Until you find out they exist in the police force, DA office, on the bench, politicians. I already don't feel confident in the police already, but to find out that KKK members are sprinkled within will make it worse. Those are the only reveals I care about.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/14/florid-police-kkk/12645555/
I highly doubt a senator would destroy his career by joining the KKK. What he could he possibly gain from it?
I highly doubt a senator would destroy his career by joining the KKK. What he could he possibly gain from it?
I highly doubt a senator would destroy his career by joining the KKK. What he could he possibly gain from it?
But its also very dangerous and he could be exposed destroying his career. As for finding like minded people, i dont really think you have to join the kkk to find those. Theyre pretty much everywhere.Assuming the info is real, I would think the supposed anonymity meant he's not losing anything from joining one.
I'm surprised how many people are happy for a bunch of nerds to act as moral guardians and judge, jury and executioner. No right-minded person will feel sorry for the KKK, but vigilante justice is a terrible idea.
Sorry, I can't get behind doxing.
Can't support this. Internet vigilantes have too poor of a track record of incorrectly doxing innocent people. The damage to the innocent would be huge and very difficult to reverse, even with a retraction.
This is how I feel.
It is all good and well until you get it wrong.
There is a good reason why its not allow here or many sites. Because its an idiotic practice. So I'm not sure why I see many saying its a good idea or it has to be done.
We know this from experience, but you damn well know there will be mishaps with the names and people who've never done shit getting death threats with the lynch mob mentality this will bring.
There is a good reason why its not allow here or many sites. Because its an idiotic practice. So I'm not sure why I see many saying its a good idea or it has to be done.
We know this from experience, but you damn well know there will be mishaps with the names and people who've never done shit getting death threats with the lynch mob mentality this will bring.
The KKK isn't a strictly unified organization. Different branches can have slightly different ways of operating. Some are looser and will accept minorities as long as they share the same feelings towards minorities as the white members.This is why this is a bad idea. The Ocula, Florida mayor has been named. He denies it. It's starting to spread in the online world. Anonymous says that the list he was on was neither provided or vetted by them.
A mayor in Tennessee has been named on this list. She's a Latina who is also a Democrat. Probably unlikely. I don't think the KKK allows Latinos?
Can't tell if sarcasm, but funny enough people will jump through hoops to protect potential victims if they are white and it's America, it seems :/.I don't know that revealing the identities of anonymous KKK members is the right thing to do. I mean, majority whites should be allowed to have a safe space, too.
Again, read my post above. This is ALWAYS a variable in such a situation, but there are plenty of avenues for individuals to seek if they feel they have been wronged. The legal courts exist for a reason.
The KKK isn't a strictly unified organization. Different branches can have slightly different ways of operating. Some are looser and will accept minorities as long as they share the same feelings towards minorities as the white members.
Which can become ironic, to say the least :/
Can't tell if sarcasm, but funny enough people will jump through hoops to protect potential victims if they are white and it's America, it seems :/.
And "majority whites" as another way of saying KKK is pretty messed up imo; most white people aren't in the KKK or share those values.
Even so, those who are already have a safe space, it's called Stormfront.
It's unfortunate they got caught in the crosshairs, but they're well aware of how to use the legal system to their defense in correcting the matter.Did you ignore the rest of what I said? Anonymous is saying the list that those twords people aren't from them. This is why it's a bad idea. If you Google those two mayors names, it's already on websites that they are kkk members.
You guys are missing the point.
Your excuse could also literally be used for just about ANY historical action with similar conditions. "No I can't support the Civil Rights Movement, innocent citizens might be labeled racist" or "No I can't support #BLM; innocent citizens might be unable to take the interstate to get to their job today." or "No I can't support buying the Holomodor was a genocide; my innocent Russian friends may get made fun of", or "No I can't support gay marriage; some of my innocent football team members might get nervous in the locker room now."
In all of those cases, and countless others, there is ALWAYS a risk of innocent casualty. There is never a single movement for the intention of bettering the lives of a group in a point of history that has gone about, without a few innocent sorts falling by the sidelines, usually due to inaction. That is the nature of humanity. So you are essentially reasoning that inaction (in letting a problem fester and contaminate) is better than action because of causalities that will likely end up occurring one way or another anyhow.
Put it another way: if that innocent person isn't hurt thanks to lack of action from [Event X] (in this case, support for Operation KKK to unmask hate group members), they'll still probably fall prey to, let's say, [Event Y] of a dog pooping on their new kitchen floor. Let's also say dogs pooping on kitchen floors is a crisis across the country, and you, the individual, say you support a new law banning dogs from pooping on kitchen floors.
How does it then feel, to know that regardless of it was Event X or Event Y, the innocent person was still harmed, but you as the individual, decided that their harm from an outcome of [Event Y] warranted your support while potential harm from [Event X] did not? How does it then feel to realize that [Event Y], without your support to end/prevent it, would have already had everyone else's support and had appropriate measures taken anyhow, while essentially existing as a collection of individual instances directed indirectly at individuals, happening to share a common repeating theme? Compare that to [Event X], which likely has very little support to put an appropriate measure against it, and is intently a macro instance directly aimed at harming a large group of people, with a shared common theme? Does the fate and well-being of the individual outweigh the fate and well-being of a group of individuals?
By your own words, it's implied it does. You are valuing a life over a group of lives. In this case there is a color bias incidentally at work, because the KKK's efforts are aimed mainly at minorities (mainly, but not exclusively, black Americans), while the possible victims of this "unmasking" are white Americans. You are essentially placing more value in the potential well being of the single white American individual than you are the entire population of African Americans (and other minority groups)! affected by the meta presence (i.e mindshare, spread of ideals and beliefs) of the KKK. That may not be your intention, but it's how it appears.
Your own worries also assume that this kind of operation would have the finess of a witch hunt; it's going on 2016 and I'm sure these people would have access to accurate database records and files, enough so to discern who would be worth legit identifying as a member and who wouldn't be.
And thankfully in America we already have a system that's (technically) around to protect the legal rights of the individual (including, among other things, slander and defamation of character); it's called the court of law.
How could you join the KKK knowing what they've done and what they're about?
I don't understand. Is racism a mental retardation?
Seriously
It's unfortunate they got caught in the crosshairs, but they're well aware of how to use the legal system to their defense in correcting the matter.
Truth being, the idea is sound, but it seems like the execution needs a decent amount of tweaking. That way they can cut down on the amount of mistake claims and makes sure future claims are unquestionably correct.
It's unfortunate they got caught in the crosshairs, but they're well aware of how to use the legal system to their defense in correcting the matter.
Truth being, the idea is sound, but it seems like the execution needs a decent amount of tweaking. That way they can cut down on the amount of mistake claims and makes sure future claims are unquestionably correct.
You guys are missing the point.
Your excuse could also literally be used for just about ANY historical action with similar conditions. "No I can't support the Civil Rights Movement, innocent citizens might be labeled racist" or "No I can't support #BLM; innocent citizens might be unable to take the interstate to get to their job today." or "No I can't support buying the Holomodor was a genocide; my innocent Russian friends may get made fun of", or "No I can't support gay marriage; some of my innocent football team members might get nervous in the locker room now."
In all of those cases, and countless others, there is ALWAYS a risk of innocent casualty. There is never a single movement for the intention of bettering the lives of a group in a point of history that has gone about, without a few innocent sorts falling by the sidelines, usually due to inaction. That is the nature of humanity. So you are essentially reasoning that inaction (in letting a problem fester and contaminate) is better than action because of causalities that will likely end up occurring one way or another anyhow.
Put it another way: if that innocent person isn't hurt thanks to lack of action from [Event X] (in this case, support for Operation KKK to unmask hate group members), they'll still probably fall prey to, let's say, [Event Y] of a dog pooping on their new kitchen floor. Let's also say dogs pooping on kitchen floors is a crisis across the country, and you, the individual, say you support a new law banning dogs from pooping on kitchen floors.
How does it then feel, to know that regardless of it was Event X or Event Y, the innocent person was still harmed, but you as the individual, decided that their harm from an outcome of [Event Y] warranted your support while potential harm from [Event X] did not? How does it then feel to realize that [Event Y], without your support to end/prevent it, would have already had everyone else's support and had appropriate measures taken anyhow, while essentially existing as a collection of individual instances directed indirectly at individuals, happening to share a common repeating theme? Compare that to [Event X], which likely has very little support to put an appropriate measure against it, and is intently a macro instance directly aimed at harming a large group of people, with a shared common theme? Does the fate and well-being of the individual outweigh the fate and well-being of a group of individuals?
By your own words, it's implied it does. You are valuing a life over a group of lives. In this case there is a color bias incidentally at work, because the KKK's efforts are aimed mainly at minorities (mainly, but not exclusively, black Americans), while the possible victims of this "unmasking" are white Americans. You are essentially placing more value in the potential well being of the single white American individual than you are the entire population of African Americans (and other minority groups)! affected by the meta presence (i.e mindshare, spread of ideals and beliefs) of the KKK. That may not be your intention, but it's how it appears.
Your own worries also assume that this kind of operation would have the finess of a witch hunt; it's going on 2016 and I'm sure these people would have access to accurate database records and files, enough so to discern who would be worth legit identifying as a member and who wouldn't be.
And thankfully in America we already have a system that's (technically) around to protect the legal rights of the individual (including, among other things, slander and defamation of character); it's called the court of law.
The justification I used to hear about Senator Byrd (and this was from hippies, mind you) was that you could get nowhere in West Virginia politics in those days unless you were in the Klan. Might be true, but I don't think it excuses the fact that Byrd was quite racist for some time and a proud high-ranking member of the KKK.I highly doubt a senator would destroy his career by joining the KKK. What he could he possibly gain from it?