In this case, you end up with people choosing a point of view purely because it's the opposing argument to a conversation that has belittled them.
We're talking about Nazis. Their persecution fantasies double as their excuse for persecuting others. If there is some 'conversation' that has belittled them, rather than oh say for instance they're angry insecure and troubled, I'd be curious what that is. Because if it's women and people to the political left of literally Hitler, that's nonsense. Talk about a culture of victimhood, eesh.
So on the one hand he's tech-savvy and can explain masking IPs and VPNs well enough for his users, but on the other hand it's "improbable" that he could escape notice of another government?
The article's author has his own axes to grind. The most obvious is his overarching point that your privacy, your ability to anonymously use the internet in particular, is the problem. The author's an authoritarian. Glaringly obvious as well is the author's attempt to establish guilt by association between Nazis, which you keep calling the Alt-Right, and Russia. The author's a cold war fanatic, or a Clinton Democrat, they're the same thing.
It's the inescapable Gypsy curse of 'security' reporting like this, its stock in trade is fear. Fear is what draws its attention to a subject like this, and fear is what it uses to keep your attention. Ultimately it often may not make any more sense, either.
My point being that it doesn't look like that much has changed.
Well, apparently Nazis get to rebrand themselves if they toyed with having dreads in high school. So that's new.
It's the inescapable Gypsy curse of 'security' reporting like this, its stock in trade is fear. Fear is what draws its attention to a subject like this, and fear is what it uses to keep your attention. Ultimately it often may not make any more sense, either.
That's an incredible point, imo. I mean, media in its current form greatly benefits from added fear, as their most meaningful measurement for 'success' is how many clicks they get. Fear is one of the things most successful in that area. Like his point in the video you linked: twitter groups by white nationalists have grown since 2012 by 600%. Active twitter users have pretty much doubled in that same amount of time, but what's more, the Daily Stormer didn't even exist then! (let alone the fact that report after report finds out just how many bots are used on twitter to boost numbers & retweets, so this is fairly meaningless as far as utility for measuring political thought). As for
Their persecution fantasies double as their excuse for persecuting others. If there is some 'conversation' that has belittled them, rather than oh say for instance they're angry insecure and troubled, I'd be curious what that is. Because if it's women and people to the political left of literally Hitler, that's nonsense. Talk about a culture of victimhood, eesh.
I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile that train of thought, which I think is spot-on, with another post you made, in which they show that for quite some people it might just be about finding a group, no matter how twisted the thoughts of those members.
Besides that his argument in the video is, like you said, about decreasing anonymity in order to decrease hate. Which is a bit silly. "They grew in the shadows for years" as if the FBI isn't on top of pretty much any 4chan/8ch thread that slightly veers into dangerous territory. I mean the technology already exists, and having conversations out in the open at least allows you to follow what's happening. The Charlottesville riots were discussed openly. If things like this were cracked down upon I think they would just move to private IRC channels, to telegram groups (if those are actually secure, no one knows), and be completely out of sight. But the end effect might still be the same. I don't know, because on top of conflicting thoughts this is also happening in another country, so I'm sure I'm missing a tad of context.
We're talking about Nazis. Their persecution fantasies double as their excuse for persecuting others. If there is some 'conversation' that has belittled them, rather than oh say for instance they're angry insecure and troubled, I'd be curious what that is. Because if it's women and people to the political left of literally Hitler, that's nonsense. Talk about a culture of victimhood, eesh.
The article's author has his own axes to grind. The most obvious is his overarching point that your privacy, your ability to anonymously use the internet in particular, is the problem. The author's an authoritarian. Glaringly obvious as well is the author's attempt to establish guilt by association between Nazis, which you keep calling the Alt-Right, and Russia. The author's a cold war fanatic, or a Clinton Democrat, they're the same thing.
It's the inescapable Gypsy curse of 'security' reporting like this, its stock in trade is fear. Fear is what draws its attention to a subject like this, and fear is what it uses to keep your attention. Ultimately it often may not make any more sense, either.
Well, apparently Nazis get to rebrand themselves if they toyed with having dreads in high school. So that's new.
That's an incredible point, imo. I mean, media in its current form greatly benefits from added fear, as their most meaningful measurement for 'success' is how many clicks they get. Fear is one of the things most successful in that area. Like his point in the video you linked: twitter groups by white nationalists have grown since 2012 by 600%. Active twitter users have pretty much doubled in that same amount of time, but what's more, the Daily Stormer didn't even exist then! (let alone the fact that report after report finds out just how many bots are used on twitter to boost numbers & retweets, so this is fairly meaningless as far as utility for measuring political thought). As for
I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile that train of thought, which I think is spot-on, with another post you made, in which they show that for quite some people it might just be about finding a group, no matter how twisted the thoughts of those members.
Besides that his argument in the video is, like you said, about decreasing anonymity in order to decrease hate. Which is a bit silly. "They grew in the shadows for years" as if the FBI isn't on top of pretty much any 4chan/8ch thread that slightly veers into dangerous territory. I mean the technology already exists, and having conversations out in the open at least allows you to follow what's happening. The Charlottesville riots were discussed openly. If things like this were cracked down upon I think they would just move to private IRC channels, to telegram groups (if those are actually secure, no one knows), and be completely out of sight. But the end effect might still be the same. I don't know, because on top of conflicting thoughts this is also happening in another country, so I'm sure I'm missing a tad of context.