma Watson. The real target was 4chan.

[seabeyond]

198. "this was not targeted at Emma Watson." watson was very much the target.

on the net. in all appearance. how you can separate and dismiss her being the actual target in threat is totally fuggin, mind blowing, amazing. interesting.

whether they had the ability, desire, motive or intent to follow thru does not matter one iota.

[Dr. Strange]

196. What?

But as the clock struck midnight early Wednesday morning, the site didn’t reveal nude photos of Watson: instead, it redirected to Rantic.com, the website of a fake viral marketing company that claimed to have instigated the Emma Watson nude photo hoax as a way to get 4chan shut down for good. Essentially, Rantic claims that it’s trying to get 4chan shut down for threatening women by … threatening women.

[sufrommich]

201. Yes, that's what Rantic "claimed" it's aim was.

The 2nd linked article refutes that,it's a cover for gaming YouTube for profit. Again,Rantic has no desire to "shut down 4Chan" anymore that they were "concerned" that the dog on Family Guy was killed when they gamed YouTube the first time for profit .

[seabeyond]

193. regardless the motive or intent. that does not matter. a WOMAN was THREATENED

the weapon of choice, to humiliate, degrade, shame, into silence.

none of the rest really fuckin matters. let the chips fall where they may. but. what we got was a woman THREATENED

[riqster]

216. Bingo.

[Kurska]

228. So it doesn't matter that you guys targeted the wrong people?

Or that the person doing this claims their intent wasn't to hurt that woman, but to hurt the very people you attacked?

You played right into the hands of the very people responsible for the thing you find disgusting. You did this despite a chorus of people saying "Woah slow down, you don't know yet".

But you're right doesn't matter.

lol

[seabeyond]

230. i did not target anyone, being hte net, i am clueless. i have ONE argument. a woman was THREATENED

that is it.

like i said. and will repeat. again and again and again.... whomever. i do not give a fuck. prosecute.

move that finger outta my face. false accusation.

[Kurska]

234. Throughout this entire thread you've ridden shotgun to the OP, who continues to attack a victim.

Granted they are far from the primary victim, but It does matter if you entirely get the person guilty wrong and cause harm to innocent people, despite your protesting that it doesn't. Even if it was murder, that wouldn't excuse going off half-cocked and calling an innocent party equivalent to the KKK like the OP did.

Now that that was revealed as premature and wrong, you want to simply change the subject. Nah, not how that works.

[seabeyond]

236. a whole lot of straw

[Kurska]

237. What facts are you disputing?

1. The OP attacked an innocent party?
2. That you repeatedly were supportive of their posts in this thread (indeed you probably have the second most posts in this thread)?
3. Or that you haven't repudiated that previous support?

Wheres the straw?

[seabeyond]

240. Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women

The abuse of women on the internet, like the hacking of female celebrities' naked photos, is not just intended to hurt the individuals involved. These are deliberately outrageous acts designed to create a spectacle and to instil fear in a target population - in other words, terrorism.

*

These codes provide cover for a pastime as old as patriarchy: punishing women who step out of line. The nude photos of female celebrities, including the actress Jennifer Lawrence, were presumably hacked for the lulz – as well as for bitcoins, which a 4channer initially requested in exchange for them. Now it seems that half of Reddit’s users have decided it is their chivalrous duty to find the identity of the 4chan user who hacked the pictures. The other half are busy uploading the photos to the internet every time an image-hosting service removes them. Somewhere out there, I hope, a psychology student is gathering material for an excellent thesis. In the meantime, something strikes me about both the celebrity photo hack and the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian and Z. This is a form of terrorism. (Sarkeesian agrees: “There is just no other word for it,” she tweeted on 31 August.)

What we are witnessing are deliberately outrageous acts designed to create a spectacle and to instil fear in a target population. Where Osama Bin Laden watched in approval as every news network endlessly replayed the footage of a plane hitting a tower, the hackers and harassers must feel thrilled by all the carefully search-engine-optimised headlines above articles decrying the latest leaked pictures. It is a function of successful terrorism that the media becomes unavoidably complicit in spreading the terror. There is no way to report the story without increasing its potency. We cannot stop looking.

As for the target population, tell me that young women aren’t supposed to look at the harassment of Sarkeesian for being a public figure and get the message: “This could happen to you, you uppity bitch. Watch your mouth.” The leaking of the celebrity nude photos has the same impetus as revenge porn. As the internet heaves under the weight of freely exposed nipples, violation has become a form of titillation. (If you must see an actress’s breasts, may I recommend watching pretty much any 18-rated movie made this year?) Any expression of women’s sexuality moves them into Camp Slut, where they are fair game for punishment and humiliation.

*more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=50750

this is what i am reinforcing thru out this thread. yes.

[Kurska]

242. And if that cause is so important to you

Shouldn't you comment when someone advocating the same thing goes after completely the wrong people? Do you think it encourages people to adopt your position that such behaviors constitute terrorism, when in the very same thread we find out that so called terrorists identified in the OP were innocent?

You know what gives an argument credibility?

When it can admit it got something wrong.

[DavidG_WI]

161. Wow...

You are playing straight into the troll trap, just like Fox.

You know how you beat trolls? The same way you beat actual terrorists, by not playing their game. Trolls do exactly that, they troll for a reaction, by reacting to them you have made yourself a target. If you ignore them they quickly tire and look for a new target.

If you are foolish enough to think you can stamp out trolling on the internet without also killing off all privacy and anonymity by the great firewall of America and shoving an NSA camera up everyone's ass you're dead wrong and are instead advocating the death of freedom of speech and loss of the ability of organizations like Wikileaks to disseminate information to the general public without their sources being outed and imprisoned.

[riqster]

169. No, actually I'm not.

I am calling these misogynistic motherfuckers out for being what they are.

Ignoring them or mocking them has not shown an appreciable result, now has it?

[seabeyond]

177. calling these misogynistic motherfuckers out

right on brother

[Kurska]

226. You mean completely the wrong people whose name was used in a money making stunt?

Good job

[Sunlei]

178. That's our society as it exists today. We're much better off with open & free 'internet speech'

[riqster]

183. The first amendment. A good thing, really.

Anonymity for those using it as a shield, maybe not so good sometimes.

[seabeyond]

189. says someone who is not being attacked, threatened to shut up? ya. so fuggin much better

for those that can use such tactics to shut others up.

that freedom of speech doesnt look so nifty when we cant use it, because it is denied us.

see how that works?

i guess, it would be the very definition of bully in the most extreme in the whole of what the net has become.

so i guess, those that do not stand up to the bullies, but boast the bully's right to freedom of speech, in whatever means, are the mob backing the bully in the fight. maybe. just exploring thought here. not at all suggesting you would be part of the mob.

me? i have always been one to break from the mob. even if it is stepping in and separating the one being pummeled.

[Sunlei]

204. open chats have always been this way. yes there are online 'bullies' and plenty of smack talkers.

Online chats, especially the oldest ones have always mirrored our societies behavior. People have the same freedom of speech to fight back. Fight back they should, never let a bullie win. I'm all for protecting the helpless.

Don't go to those messageboards or irc chats if one has thin skin. you should have seen how wild they were way back in the olden days.

[seabeyond]

207. HA. truly a smile. k, see, i am not gonna line by line, correct you. why bother. right? nt

[mwrguy]

244. 4chan should be raided and shut down by the DOJ

Should have happened years ago.

Seize their logs and start tracking down conspirators.

[Kurska]

245. It was a hoax.

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

This was a hoax by a marketing firm. 4chan didn't make that website, they probably didn't even send the threats.

Reminds me of the quote “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”.

[riqster]

248. Sigh. Semi-literate people should not try to pose as experts on the Intertubez.

4chan was the Internet resource used by certain individuals to deliver threats against this and other women.

It was used because it has a libertarian philosophy that eschews censorship, and so even such odious content as this can be transmitted via 4chan.

Stop trying to pretend you understand how technology works, OK? Or, on second thought, go ahead: it exposes you for what you are. And that will be useful to those who read this thread.

[Kurska]

249. Hmm, I really don't see why you have to make this personal.

You can check the countless news sources for confirmation of what I just said. There are even threads here on DU about it.

I hope you have a fun time educating yourself about it.

[mwrguy]

251. This one was

4chan has been behind multiple harassment & hacking campaigns for years.

[Doctor_J]

252. oops. looks like your op with all of those triggers and righteous rhetoric

was directed at the wrong target. Should we apologize and start another self righteous thread, or double down?

[Kurska]

253. Take a gander

The choice was made.

[riqster]

259. Nope. Read through the thread carefully. I called out the users.

4chan operationalizes a libertarian ideology, so it was a perfect vehicle for delivery.

And regardless of the shifting attribution of the users' motivation, the timing fits the behavior as called out in the OP:
1: Actress gives a feminist speech
2: Internet assholes threaten her to shut her up.

One can do it primarily for political reasons, misogynistic reasons, or to gain a financial reward; but regardless, the action was terroristic per the definition in the OP.

So no, there will be no apology, because I said nothing that requires one.

[NaturalHigh]

257. I don't know a lot about photography...

but a friend of mine who is an excellent photographer and a computer guru told me that a lot of the supposedly "leaked" or "hacked" pictures were actually photoshopped. He said that a lot of the Jennifer Lawrence pictures, in particular, were fakes.

Morally wrong, maybe, but I'm not sure there is anything illegal about photoshopping celebrities into pictures. I don't think it qualifies as terrorism.

[riqster]

258. The actual creation of fake images has been held as legal in some cases. But it's not just images.

It is what the images are used for that is the issue.

Rather like guns -owning them is legal in many cases, but using them to terrorize people is another matter.

[NaturalHigh]

262. I would be very surprised to see anyone prosecuted...

for photoshopped images. Sued, maybe, but tried in criminal court? That's a little over the top. I don't think every slight or insult needs to result in criminal charges.

[riqster]

263. Again, the images themselves are not the issue.

The issue is their use against their putative subject in an illegally coercive manner.

[NaturalHigh]

264. Okay, well I guess we'll see how it plays out.

[riqster]

265. If it proceeds as usual, nothing will be done.

And some day soon, another woman will be subjected to virtual and/or physical terrorism when she dares to express a feminist point of view.

Because America as a whole seems not to to care much about women being thus treated.

[seabeyond]

268. and the meme is here. i called it. within an hour that it began. and the meme is here.

look away from a woman, once again, being threatened by the net to be exposed against her will and consent. letting all women know once again, for merely speaking out will result in retaliation.

look away. look away.

ahhhh. the po boys on 4chan. tell them you are sorry. really. or you are no better than....

NOT A fuggin' LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

every one that you reply to, i have already done this dance with womens issues. and generally, often.

and they have been given the meme, to look away.

no

[seabeyond]

269. a white wash, and a re write. nt

[Nye Bevan]

260. Oops. Hoax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/24/how-serial-hoaxers-duped-the-internet-with-fake-4chan-threats-against-emma-watson

Self-delete, perhaps?

[riqster]

261. Nope. The acts were terroristic in nature, regardless of the motivation behind them.

Imagine someone terrorizing people by claiming there was, say, a bomb in a building. Then later they say "ha ha, fooled you, the bomb threat was actually a subtle smear campaign coupled with a marketing angle that we used to make money".

Does that make the original threat OK? No. Not ethically, not legally. The original threat terrorized people.

Lots of ways to run a scam without resorting to threats.

[Hosnon]

266. Not only were you sexist towards men: "needle-d***ed, wussy"

But you were trolled.

You've played a proper marionette.

[riqster]

267. Bollocks. The behavior called out has not changed as a result of the disclosures.

And I was not being sexist towards men: I was being rude, obnoxious and insulting to certain individuals who were issuing terroristic threats against a feminist actress.

[Hosnon]

281. Of course not. But "4chan" didn't do it.

Any conclusions you arrived at based on "4chan's" involvement are incorrect.

I could say racists things all day using your name. If everyone attacked you, would you expect an apology when it was revealed it wasn't you? For Christ's sake, just cede the lost battle and win the war. Are you THAT proud?

(And by the way, the actions of one poster on 4chan can no more be imputed to "4chan" than the actions of one DUer can be imputed to this website.)

Edit: And you did use sexist language. For all you know, none of the non-4chan attackers were even male. Yet you attacked the male anatomy to score a cheap shot.

[riqster]

292. I did not say that every 4chan user was involved.

If we say "the republicans of Congress", no one assumes that all Congresscritters are Repubs, after all. Same here.

You have a point on the sexism item. You are right. I was being sexist, and I apologize for that. Thanks.

[seabeyond]

270. and YET the woman was still threatened. and YET women across the net heard the message LOUD and

clear.

[riqster]

271. Ah, but Sea, that is not the point.

Insulting women, terrorizing women, threatening women, stifling their speech, why, how could any of that be the point?

No, it's far more important to consider the feelings of those who:
*set up a Wild West Internet environment that tacitly encouraged such behavior;
*sent the threats to terrorize feminists,
*sent the threats to make money,
*sent the threats under false pretenses, or
*all of the above.

The feelings of such paragons of virtue are FAR more important than those of a feminist, amirite bros?

[seabeyond]

272. man uses women in whatever way, as means of $, mancard, manhood, for dominance,

control, a good belly laugh, to feel superior.

and women

are not allowed to say a damn thing

[seabeyond]

273. OR, the net will threatens. nt

[riqster]

274. Minor quibble:

The Net itself does nothing. Users do everything.

(I say that because there are those who use the Internet as a scapegoat.)

[seabeyond]

275. quibble away. i am disagreeing with you. the net accomplished this, and is creating this. and of

course, the net is the people. a whole. the voice.

[seabeyond]

276. every single person that participated, be it the men in this thread, redirecting it from a threat to

women, to the very ones creating the threat.

[seabeyond]

277. and the net, needs to just keep saying.... no!. you and i, buddy.

(and all the other voices). we are pretty strong. loud. AND... right.

[Hosnon]

284. I see that as the fault of those who refuse to admit they were trolled.

Refusing to move on from 4chan is what is feeding the discussion you don't think is appropriate.

[riqster]

278. I see this as the acts of individuals, using the net.

To spread the blame can be seen as lessening the responsibility of those who committed the act. And I am not in favor of offering such absolution, even if it be partial.

The net is a tool that can be used for good or ill. It isn't blameworthy in and of itself.

[seabeyond]

279. so many participated. every man that ignore, dismissed and marginalized. media that promoted and

*gasped*.

the horror.

and titillation and using her for view, what are you gonna do now.

this was not the few. this was the societal act of using this threat, against this woman, to shut her up and all women up.

it was much more than the few.

[NaturalHigh]

288. Wait...so now the people who IGNORED the trolls are also responsible?

[Hosnon]

282. But not by "4chan".

People have slurred me for being a gay man. Should I attack you for that?

[NaturalHigh]

280. All true. A lot of people got played on this.

Now they're trying to shift attention to a different bunch of "terrorists."

[Hosnon]

283. Nothing wrong with shifting blame to the proper party.

But you have to absolve the wrongly accused.

[NaturalHigh]

287. Agreed, but I still think the term "terrorist"...

is unnecessary hyperbole.

[Hosnon]

289. I agree with that too. The term should not be used lightly. nt.

[rug]

290. 4chan is the ISIS of the internet.

[riqster]

293. I'd disagree: some 4chan users are terrorists.

Yes, 4chan allows it to go on, but we need to point the finger at the right people.

[Harmony Blue]

291. That is a poor definition of terrorism

The greek word for terrorist is traumakrates or traumacrat in english. Basically the point of terrorism is to use fear to leverage favorable political change or outcome. 4chan is not interested in politics or trying to leverage a political system on the globe.

Thus, by that definition they are not terrorists.

They are are actually an extreme form of satirists as they try to show SJW (social justice warriors) the hypocrisy of some of their actions and words.

[riqster]

294. Disagree, in this case: it was political.

The sequence of "feminist speaks, threat made" is almost a cliche in America.

I know that it was later claimed to be a false-flag, monetized attack on 4chan, but that is not exculpatory. The actions taken used terroristic words and methods that are inherently coercive, and have a chilling effect.