- Joined
- Mar 1, 2019
Can we add Carlos to the ranks of Candace and Pewdiepie as nazi icons?
Brenton Tarrant posts on 8chan, shoots up Mosque killing 49 muslims in New Zealand, livestreams from GoPro
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
No I don't think so, after reading his manifesto, all of his arguments are perfectly sound. There's no usual leftist "hitler will be born again inshallah" crap you usually see from them. It was about using their celebrity names to accelerate censorship. It's just a guy that from his perspective saw an attack on European culture and it's way of life. And he put great value in that culture and ethnicity, and finally snapped.
You won't see what he's talking about because the media doesn't want you to see it. It's racist.
wateryketchup
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
It's hard to think clearly in such a terrifying situation. It's the same reason people jump out of windows during a fire, they just sort of panic and act without thinking.
Black4STA
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2018
I see some confusion about the mentions of PewDiePie and especially Cadence as strange and pointing to a "false flag."
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up before, but I think that's his Big Brain 4D chess plan. He is a "accelerationist" and thus it would be consistent for him to tie any even moderately Right Wing personality to his cause and deepen the rift between the people of the West. Accelerating the 'inevitable' clash.
I think that's what he planned.
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up before, but I think that's his Big Brain 4D chess plan. He is a "accelerationist" and thus it would be consistent for him to tie any even moderately Right Wing personality to his cause and deepen the rift between the people of the West. Accelerating the 'inevitable' clash.
I think that's what he planned.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
Just live your life honestly. Don't give a fuck about people that don't believe your honesty. They are probably just trying to control you.
Why should you care what people that don't trust your integrity think?
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
it has been covered here before, but this thread is moving so fast its fine if you missed it, yeah it is a couple peoples opinion that he was indeed a accelerationist
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
Two items:
(1) Which one of you did this?
(2) BBC, demanding censorship today, censorship tomorrow, censorship forever...
Christchurch shootings: Social media's role
(1) Which one of you did this?
(2) BBC, demanding censorship today, censorship tomorrow, censorship forever...
Christchurch shootings: Social media's role
A video seemingly filmed by the man charged with murder after the killing of at least 49 people and wounding of at least 20 in shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, has been widely seen on social media.
The incident once again highlights how these platforms deal with such content.
While Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube raced to remove it, they failed to stop it being shared.
It raises questions about who is sharing it and why but, perhaps more importantly, how these platforms are dealing with the threat of far-right extremism.
What was shared?
The video, which shows a first-person view of the killings, has been widely circulated.
About 10 to 20 minutes before the attack in New Zealand, someone posted on the /pol/section of 8chan, an anarchist alt-right message board. The post included links to the suspect's Facebook page, where he stated he would be live-streaming and published a rambling and hate-filled manifesto
Before opening fire, the suspect urged viewers to subscribe to PewDiePie's YouTube channel. PewDiePie later said on Twitter he was "absolutely sickened having my name uttered by this person"
The attacks were live-streamed on Facebook and shared widely on other social media platforms, such as YouTube and Twitter
People continue to report seeing the video, despite the firms acting pretty swiftly to remove the original and copies
Several Australian media outlets broadcast some of the footage, as did other newspapers around the world
Ryan Mac, a BuzzFeed technology reporter, has created a timeline of where he has seen the video, including it being shared from a verified Twitter account with 694,000 followers. He claims it has been up for two hours
What is the response of the social media companies?
All of the social media firms sent heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the mass shootings and reiterated that they act quickly to remove inappropriate content.
Facebook said; "New Zealand Police alerted us to a video on Facebook shortly after the live-stream commenced and we removed both the shooter's Facebook account and the video.
"We're also removing any praise or support for the crime and the shooter or shooters as soon as we're aware. We will continue working directly with New Zealand Police as their response and investigation continues."
And in a tweet, YouTube said "our hearts are broken", adding it was "working vigilantly" to remove any violent footage.
Image copyrightTWITTER
In terms of what they have done historically to combat the threat of far-right extremists, their approach has been more chequered.
Twitter acted to remove alt-right accounts in December 2017. Previously it has removed and then reinstated the account of Richard Spencer, an American white nationalist who popularised the term "alternative right".
Facebook, which suspended Mr Spencer's account in April 2018, admitted at the time that it was difficult to distinguish between hate speech and legitimate political speech.
49 dead in New Zealand mosque attacks
Agonising wait for victims' families
UK mosque security to be discussed
This month, YouTube was accused of being either incompetent or irresponsible for its handling of a video promoting the banned Neo-Nazi group, National Action.
British MP Yvette Cooper said the video-streaming platform had repeatedly promised to block it, only for it to reappear on the service.
What needs to happen next?
Dr Ciaran Gillespie, a political scientist from Surrey University, thinks the problem goes far deeper than a video, shocking as that content has been.
"It is not just a question about broadcasting a massacre live. The social media platforms raced to close that down and there is not much they can do about it being shared because of the nature of the platform, but the bigger question is the stuff that goes before it," he said.
As a political researcher, he uses YouTube "a lot" and says that he is often recommended far-right content.
"There is oceans of this content on YouTube and there is no way of estimating how much. YouTube has dealt well with the threat posed by Islamic radicalisation, because this is seen as clearly not legitimate, but the same pressure does not exist to remove far-right content, even though it poses a similar threat.
"There will be more calls for YouTube to stop promoting racist and far-right channels and content."
'Legitimate controversy'
His views are echoed by Dr Bharath Ganesh, a researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute.
"Taking down the video is obviously the right thing to do, but social media sites have allowed far-right organisations a place for discussion and there has been no consistent or integrated approach to dealing with it.
"There has been a tendency to err on the side of freedom of speech, even when it is obvious that some people are spreading toxic and violent ideologies."
Now social media companies need to "take the threat posed by these ideologies much more seriously", he added.
"It may mean creating a special category for right-wing extremism, recognising that it has global reach and global networks."
Neither under-estimate the enormity of the task, especially as many of the exponents of far-right views are adept at, what Dr Gillespie calls, "legitimate controversy".
"People will discuss the threat posed by Islam and acknowledge it is contentious but point out that it is legitimate to discuss," he said.
These grey areas are going to be extremely difficult for the social media firms to tackle, they say, but after the tragedy unfolding in New Zealand, many believe they must try harder.
The incident once again highlights how these platforms deal with such content.
While Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube raced to remove it, they failed to stop it being shared.
It raises questions about who is sharing it and why but, perhaps more importantly, how these platforms are dealing with the threat of far-right extremism.
What was shared?
The video, which shows a first-person view of the killings, has been widely circulated.
About 10 to 20 minutes before the attack in New Zealand, someone posted on the /pol/section of 8chan, an anarchist alt-right message board. The post included links to the suspect's Facebook page, where he stated he would be live-streaming and published a rambling and hate-filled manifesto
Before opening fire, the suspect urged viewers to subscribe to PewDiePie's YouTube channel. PewDiePie later said on Twitter he was "absolutely sickened having my name uttered by this person"
The attacks were live-streamed on Facebook and shared widely on other social media platforms, such as YouTube and Twitter
People continue to report seeing the video, despite the firms acting pretty swiftly to remove the original and copies
Several Australian media outlets broadcast some of the footage, as did other newspapers around the world
Ryan Mac, a BuzzFeed technology reporter, has created a timeline of where he has seen the video, including it being shared from a verified Twitter account with 694,000 followers. He claims it has been up for two hours
What is the response of the social media companies?
All of the social media firms sent heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the mass shootings and reiterated that they act quickly to remove inappropriate content.
Facebook said; "New Zealand Police alerted us to a video on Facebook shortly after the live-stream commenced and we removed both the shooter's Facebook account and the video.
"We're also removing any praise or support for the crime and the shooter or shooters as soon as we're aware. We will continue working directly with New Zealand Police as their response and investigation continues."
And in a tweet, YouTube said "our hearts are broken", adding it was "working vigilantly" to remove any violent footage.
Image copyrightTWITTER
In terms of what they have done historically to combat the threat of far-right extremists, their approach has been more chequered.
Twitter acted to remove alt-right accounts in December 2017. Previously it has removed and then reinstated the account of Richard Spencer, an American white nationalist who popularised the term "alternative right".
Facebook, which suspended Mr Spencer's account in April 2018, admitted at the time that it was difficult to distinguish between hate speech and legitimate political speech.
49 dead in New Zealand mosque attacks
Agonising wait for victims' families
UK mosque security to be discussed
This month, YouTube was accused of being either incompetent or irresponsible for its handling of a video promoting the banned Neo-Nazi group, National Action.
British MP Yvette Cooper said the video-streaming platform had repeatedly promised to block it, only for it to reappear on the service.
What needs to happen next?
Dr Ciaran Gillespie, a political scientist from Surrey University, thinks the problem goes far deeper than a video, shocking as that content has been.
"It is not just a question about broadcasting a massacre live. The social media platforms raced to close that down and there is not much they can do about it being shared because of the nature of the platform, but the bigger question is the stuff that goes before it," he said.
As a political researcher, he uses YouTube "a lot" and says that he is often recommended far-right content.
"There is oceans of this content on YouTube and there is no way of estimating how much. YouTube has dealt well with the threat posed by Islamic radicalisation, because this is seen as clearly not legitimate, but the same pressure does not exist to remove far-right content, even though it poses a similar threat.
"There will be more calls for YouTube to stop promoting racist and far-right channels and content."
'Legitimate controversy'
His views are echoed by Dr Bharath Ganesh, a researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute.
"Taking down the video is obviously the right thing to do, but social media sites have allowed far-right organisations a place for discussion and there has been no consistent or integrated approach to dealing with it.
"There has been a tendency to err on the side of freedom of speech, even when it is obvious that some people are spreading toxic and violent ideologies."
Now social media companies need to "take the threat posed by these ideologies much more seriously", he added.
"It may mean creating a special category for right-wing extremism, recognising that it has global reach and global networks."
Neither under-estimate the enormity of the task, especially as many of the exponents of far-right views are adept at, what Dr Gillespie calls, "legitimate controversy".
"People will discuss the threat posed by Islam and acknowledge it is contentious but point out that it is legitimate to discuss," he said.
These grey areas are going to be extremely difficult for the social media firms to tackle, they say, but after the tragedy unfolding in New Zealand, many believe they must try harder.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
Those Muslim terrorist are killing innocent people! Well I'll go now and kill some innocent people! That will change things!
Oooh boy.
Oooh boy.
Last edited:
Jeff Heaney
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2017
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2018
That's fucking exceptional. Your basic message is "Be quiet! People might be watching you and not like what you say!"
Fuck those people.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
I really doubt that this was a false flag, his logic appears to be internally consistent even if amoral and he named Candance Owens because he probably didn't like her for being a "based black women" and knew that would cause a bigger shitstorm. Honestly, it seems much of his actions were coldly calculated to get the biggest reaction possible, from naming pewdiepie, to the obnoxious skins on his guns, to his opinions he published in his manifesto. The main reason I doubt it's a false flag is he just knows too many memes and flips in and out of irony too easily: all my senses are screaming acclerationist, not "glow-in-the-dark-nigger".
I don't think he's a leftist, or more accurately: he probably doesn't consider himself on a left-right line; It seems his opinions are generally Fascist in nature while his specific views are all over the place depending on the issue. That being said I can see why many on the right would love to be able to just say that he was a leftist and wipe their hands of this mess.
Finally, I do think their is going to be a wave of censorship due to this and that is exactly what the shooter wanted to happen.
I don't think he's a leftist, or more accurately: he probably doesn't consider himself on a left-right line; It seems his opinions are generally Fascist in nature while his specific views are all over the place depending on the issue. That being said I can see why many on the right would love to be able to just say that he was a leftist and wipe their hands of this mess.
Finally, I do think their is going to be a wave of censorship due to this and that is exactly what the shooter wanted to happen.
Q
QI 541
Guest
kiwifarms.net
So when the EU banned memes, they were trying to prevent things like this from happening.
Finrod Felagund
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
Hell, what are the odds of a total purge? It's definitely not the first time the media's got us all at knifepoint, just what if?
I don't know about you but that's like a do or don't situation. If you legitimately care, just do whatever in your power to say something, or just keep it to yourself.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2016
Listening to the FBI say that watching or sharing the video is the same as supporting terrorism is about the biggest "tell" Ive ever seen them show as to their outright hatred of any kind of truth in media. The fact of the matter is this guy was a tremendous fucking asshole but trying to suppress him is just going to make his message resonate with more fuck ups. They're so fucking tone deaf it's not even amusing anymore. They're not a federal law enforcement agency anymore, they're just an internal intelligence agency fighting their own populace
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
Funny how they always go after the unarmed ones instead of going after the armed radicals in compounds.
"Hero" indeed.
"Hero" indeed.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
Well it's no different from the ISIS Paris attacks. They didn't charge an army base. It's what terrorism is all about.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2016
If you have nothing to add don't say anything. I'm tired of all these newfags shitting the place up.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
Has there been a thread made specifically about the censorship going on with that video and the aftermath? (New Zealand IPs cutting off access to 4chan, 8chan, etc.) Or is that subject just to be discussed in this thread?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
Isn't it odd how casual he is about it after he drove off? Like he didn't just mow down dozens of people minutes earlier.
- Status