Apparently a lot of the white supremacists claim to have gotten "red pilled" by Men's Rights Activists online.

Read: Guy feels inferior because he can't get laid -> Finds forums that say it's because women are sluts -> They're sluts because they're ****ing black guys -> Guy blames his feeling of inferiority on blacks -> Guy becomes a white supremacist

also he's broken forum rules three times in this thread (of course me complaining about his breaking rules is also breaking a rule but we already have established precedent that this is a lawless zone, and besides, I followed the process and reported his post and nothing happened so it's anything goes at this point).

You do know The Daily Stormer was used to organize Unite The Right?

The Nazis in Germany, the real Nazis, managed to grow, organize, and take over a whole country just fine without the internet or television.

Pretty sure the KKK was at the height of its power long before modern technology as well.

Bin Laden got the Taliban all up and running long before there was ever a Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.

Almost no reasonable person accidentally stumbles across extremists sites and then becomes an extremist. People who are already extremists actively seek them out.

There must be some reason the gov't wants YouTube and Facebook to take down Isis propaganda, right? Something something self-radicalized

[Citation Needed]

No I haven't. Try reading the actual rules instead of your interpretation of them.

It's a simple concept. You have to have an idea before getting to a webpage. How do you find the content? Show me the number of extremist this content/webpage/video has created that were not already extremist.

Still more question begging. You might try arguing from a position that doesn't assume everyone already agrees with everything you think. It might be more effective.

And the idea that people get radicalized online isn't a new one:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-isl...calized-online

It helps if people are in a bad situation or open to this sort of thing, but it's ludicrous to claim only extremists seek out this stuff. It's simply not true.

Your premise asserts this guy would not have become an extremist without the internet. That article does not say or demonstrate that. Or does it asserts extremist become violent with the internet?

The point is, you have to be predisposed to being an extremist, and I do not think shutting down a website will stop them from gathering.

So if you don't think spreading info online helps radicalize people, why exactly do you think terror groups like Isis use the internet for recruitment purposes?

You keep ignoring the point. How do these people who are not extremist, get to extremist websites? Are they doing Google searches, then accidentally clicking kkk.com, then buying into the hyperbolic and irrational nonsense?

Pre-internet, movements like the KKK or the German Nazi party could indeed organize, but the geographical range was extremely limited. Before the invention of the telegraph, in order to communicate to someone far away, you had to write a letter and have it physically moved to wherever your recipient was. With the invention of the telegraph, the reach of communications increased. With the invention of the telephone, it increased even more, and became more widespread, so more and more citizens had a larger and larger geographical reach for communication.

Now that we have the internet, people from all over the world can visit websites all over the world, with the exception of internet censorhip, such as the great firewall of China.

The unite the right gathering in Charlottesville was a gathering not just of people in a local geographical area, it was people from all over the United States, and even some outside the US. They were able to easily communicate and effectively organize from all over the country, on a central resource they could all share, being the website.

When you take a website such as an online forum offline, the people that once easily communicated with each other would then lose their central platform for communication, and their ease and efficient of communicating and organizing is greatly diminished, or completely eliminated for some.

It's ridiculous to assert that taking down a white supremacist website, where white supremacists from all over the country communicated and organized, will not hinder their ability to organize.

If twoplustwo was taken offline tomorrow, how easily would it be for you two to communicate with the rest of us? Do you use facebook to keep in touch with friends and family? If so, if FB was taken offline, would it be harder to communicate with them?

It does not make those people any less of extremist, and no less likely to become violent.

Should Gmail review all email transmitted, and ban extremist from using their email platform?

In that instance, you not only have issues about speech, but also privacy. Do we really want corporate leaders being the censor for the internet?


More to my point, I like knowing where the bad guys are, and what they are talking about, rather than not knowing where they are, and not knowing what they are talking about.

You think limiting their freedom of movement will reduce extremist activity and recruitment, I disagree with that. You just made it less efficient, and at what cost? We as a society can no longer monitor their conversations, or identify them via their online opinion.

I'm curious how many extremists, internal and external, who were planning on some type of attack were caught due to posting something they should have not have online.

I would say it's going to be a non 0 amount and that by itself would lend one to wanting them to keep their sites online, no?

Hypothetically if the government started doing random unannounced warrantless searches of homes across the country they would probably find and stop a ton of legitimate criminal activity.

But most people still don't like that idea.

Although sadly the # of people who don't like that idea is shrinking.

Don't worry, those people will go back to being anti-government the minute trump is booted from office.

There are a lot of people who would hate that under any circumstances and there are a lot of people who would love it if as long as it was restricted to places like Chicago.