Nerd Pride Radio

Would you? I have seen it done and was very unhappy about it for the very reason stated at the end of the article: I was The Moderating force who could engage differently; now I cannot.

To a certain extent, I see where the person, or people, who are outing these guys are coming from. However, the fact that they have already had a couple of high profile false positives is enough to tell me they need to just STFU! One individual's life ruined incorrectly because they tossed them under the bus is too many. It doesn't matter if they retract it, the damage is done. There will always be some suspicion in the eyes of some people and there will always be traces of that data out there waiting to trip that person up later in life. You can't take something off of the internet, as the old saying goes, it's like taking pee out of a pool.

Depends. If the people publishing the information are following standard investigative/journalistic practices to confirm the identity they are publishing, then I'm less against it, as long as the targets are people who have publicly outed themselves (i.e., participated in public protests/rallies, etc.). But there were instances after Charlottesville where people were incorrectly outed as Nazis because they had a passing resemblance to someone in the protest, where even a little bit of digging would have shown that the person was nowhere near the protests at that time.

But I'm certainly more on the side that thinks that outing some of these people in that manner actually drives them further to the right, and entrenches them deeper in their hate. So I would limit who I would dox: if there are pictures of the person actually participating in violence (hitting /kicking someone, etc.), then I might consider it okay.

As far as I'm aware, unless I missed news over the weekend, only a single person was misidentified so far (the professor). It was also not the Twitter account itself that mis-ID'd, but responding folks. Apologies were issued. While it is in no way guaranteed a perfect record, the two particular Twitter accounts doing this have been extremely careful to get multiple, independent points of confirmation. They have also worked to ensure compliance with social media platform rules, as well as any relevant statutes in their respective legal jurisdictions. The overwhelming majority of folks ID'd were literally ID'd from either photos they themselves made public of being in/around Charlottesville, or by social media posts that showed clear knowledge of being on site.

It's not perfect, but let's be clear. It BARELY even makes the cut for doxxing, as (last I checked, that is), home addresses and other protected PID were not put in the wild. This also isn't something new or even questionably legal in many jurisdictions, as organizations similar to the SPLC have long maintained databases of members AND organizations. I've actually volunteered for some data entry work in the past for those organizations.

I'll set the article aside for the moment, as it continues the Atlantic's known proclivities for wildly overestimating the success of cleaving extremists from their environments and successfully rehabilitating them. (That in no way implies we should not be attempting this very solution. We should. We should also be realistic.) Because a few conversations over Starbucks are definitely going to take care of that issue. Yay for handwringing!

I need to point out that when I entered the topic for this thread I spelled the word correctly but my phone's autocorrect function changed it to the word you see here. Far be it from me to wake them.

Although it is very bad to do it incorrectly, my concern about the general issue would remain even if there was never a chance of mistaken identity. When doxxing serves to cut off someone from the rest of the legit world and leave them only with their extremist friends for support, that's a dangerous game. At the same time, doing this may prevents those people from spreading their virulent ideas under a kinder, gentler veneer, among people who aren't extremists but might be open to adopting sympathetic views, given persuasion. It's a two-way street. Who are we more worried about cutting off from persuasions?

For me and my headspace, that's an easy answer. The nationalists. Because it is quite literally war for them.

In reality, they're not near as easy to identify. And the answer will never be that clear cut for a large majority. But it sounds great in my brain!

Cantwell and the crowd he was with in the Vice video were obviously wanting publicity. The fact that they got it along with arrest warrants, if the rumors are true, is just gravy. (It makes them "martyrs".)

Honestly, if Doxxing will prevent us from having to fight this shit out in the streets Red Front and Red Ruhr Army style? Then doxx away to your little heart's content. Because ultimately, if the conservatives can spin the narrative that the left wing street violence is as big a threat as the ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS, then it's going to play out very similar to 1930s germany, and we're going to see some bad, bad times. So, I will take the lesser "evil". Though, honestly, I see nothing wrong with outting people who go to a public venue expressing nazi idealogy as nazis.

There are two things that really sway me towards this. One is my knowledge of ancient greek(NOT ROMANS, Jeff!) military practice, where the most experienced and reliable soldiers occupied the First Rank, and the Last Rank. The First Rank lead by example, while the last rank kept the less dependable middle from running. But if enough of the middle decides to run, then they will run. So hit the middle. Destroy it's solidarity. Deprive the front rank of the mass of bodies behind it, and they become fringe, again. The other thing is my experience in paintball, where I found that I was far more effective gathering together a group of impressionable young kids, and leading them. Now, it's kind of hard to "snipe" the leaders, unlike paint ball, but if you can keep the kids from having confidence in their leader? Then their leaders become powerless.

So, yeah, Doxx'em.

So what about the doxxing of Joss Whedon as a garden variety a-hole? Apparently that was done - google needs me to know about it along with the weather and Trump's Phoenix rally - but I'm not sure what all was said. Cheats on wife systematically, feminist in word not deed, etc. I was feeling pretty good about ol' Joss ever since he said we needed an Auror for the Trump Admin, but I've never, ever taken him as a feminist icon (I was busy having my sensibilities offended, generally), so none of this means much to me. I do wonder how much stock one is to put in personal reports like this from aggrieved parties. Maybe it's all crap, or irrelevant either way.

I guess I don't understand the definition of doxxing anymore. Joss Weedon is a public figure. He can't be doxxed. Private things about him can be revealed by people who knew him- but as a public figure, that's a risk he assumed. I don't think that's doxxing. Or that there's anything wrong with that.

I know he wasn't doxxed in that way normally meant - by contrast, his ex could have given out his email or home address to fans or something. I just threw it up here in a sardonic way because it's a case of "someone publicly appears to be something he isn't, and the harsh truth is being made known", and likewise I'm not convinced it's an ethical thing to do. If we can thereby protect other people or shock/shame the subject into shaping up behavior? Ok, maybe good. But if not? Otherwise I'm not trying to draw a comparison between the content of the cases, because nazi doesn't compare. It's just a different case I wonder about.

Real quick, doxxing (as I understand it) is giving out personal information about someone that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy on for the express purpose of threatening/intimidating them and/or bringing actual harm to them. To me, publicly posting someone's address, phone number, etc is doxxing. Revealing the real name behind an anonymous screen name, could potentially be doxxing. Putting a name on a person who attends a public rally in full view of documentary cameras, news crews, and other recorders is not doxxing. In doxxing cases when the word doxxing was first coming to the fore, the intent of the doxxing was to invite trolling, harassment, and physical threats upon someone you disagreed with. The people being 'outed' as members of hate groups here seem to be more threatened by the possibility of friends/family/employers finding out that they are Nazis and having to suffer the consequence of that than they are by any outside harassment.

If you're willing to march in public to stand up for what you believe in, then you need to be ready to defend your views. My personal view is that I don't say anything in public OR in private that I'm not willing to defend should I be confronted with my own words by anyone. Others don't have to go that far, but you certainly can't expect any measure of privacy about your public demonstration.


Digression: While we're at it, gaslighting is intentionally trying to convince someone that the evidence of their own senses is wrong even when you know it isn't. Stop using gaslighting to refer to anyone who expresses an opinion that is contrary to yours. And mansplaining refers to a specific sexist act of a man explaining something to a woman that she is already well-versed in based largely on his sexist assumption that he knows better by virtue of being a man. Mansplaining is NOT just any time a man explains something. By overusing and overgeneralizing these terms, you cause them to lose their effectiveness.

Way to mansplain for us, mike

And I was not directing that at you at all. I'm more concerned with the more general trend of false equivalence.

1. Naming a self-proclaimed white supremacist who is screaming into a camera at a public rally.

2. Publicly posting the home address and phone number of a woman of a woman who spoke out for women's rights on the internet, while including statements like, "I hope she gets raped," and, "Someone should do something about this bitch."

These are not the same thing, yet many quarters are treating them as similar.

Can we all get back onto the most important topic that needs to be discussed in this thread: How about that Trump advisor's model-wife who hashtagged all her designers and then posted a classist-rant against a homemaker?! Am I right?!