Cloudflare stops services to 'revolting' hate site Cloudflare has decided to stop providing its services to Kiwi Farms, just days after defending the site's eligibility for its services. Kiwi Farms is an online forum that frequently features vicious harassment of minority communities and individuals. Some members have even organised real-world harassment, doxing, and swatting …
The Proud Boys have been attacking children book-readings by Panto-dames in libraries across the US. They pop up in groups armed with AR15s, pretend the kids are being brain washed by readings of "Rapunzel" and "The little engine that could". Storm the Library waving their assault rifles around to scare the kids, make a photo op for their GOP handlers to use on Fox.
Now its taken a new turn. Antifa has popped up, all dressed in blacked, armed with AR15s too, there to defend the kids from the Proud Boys.
But ANTIFA is just shorthand for anti-fascists. When you hear from Tucker and Fox News claim that "Antifa is plotting this", or "planning that", or "storming the Capitol on January 6th", these are just lies. A boogieman to scare their viewers. There is no reason a group of anti-fascists would agree to dress up the same, train as a group, all spend thousands of dollars each buying the exact same assault rifle, take time off from their jobs, travel across America to do the defense. How would they even know where the Proud Boys will strike? Can you imagine the discussions as they all supposed to dress in *black*? Black? The traditional color of the baddies? Why buy the same expensive dark sun glasses, when they already have sun glasses?
These fake antifa groups are the Proud Boys too. They just simply dressed half of their guys in black. It will be the same money-man, paying the same weapons bills, paying the same costumier, and the same producer, the same director. They are the same group.
So, at some point one of these "proud-boys-antifa" groups will shoot some innocent person not in their Proud Boys groups, and they will officially be the bad guys. Handy that they are dressed in black and look intimidating right? Fox News will likely have their story line already written and prepped, no doubt, as if they're coordinating with the PBs, or at least the same money-man that's behind them. If Antifa was an actual terrorist organization, how come their communications come from Fox News? You see why that's a false-flag.
The most extemist content, is stuff from Tucker Carlson, spewing his "white replacement" theory, mass murderers like Payton Gendron, shoot and kill lots of people putting out a manifesto, echoing Tucker's words. Extremist lies are mainstream Republican TV these days.
So prep yourselves, for whatever the money-man, that's funding the PBs and the fake Antifa has instore. It won't be nice but it will be televised.
You're probably right that someone - Proud Boys or opposite - is going to get shot eventually, when some idiot escalates a situation, and the "side" that gets shot will have a field day,
But haven't we lost sight of some other stuff here?
Why are guns allowed in the library (or insert other public place where they pull the guns out purely for show)?
Why are *assault rifles* allowed in the library?
I know the library won't want to deal with it, understandably, but they need to just kick them out. Have a hard no-guns-in-the-library rule, end of. In practice, most of them will disperse if they're otherwise going to get arrested.
But haven't we lost sight of some other stuff here?
Where to begin. I blame the education system..
Why are guns allowed in the library (or insert other public place where they pull the guns out purely for show)?Why are *assault rifles* allowed in the library?
One can never be sure about those Librarians. It's always the quiet ones ya need to watch out for. But also kind of a concealed vs open carry debate.
But if this is about the weird antifa guarding a trans/kid friendly event at a distillery in Texas, it gets a little stranger. Even for Texas. So the antif MiBs were deployed around the distillery, including 'snipers' on buildings. Apparently they were from a counter-PB militia called the 'John Brown Gun Club'.
Which is why I blame the education system, given John Brown was both a staunch Republican, and a Puritan. So I.. rather doubt he'd approve of either a trans event, or distillerys. Plus Brown was executed by one Henry A. Wise, governor of Virginia at the time. Also a rather notorious pro-Slavery Democrat, who once won an election by winning a duel against his opponent. One of those sad bits of history that tends to be overlooked by those on the left who happily call those on the right 'racist'. It was the Dems that wanted to keep slavery and segregation after all.
"One of those sad bits of history that tends to be overlooked by those on the left who happily call those on the right 'racist'. It was the Dems that wanted to keep slavery and segregation after all."
So the Democratic and Republican parties are and always have been the ultimate arbiters of what left-wing and right-wing mean? Yeah, it makes perfect sense to ignore a century or more of political history during which the two American political parties swapped sides.
I'd never seen any "antifa" in real life until about a month ago in the bathroom of a Chili's restaurant. I'd gone in to do my business, and noticed there were a few sheets of paper scattered across the floor. As I didn't have much else to do, I took a look at one, and discovered it was serious anti-Semitic hate propaganda. That was something I'd never seen in real life here in North Georgia for the 53 years I've been alive - Southern Baptists and Methodists generally have a good deal of respect for Jewish culture and religion since that's where Jesus came from, and we're simple people...
Anyway, as I'm washing my hands, in comes this guy, and starts picking up those papers. I assumed he was a Chili's employee sent to get that garbage off of the bathroom floor. So I casually mention it was highly unusual to see that kind of stuff in our small town. To which he said "I see it all the time, I'm in Antifa", and I then noticed he was dressed in black with a black ball cap that had "Antifa" iron-on letters.
It was all very strange, one way or the other, that I've never seen EITHER of those two things anywhere in town before, but then I see BOTH of them at the same time at the same place. It definitely felt like political theater, just not sure who the puppet-master was.
I hope the activists heed Cloudflare's words regarding the need for a legal framework for these situations. While far from identical, Roe vs Wade should teach us that you need to follow through on reversible (or in this case, extrajudicial and per-case) decisions that only achieve a fragile desired outcome.
The imminent threat to life was KF posting the addresses of three restaurants in Belfast, and calling for arrangements to be made for them to be bombed.
KF claims that this wasn't an actual threat that should have been taken seriously, even though past experience shows that calls for attacks on that site do often lead to actual attacks.
This never happened.
A user, who had previously been inactive for two years, posted a vague "I'll call up my mates" post, which was deleted shortly afterwards. Someone else posted a "threat" on 4chan/pol/, claiming to represent the site without proof. Both posts were found by the supposed target within minutes of being posted, and right before being deleted. There's enough doubt about the legitimacy of the posts that the reg should have at least considered questioning them, instead of mindlessly repeating the claims of a serial liar.
All you downvoters, ask yourself this question: why isn't twitter, which has refused to remove revenge porn, hosts thousands of threats of violence against every sort of person you can imagine without removing them, hosts doxing, arguably is designed to encourage mob harassment campaigns, and has been repeatedly used to host streams of violent assaults, being held to the same standard?
Both sites have a TOS that prohibits illegal activity, such as making threats. Both sites enforce that TOS to some degree - KF probably enforces it better, given that the posts in question were removed within minutes of being made. Yet only one is being pilloried and driven off the internet.
Why is that?
...Should just re-base to a country that has laws that align with their moral compass. Yes, the dividends will take a long term hit and therefore their stock price as well. But in the end they can still do the right thing and point to the Big Books o' Laws and say "We must comply."
Otherwise they will all be nothing more than pawns in the effort to control public opinion.
The farms are interested primarily in self-promoting people on the internet, without favour to political hue.
Sadly I can't access it to find an example of this for you, as
"Due to an imminent and emergency threat to human life, the content of this site is blocked from being accessed through Cloudflare’s infrastructure."
Fairly sure they had a non-harassment policy too - laugh at people on the farms but don't target them. Not that this is something they can enforce.
However: The farms were blamed in a call to police for the swatting attempts on Marjorie Taylor Greene, a US politiican, with a robotic voice claiming to be (the online name of) a moderator on the farms. Given the swattings appear to be due to her stance on trans people, and the mockery of certain trans individuals on the farms, this sounds like a false flag - but one that may have led to the message I've seen.
But now we're back to a supposedly far right site swatting a right leaning politician? Ok.
"The farms are interested primarily in self-promoting people on the internet, without favour to political hue" – maybe, but does that define who actually goes there? Does it make the political leaning of those people's words and deeds anything other than what it is? Does a right-wing extremist become a leftist because of also targeting "a right leaning politician" once in a while?
I'm not sure mocking people online has a political leaning.
I know for certain that harassing people doesn't.
Their thread on the Ukraine war was pro-Ukraine, while many right leaning sites feel neutral or even pro-Russian. (It also contained a lot of noise, but I found it interesting due to the breadth of information sources they were linking. I haven't checked it for a few weeks, I switched to the ARRSE thread instead, as that includes more informed analysis.)
"Does a right-wing extremist become a leftist because of also targeting "a right leaning politician" once in a while?"
No, because a right-wing extremist would consider a right-leaning politician to be a communist. That I understand was their problem with Marjorie Taylor Green, she wasn't sufficiently right-wing for them. And probably they also don't like women who venture out of the kitchen and do stuff other than being a housewife.
FWIW, I found that the KF forum (while it was still up on the clearweb) had a subset of users that mocked her idiocy, along with other American right-wingers of her ilk. It also had — as others have noted — a contingent of frothy-mouthed whack-a-doodles who cheered everything MTG (and the rest of the American looney right) does… which everyone else derided as 4chan/pol refugees.
Doing harm to people just because of the way they were born or their life choices, with no benefit to society as a whole is exclusively the work of the political right. Look at any apparently harmful actions committed by genuinely left wing individuals and the common thread is that it's always done for the greater good.
Before you say it, true centrists don't exist because their inaction in siding with the left, props up the right.
Obviously not. That would be the exact opposite kind of moron.
No, don't be so ignorant. Unlike you right wing zealots, we based things on fact, not on what team we are on.
Corbyn is obviously not an anti-semite, the proof is out there.
It can be argued that his handling of antisemitism in the party was poor [ Look - I'm admitting there are leftie bigots! ] but the accusations that he himself is antisemitic were made up by the press to smear him, and stupid people who believe the tabloids believed it.
Criticism of Israels hard-right government isn't antisemitic. Don't fall into the weak trap that right wing Americans use.
Many Israeli Jews are also against their government, and are pro Palestine. Does that make them antisemitic too?
A Jewish journalist writes: https://jewishcurrents.org/the-tragedy-of-jeremy-corbyn
https://www.newframe.com/corbyn-the-latest-victim-of-the-new-antisemitism/
Whether or not Corbyn was antisemitic is irrelevant - he enabled antisemitism within labour (those found guilty of it, and oh yes there were some, were "suspended" and then quietly let back in) and there was interference from the leader's office into antisemitism investigations. The ECHR found labour had been guilty of antisemitism, Corbyn still claims it was all a personal attack on him. The man is an idiot.
>he enabled antisemitism within labour
If I remember rightly, it is antisemite (according to the State of Israel) to believe Yahweh didn't give Israel (the state and people), the right to persecute the Palestinians. Hence the issue was, the labour party members who supported Palestinian human rights against the aggression of Israel were deemed to be antisemitic...
I'm glad my Jewish grandparents, decided to stick to their faith and not take up arms (in breach of a clear tenet of their faith) and join the Zionists in Israel, instead they became Quakers and remained in the UK.
"I'm glad my Jewish grandparents, decided to stick to their faith and not take up arms (in breach of a clear tenet of their faith) and join the Zionists in Israel, instead they became Quakers and remained in the UK."
Some confusion there I feel. Lovely use of "zionists" to condemn people who took the chance to set up a new homeland after WW2.
The point is that Corbyn's resistance to stamping out antisemitism within the labour party is nothing to do with his opposition to Israel, unless you're saying he was unable to differentiate the two?
Are you suggesting jewish labour MPs, councillors etc were all lying about the abuse they received?
Think of it this way - had it been any other kind of racism would it have been tacitly supported by Labour? No.
Some confusion there I feel. Lovely use of "zionists" to condemn people who took the chance to set up a new homeland after WW2.The Zionist State Terrorist group had the British approval in 1914, the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, The Balfour declaration of 1917, the 1919 King Crane commission reported the Zionist State Terrorist group
The commission found that "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase".[18] Nearly 90% of the Palestinian population was emphatically against the entire Zionist program.[18]The report noted that there is a principle that the wishes of the local population must be taken into account and that there is widespread anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria, and the holy nature of the land to Christians and Moslems as well as Jews must preclude solely Jewish dominion. It also noted that Jews at that time comprised only 10% of the population of Palestine.[2]
Supporting the attempted genocide of a people and justifying by events taking place multiple decades after the facts, and over and hundred years after the idea was first proposed, is breathtakingly dishonest. The Palestinian people are not responsible for the crimes of Western Europe.
Zionism conquest of Palestine was done in London by Chaim Weizmann, by the time 1936 rolled around and the British had destroyed the capacity to resist the Zionist State Terrorists, despite this again many brave Palestinians fought with the Allied powers against the Axis powers, the so called white-paper years.
The native Palestinians had had no significant military force since the British Army had decisively put down the Palestinian rebellion during 1936-1939.
In striking contrast, the Jewish Agency/Zionist Organization had long had effective regular military forces in the Hagana and the Palmach. 61/ In addition, although there were apparent disagreements on tactics, the Zionist terrorist organizations including the Irgun and the Stern Gang worked effectively with the Jewish Agency in achieving Zionist political and territorial objectives by military means. 62/ The Palestine Commission was unable under these conditions to exert effective control.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196128/
Zionism is anti palestinain racism, and it belongs in the dustbin of history along with the other racist ideologies it resembles.
The point is that Corbyn's resistance to stamping out antisemitism within the labour party is nothing to do with his opposition to Israel, unless you're saying he was unable to differentiate the two?
More BS Masterfully debunked by the excellent Peter Oborne -
According to the Forde report, the media narrative that Corbyn was actively intervening to stop antisemitism cases is unsupported by the documentary evidence (AFP)
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-forde-inquiry-corbyn-factional-war-devastating
Following the ECHR report, Forde is the second major non-partisan document to provide evidence suggesting that Corbyn has been the victim of a grotesque miscarriage of justice.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-forde-inquiry-corbyn-factional-war-devastating
Are you suggesting jewish labour MPs, councillors etc were all lying about the abuse they received?
#itwasascam
Tonight, Ms Formby has responded to the MPs’ letter point by point in an email sent out to all MPs – but one of the responses deals a serious blow to the credibility of those claiming Labour has a widespread problem.Formby’s email reveals that of the two hundred cases ‘put in’ by Margaret Hodge, only twenty instances concerned Labour members – the rest of Ms Hodge’s examples concerned people who had no link to the Labour Party.
Twenty is far too many and abuse directed toward Ms Hodge and any of her colleagues is deplorable. But a 90% error rate in attribution of such abuse to Labour members – or 82% of the 111 individuals behind the complained-of posts – is huge.
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/02/12/excl-hodges-200-labour-complaints-90-were-not-labour-members/
Think of it this way - had it been any other kind of racism would it have been tacitly supported by Labour? No.It seems that is utterly the reverse of the conclusion drawn by the Forde report
This leads Forde to speak of “concerns that the attention to the surge of cases relating to antisemitism and the importance they appeared to play in the interfactional conflict meant that the party was in effect operating a hierarchy of racism or of discrimination with other forms of racism and discrimination being ignored. For a party which seeks to be a standard bearer of progressive politics, equality, and workers’ rights, this is an untenable situation. The party must live by its values and lead by example.”
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-forde-inquiry-corbyn-factional-war-devastating
This article contends that Israeli policies that were enacted after the introduction of the siege in Gaza amount to slow-motion genocide...The present study adopts a sociological perspective and argues that genocide should be understood as a social practice rather than physical annihilation or merely mass killing of a group of people. It also situates the siege within a larger settler-colonial framework and emphasises the processual nature of the Nakba. Drawing on data collected through semi-structured interviews with Palestinian students as well as human rights reports, and historical and sociological materials, this article elaborates on how Israel commits a slow-motion genocide against defenceless populations in the Gaza Strip.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642987.2022.2065261
"The United Nations has repeatedly warned of the serious implications of the Israeli siege and asserted that Gaza could soon be uninhabitable" [Miriam Berger, ‘The U.N. Once Predicted Gaza Would Be “Uninhabitable” by 2020. Two Million People Still Live There’, Washington Post, January 2, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/01/01/un-predicted-gaza-would-be-uninhabitable-by-heres-what-that-actually-means/
The ECHR found labour had been guilty of antisemitism,
More Jews have been expelled by Starmer's Labour party than under all previous Labour leaders in its hundred years of existence.
You are many times more likely to be expelled by under his Leadership if you are Jewish than otherwise.
It's also clear that the ECHR found Corbyn innocent and the claimants at fault
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/labour-antisemitism-forde-inquiry-leaked-report-what-happeningFirst, that the party bureaucracy Corbyn inherited from previous Labour leader Ed Miliband in September 2015 was ferociously hostile to the new leadership. Second, that this bureaucracy was not only obstructive and uncooperative but worked actively to undermine Corbyn. Third, that the bureaucracy was hopelessly inept at dealing with antisemitism. The report did not suggest that this was a deliberate attempt to create embarrassment for the leadership. Instead, it speculated that officials had been distracted by a relentless focus on cases that served a more obvious factional agenda.
Between November 2016 and April 2018, the party failed to act on around 170 valid complaints, the leaked report said. The number of notices of investigation, suspensions and expulsions connected to antisemitism all rose exponentially once Iain McNicol, who had been general secretary since 2011, was replaced in the spring of 2018 by Corbyn loyalist Formby. In 2019 there were 45 expulsions; in 2017 there was only one.
What makes this issue potentially explosive for Starmer is that the officials who ran the complaints process prior to the spring of 2018 were among those who queued up to condemn Corbyn for his handling of antisemitism in the highly influential BBC Panorama report Is Labour Anti-Semitic?, broadcast in July 2019. "I am heartbroken and disgusted that the party I joined over a decade ago is now institutionally racist," said Sam Matthews, the former head of disputes, during the Panorama programme.
-
"It's also clear that the ECHR found Corbyn innocent and the claimants at fault"
Hmm no not really. The point that all the corbynistas fail to grasp is that Corbyn was the leader of the party. The buck stopped with him. There was evidence of interference into antisemitism inquiries within labour from the leaders office - this doesnt mean necessarily Corbyn himself but someone very close to him, that he was responsible for.
You cannot constantly claim that Corbyn was victimised by the very people who elected him as leader.
The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) said the report provided Jewish Labour members “with the relief that they have been seeking from the Labour Party, but which it failed, over five years, to offer”.
“Since 2015, we have consistently warned the Labour Party about a deepening casual culture of anti-Jewish racism, that saw Jewish Labour members and activists harassed and discriminated against,” the group said in a statement.
“Instead of listening to our growing concerns over the scale of the challenge, we were told that this racism was imagined, fabricated for factional advantage or intended to silence debate. Today’s report confirms that our voices were marginalised and our members victimised.”
Sounds fairly comprehensive to me. Unless they were all just lying jews, eh?
Sounds fairly comprehensive to me. Unless they were all just lying jews, eh?
Lets take the two parts of your nonsense separately. Firstly, the majority of complaints submitted are inaccurate. #itwasascam
Tonight, Ms Formby has responded to the MPs’ letter point by point in an email sent out to all MPs – but one of the responses deals a serious blow to the credibility of those claiming Labour has a widespread problem.
Formby’s email reveals that of the two hundred cases ‘put in’ by Margaret Hodge, only twenty instances concerned Labour members – the rest of Ms Hodge’s examples concerned people who had no link to the Labour Party.
Twenty is far too many and abuse directed toward Ms Hodge and any of her colleagues is deplorable. But a 90% error rate in attribution of such abuse to Labour members – or 82% of the 111 individuals behind the complained-of posts – is huge.
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/02/12/excl-hodges-200-labour-complaints-90-were-not-labour-members/
Leaving the second part, there is not a scrap of evidence, and you've notably not bothers to offer any, the other complaints are made by Jewish people as opposed to Zionists agitators such as Luke Akehurst, who is not Jewish but runs the largest pro Zionist State Terrorist lobby group "We believe in Israel", or the campaign against antisemtism, and I think we should quote Apartheid Apologist Hodge herself on the CAA.
"I'm fed up of CAA using anti-Semitism as a front to attack Labour," replied Hodge in a tweet. "Time to call them out for what and who they really are." Suggesting that the anti-Semitism campaign group was politicising anti-Jewish racism to damage Labour, Hodge added: "More concerned with undermining Labour than rooting out anti-Semitism."
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220718-corbyn-critics-accused-ofhypocrisy-for-complaining-about-pro-israel-politicisation-of-anti-semitism/
Hmm no not really. The point that all the corbynistas fail to grasp is that Corbyn was the leader of the party. The buck stopped with him. There was evidence of interference into antisemitism inquiries within labour from the leaders office - this doesnt mean necessarily Corbyn himself but someone very close to him, that he was responsible for.
Bollocks,
A major new study published by Verso shows that “the EHRC investigation did not remotely uphold the dominant public accusations against Labour, while even those limited findings it did make cannot withstand factual or legal scrutiny.”
The study, to be launched on Thursday May 13 at an event hosted by the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and chaired by its president, Michael Mansfield QC, is the work of Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), with contributions by a number of expert researchers and lawyers.
In his foreword, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC writes:
“… the new Party leadership, eager to wash its hands of an embarrassment that could be blamed on its predecessors, lamely accepted without challenge and in its entirety, even with perverse enthusiasm, the flawed package delivered by the Commission. A judicial ruling on its findings may thus now be out of reach. That makes the persuasive analysis of the Commission’s report presented here especially valuable.”
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/how-the-ehrc-got-it-so-wrong-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party-an-e-book-launch/
The excellent Peter Oborne. elegantly demolishes the case against Corbyn,
The report concluded that the Labour Party was guilty of "unlawful acts of harassment and intimidation" in two instances. It also found the party had breached the Equality Act of 2010 "by acts of indirect discrimination relating to political interference and a lack of adequate training".
"Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership," the report said.
The press – en masse – has taken it as a resounding vindication of the dominant narrative of the last four years - that Corbyn abjectly failed to deal with an upsurge in antisemitism in the Labour Party after 2015, either because he was blind to the prejudices of his followers, or he was subject to them himself.
But what's the evidence?
The findings of the report are based on 70 case studies from the period between March 2016 and May 2019.
These dates are significant. Until the spring of 2018, Labour Party headquarters was under the control of Ian McNicol, who had been general secretary since 2011. According to an internal Labour Party report, leaked to the press in March this year, McNicol and his team were ferociously hostile to the Corbyn leadership.
...
In other words, for two-thirds of the period under investigation by the EHRC, Labour HQ and the complaints procedure were under the control of individuals not just resistant to the authority of the leadership but, allegedly, working actively to undermine it. Remarkably, the EHRC report makes absolutely no reference to this context at all.
...
This is vital. Matthews, McNicol and a number of other employees from Labour Party HQ at this time were the leading "whistleblowers" in Panorama's enormously influential Is Labour Anti-Semitic? programme in July 2019. When the Corbyn leadership pushed back against their claims, Matthews and others took them to court. Earlier this year, Starmer apologised to them and settled out of court, paying them large sums of money.
Yet the EHRC report appears to be accepting the leaked report's version of events prior to the spring of 2018 and rejecting theirs – while nevertheless holding Corbyn responsible for their inaction. Matthews has always fiercely rejected the leaked report's allegations. He and other staff claimed that their work was hampered by continual interference from the leader's office.
The EHRC report also alleges unwarranted interference by Corbyn's team. It says this happened in 23 of the 70 cases it studied. But in many of the examples it cites it is clear the leader's office was interfering, not to prevent investigations for antisemitism, but to speed them up.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/ehrc-labour-antisemitism-starmer-corbyn-soul
"Compare him standing up for the rights of the oppressed to genuine antisemitism from right wing Nazis."
Not the point. There should be no room for racism of ny kind in British (or elsewhere) politics. The fact remains (despite desperate misreadings and whataboutery and downright lies from those eager to defend Corbyn) that under his leadership antisemitism within labour was allowed to exist. Unless you're calling every jewish labour member that reported abuse a liar, of course? I've listed a load of antisemitic instances and the feeble response by Labour (no doubt it was all Starmer, Corbyn the great leader couldnt actually do anything, eh?) before - labour members suspended briefly then allowed quietly back in, etc.
Of course, it's not like far-right racists, but to deny that it existed, to deliberately twist the ECHR report etc is extremely sad.
Not the point. There should be no room for racism of ny kind in British (or elsewhere) politics.
I agree, and you'll no doubt join me in denouncing Zionism or Anti Palestinian racism.
The fact remains (despite desperate misreadings and whataboutery and downright lies from those eager to defend Corbyn) that under his leadership antisemitism within labour was allowed to exist.
Interesting you have ignored the evidence showing your fact free smears are unsupported by evidence and have been comprehensively debunked by the ECHR report, and the Forde report.
More Jews have been expelled by Starmer's Labour party than under all previous Labour leaders in its hundred years of existence.
First, that the party bureaucracy Corbyn inherited from previous Labour leader Ed Miliband in September 2015 was ferociously hostile to the new leadership. Second, that this bureaucracy was not only obstructive and uncooperative but worked actively to undermine Corbyn. Third, that the bureaucracy was hopelessly inept at dealing with antisemitism. The report did not suggest that this was a deliberate attempt to create embarrassment for the leadership. Instead, it speculated that officials had been distracted by a relentless focus on cases that served a more obvious factional agenda.
Between November 2016 and April 2018, the party failed to act on around 170 valid complaints, the leaked report said. The number of notices of investigation, suspensions and expulsions connected to antisemitism all rose exponentially once Iain McNicol, who had been general secretary since 2011, was replaced in the spring of 2018 by Corbyn loyalist Formby. In 2019 there were 45 expulsions; in 2017 there was only one.
What makes this issue potentially explosive for Starmer is that the officials who ran the complaints process prior to the spring of 2018 were among those who queued up to condemn Corbyn for his handling of antisemitism in the highly influential BBC Panorama report Is Labour Anti-Semitic?, broadcast in July 2019. "I am heartbroken and disgusted that the party I joined over a decade ago is now institutionally racist," said Sam Matthews, the former head of disputes, during the Panorama programme.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/labour-antisemitism-forde-inquiry-leaked-report-what-happening
Unless you're calling every jewish labour member that reported abuse a liar, of course?
#itwasascam
Tonight, Ms Formby has responded to the MPs’ letter point by point in an email sent out to all MPs – but one of the responses deals a serious blow to the credibility of those claiming Labour has a widespread problem.
Formby’s email reveals that of the two hundred cases ‘put in’ by Margaret Hodge, only twenty instances concerned Labour members – the rest of Ms Hodge’s examples concerned people who had no link to the Labour Party.
Twenty is far too many and abuse directed toward Ms Hodge and any of her colleagues is deplorable. But a 90% error rate in attribution of such abuse to Labour members – or 82% of the 111 individuals behind the complained-of posts – is huge.
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/02/12/excl-hodges-200-labour-complaints-90-were-not-labour-members/
I've listed a load of antisemitic instances and the feeble response by Labour
#itwasascam
Twenty is far too many and abuse directed toward Ms Hodge and any of her colleagues is deplorable. But a 90% error rate in attribution of such abuse to Labour members – or 82% of the 111 individuals behind the complained-of posts – is huge.
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/02/12/excl-hodges-200-labour-complaints-90-were-not-labour-members/
(no doubt it was all Starmer, Corbyn the great leader couldnt actually do anything, eh?) before - labour members suspended briefly then allowed quietly back in, etc.
#itwasascam
What makes this issue potentially explosive for Starmer is that the officials who ran the complaints process prior to the spring of 2018 were among those who queued up to condemn Corbyn for his handling of antisemitism in the highly influential BBC Panorama report Is Labour Anti-Semitic?, broadcast in July 2019. "I am heartbroken and disgusted that the party I joined over a decade ago is now institutionally racist," said Sam Matthews, the former head of disputes, during the Panorama programme.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/labour-antisemitism-forde-inquiry-leaked-report-what-happ
Of course, it's not like far-right racists, but to deny that it existed, to deliberately twist the ECHR report etc is extremely sad.
Pretty racist of you to call all Jewish members of the JVL "far-right racists" simply because they reject the Genocidal settler colonial ideology of anti Palestinian racism called Zionism.
Apartheid apologist for Zionist State Terror attempts to reheat smears debunked in EHCR report and Forde report.
a closer look at the actual content of Thursday’s report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests he’s been done an injustice.The report concluded that the Labour Party was guilty of “unlawful acts of harassment and intimidation” in two instances. It also found the party had breached the Equality Act of 2010 “by acts of indirect discrimination relating to political interference and a lack of adequate training.”
It goes on to say
The “bureaucracy at Southside (Labour HQ) had been acting as if they were a law – and organisation – unto themselves,” wrote Pogrund and Maguire. They detailed how, during the 2017 election, officials, including Sam Matthews – who headed the disputes team that handled antisemitism complaints – were secretly “funnelling hundreds of thousands of pounds of resources into the seats of devout opponents of the leadership.”
In other words, for two thirds of the period under investigation by the EHRC, Labour HQ and the complaints procedure were under the control of individuals not just resistant to the authority of the leadership but, allegedly, working actively to undermine it. Remarkably, the EHRC report makes absolutely no reference to this context at all.
The leaked Labour party report further claimed that, prior to the spring of 2018 – under the McNicol regime – Labour HQ was appallingly lax in its handling of antisemitism complaints. It lays out, in great detail, evidence of lengthy delays and says that, between November 2016 and February 2018, there were at least 170 complaints that were not acted on at all, which it says the leader’s office was unaware of at the time.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/the-ehrc-report-critical-evaluations-1/
"you'll no doubt join me in denouncing Zionism or Anti Palestinian racism."
If there is any such thing in British politics, then yes. Zionism is a convenient slur to use against Israel, and its directly because of casual labelling like this that attacks on jews in the UK have gone up massively since 2016 (along with all the casual racists allowed out from under their rocks by brexit). It's lazy typecasting.
I'm confused. From wikipedia: "Zionism is a nationalist movement that espouses the establishment of, and support for a homeland for the Jewish people centered in the area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel". As such, zionism is not a slur but a description of those who supported Israel's creation and ongoing expansion. How do you feel Israel and Zionism aren't linked?
Zionism and Judaism are not linked, not remotely the same thing.
The largest American Zionist lobbying group is not a Jewish group but a Christian Zionist group CUFI.
Let me introduce you to Joseph "I'm Irish" Biden,
“I did say, and I say again, you need not be a Jew to be a Zionist,” US President Joe Biden said during his recent visit to Tel Aviv, driving home the centrality of Israel in American diplomacy in the Middle East.Or
https://www.webelieveinisrael.org.uk/our_teamLuke Akehurst has been Director of We Believe in Israel since its foundation in 2011.
Luke is not Jewish but has been a committed Zionist all his life.
Zionism or Anti-Palestinian Racism to give it its proper name, is a genocidal ideology based on the writings of a European Terrorist group of service to the Imperial powers.
It's based on denying rights, including the rights to life to a group based on the ethnicity and national origin, and it's flagrantly racist in its conception and genocidal implementation.
Jews have opposed Zionism longer than anybody else include Palestinians, Balfour's cabinet contained a single Jew, who wrote a blistering letter denouncing the racist idea of Zionism, and every word rings true today.
https://balfourproject.org/edwin-montagu-and-zionism-1917/
Nonsense. There has been a concerted effort in recent years to suggest that any bad opinion of any kind must automatically be "far right".
This definition gets murky when there are literal communists and working class union members who clearly have problematic racist/nationalistic/terrorist mindsets, but these tend to get conveniently labelled "far right" to avoid the cognitive dissonance.
> Look at any apparently harmful actions committed by genuinely left wing individuals and the common thread is that it's always done for the greater good.
It's not the greater good when the actually harmful things are burning down businesses or enacting policies that cause tens of millions to starve to death and far more to live in poverty. And those things are not "apparently" harmful, as much as the modern US left has redefined words to be harm, and violence and getting people perma-fired for words to be okay.
While many left wing activists adhere to the 'greater good' principle in their minds, it is hard to discern between an angry mob of left wing activists and violent criminals; ostensibly both are running around with pitchforks trying to destroy things, and both tend to be younger chaotic individuals with an axe to grind.
Whether that is historically their aim to destroy the banks, capitalism, the 'system', certain religious groups historically associated with banks (far left is riddled with this), the patriarchy, all Conservatives, white males, the government, anyone unwilling to sacrifice their farms or taxes 'for the cause' (more of an Eastern left-wing trend, but very definitely a left-wing thing).
Ultimately it comes down to semantics. If you have little, you are likely to be happy destroying everything, or taking what you want from other people. Whereas if you have worked hard for something to protect, you are likely to fight to stop other people burning down your farm.
Human beings (left or right-wing) all come back to this simple selfish principle eventually. We generally want what we perceive to be best for ourselves in the moment. These imaginary boundaries of left vs right are merely distractions from the basic theme "I want the best outcome for myself and my family." merely modified for your personal circumstances.
"Whether that is historically their aim to destroy the banks, capitalism, the 'system', certain religious groups historically associated with banks (far left is riddled with this), the patriarchy, all Conservatives, white males, the government, anyone unwilling to sacrifice their farms or taxes 'for the cause' (more of an Eastern left-wing trend, but very definitely a left-wing thing)."
Again, a lot of claims - what "far left" groups have religious groups associated with them? You're conflating a rather hysterical view of the "far left" propagated by right wing media in the US and here with a broadly left wing outlook where someone suggests maybe paying ever more to fund the rich might not be a good thing.
Remember when Youtube supported all sorts of political opinions? And now it's as sanitized as TV.
Cloudflare has only ever blocked three websites, all three of them right-wing, er I mean, "far right". First, that shows some degree of political bias because I'm not aware of them doing the same to communist or islamist websites, for example. (Happy to be proven wrong.) But okay, political bias is not unheard of in Silicon Valley.
More severe is that the trust is eroding. First they only blocked actual far-right websites like the Daily Stormer. Now, they blocked an generally unpolitical website for doxxing a transgender person, so the offence has come down to mere "transphobia". Not long until more moderate right-wing websites will be taken offline by Cloudflare. Maybe one day Cloudflare will have a similar policy on wrongthink as Youtube. The point is - don't trust on them to protect your website. Maybe they'll do it today, but will they still be on your side in 10 years if your website contains anything that is remotely offensive or could offend someone in 10 years?
This post has been deleted by its author
It's embarrassing that 24 people (so far) have failed to learn the lesson of Niemöller and instead embrace the dopamine hit of the vicarious jackboot. For reference (because I'll withdraw the comment), people were agreeing with:
" 'First they came for the extreme right, and I did not speak up because I'm not a disgusting piece of filth.
Things were pretty good after that.' "
For those who will seek to genuinely dilute the value of his words, even at the time, it was known that communism had yielded brutality equal to fascism. The point was that discourse, not censorship, allows society to hold back the hand of the vicious.
"It's embarrassing that 24 people (so far) have failed to learn the lesson of Niemöller and instead embrace the dopamine hit of the vicarious jackboot. "
OK< so you like to sound clever. However, you're still defending, essentially, fascism by attempting to equate pre war communists with the nazis, saying they were just as bad. Yes, there were plenty of thugs on both sides, yet only one side set up mass murder in Germany.
Don't like fascists being mocked? Too bad.
Sorry, hang on a moment while I try to summon up a scintilla of sympathy.
Nope, sorry, I can't. You are complaining that they blocked a website for harrassing someone for being trans? Too bad. Sorry that they don't align with your dubious political and moral stance. Whats next, you whine when they block a website for being anti gay? anti abortion?
Right wing extremism is on the rise, like it or not. Call it what you like, alt-right or plain old nazism, it's all unpleasant and if it goes, who cares other than the extreme right?
The person they allegedly harassed has been accused of publicly doxxing and threatening the mother of the site's owner - on Twitter - and apparently boasted of grooming children - on Twitter.
Someone on another site commented that it was interesting that the post on kiwifarms that was considered harmful was deleted by its poster a minute after the person targeted shared a screenshot of it, all in under a quarter of an hour. Admin on kiwifarms have also said that the post itself was flagged for moderation but deleted before the moderators could even act.
I'm not supporting doxxing people (by kiwifarms or by the person running a campaign against them) or threats online (likewise), I just thought you might appreciate the opportunity to label Twitter and the person posting on it extreme right too.
I do think that kiwifarms obeys the law in its home country, and that ultimately, cancelling a legal website is bad. If we can start silencing people we don't like it's going to start getting very lonely online.
I'm curious, what is this Kiwi Farms website about anyway?
From a distance it seems to be an 8chan related memefest. If it is genuinely true that someone doxxed the mother of a site admin and they responded in kind against the specific person, I presume both parties were banned by CloudFlare?
Meh. Doxxing is always going to be a tricky topic. I presume the doxxing was done in the chat - and not actively encouraged?
I only came across the name mentioned on reddit recently, but someone described it as the hate of 8 chan in concentrated form.
Basically they look for people (lolcows) and try and encourage them to melt down by targeting and harassing them, while having the disclaimer 'we just watch them honest'.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolcow
Doing a quick bit of reading on them out of curiosity, frankly they sound like the people you wouldn't miss if they say died of Cheetos induced heart attack.
I'm sorry to introduce you to the word lolcow BTW.
Transphobes believe that all trans people are groomers, doesn't mean they are.
The percentage of trans people that actually are groomers is about the same as for the general population, and significantly lower than for example the percentage of priests that are groomers.
It should be acknowledged that most people accused of being transphobes aren't transphobes at all, and are very supportive of trans rights. However, they are also supportive of protected spaces for people targeted because of their born, biological sex (not gender).
Many years ago, I helped a friend move out of a refuge that she'd been in for over a year (actually, I helped her into her new place. Rightly, I wasn't allowed to know the location of the refuge itself), with her son, because of the threats from her ex-husband. I know that she would not have felt safe around someone self-identifying as female but born male, if they'd taken no steps to transition.
How can a woman possibly feel safe if someone introduces themself as Mary while sounding like Brian Blessed after a night on cigars and brandy?
To your point, Katrina, no "transphobes" as you describe them, think trans people are groomers, but that trans people need support and care, but also, that the trans rights movement has been appropriated by some hardcore misogynists. This is not to denigrate trans people (I've known many, in both their original and destined gender, and they were good people, arseholes, just like everyone else), but the blanket description of anyone speaking for safe spaces as a transphobe needs to stop.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly:
Someone with an insufficiently high-pitched voice might enter a woman's refuge, therefore it is necessary to go on a bombing spree around Belfast, because one of those insufficiently high-pitched women might be at one of the locations.
In Belfast, the same argument was made in the past about Catholics. And elsewhere, including Belfast, similar arguments were made for lesbians and black people.
No, no, no
All I'm saying is that women need safe spaces, people who campaign for safe spaces don't think that trans people are groomers, and no-one in their right mind advocates bombing civilians* anywhere.
*with the war going on, obviously bombs need to be used against an invading state's army.
Edited: If there are any downvotes on your comment, they're not from me. I disagree with your opinion, but it's sincerely held.
Aunty Kate was the aunty of a dear friend of mine, now sadly deceased.
Aunty Kate was on maternal side of my friend family, a jolly cisgender lady of Irish with a deep booming voice.
Aunty Kate was woman, a cisgender woman, with the deepest bloody voice, I've ever heard.
It might not be common, but it clearly happens.
Not a smoker, not a trans woman, perfectly ordinary woman.
I've mostly seen it aimed at some people trying to sexualise young children, but I suppose like things which are awful to be labelled, it gets completely misused or weaponised as well. Same as Nazi, Commie, Transphobe, Racist, etc, etc.. The extremes of all sides seem to do this.
Everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Everyone I don't like is Stalin.
Same argument, from different sides, usually over the same issues.
Basically our power delegation system is broken because everything is trivialised to a binary you're either with us or against us through the use of First-Past-the-Post.
Media types (Murdoch) love FPTP because it makes for easy sales fodder (or, in todays parlance, clickbait).
I started reading your post, and was shocked: "Someone on El Reg sounding like a MAGA-hat, believes those stupid and easily debunked conspiracies?"
Then I saw your username, and I was no longer surprised.
Cederic, you should remove that post. You may be acting in good faith, but your comments are actionable.
The problem here is the assumption that anyone who leans to the right is extreme right. I am right, but do not support Nazis, anti-semites or other hate groups. Most on the right simply want today and tomorrow to be peaceful.
The biggest problem with today's media protrays left wingers throwing rocks and bricks while burning down their own cities and killing cops as being peaceful protesters, while claiming right wingers who say, "I disagree with the left" are violent domestic terrorists who should be put down like rabid dogs. It wouldn't surprise me one bit of the leftists didn't want to require right wingers to wear a color coded R on their clothes.
"The biggest problem with today's media protrays left wingers throwing rocks and bricks while burning down their own cities and killing cops as being peaceful protesters"
I think you could have stopped after the word "media". Disagreeing is not violent or terrorism, and nobody who merely disagrees has been condemned as such, as you know perfectly well.
Much of the media is right wing, which again you're well aware of, yet you persist in dragging out the same old tired dogma that its all a leftist conspiracy to upset good honest right wing folks.
Conservative = peaceful? Look up the number of right wing groups that infiltrated BLM marches in order to cause damage and chaos. Your bias is so obvious it's painful.
You write about lazy assumptions about those on the right, and then make lazy assumptions about those on the left.
Actually, worse than that, your comments on leftists are extreme, and out and out lies.
I suppose you think January 6th was done by antifa?
I suppose rightists never match angrily when they get annoyed?
I suppose it's hippy leftists in the intelligence agencies who have said that right wing terrorism is the worst terrorism threat in the USA.
Thought experiment. Here's your comment written the same way, as if you were a leftie. Think it's ok?
"The problem here is the assumption that anyone who leans to the left is extreme left. I am left, but do not support SJWs.
The biggest problem with today's media portrays right wingers smashing the capitol, whilst killing cops, and driving cars into people they don't agree with as "patriots", while claiming left wingers who say "I disagree wit the right" are unpatriotic, un-American snowflakes, who should be hanged.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit of the rightists didn't want to require left wingers to wear a color coded L on their clothes.
It's worth emphasizing that Kiwifarms have not been blocked for their politics. They have been blocked for doxing individuals and online incitement to do real-world harm to people. Individuals who have been singled out for attention by Kiwifarms have been threatened and abused where they live and where they work.
As the article here says, their are at least 3 suicides that can be linked to harassment from Kiwifarms. In the UK at least the individuals posting on the site would have broken laws related to threatening behaviour and hate speech. This is not a "freedom of speech" issue. It's a freedom from having thugs being told where to find you and being incited to beat you up. Right now they are concentrating on transgender individuals, but it's easy to see that the playbook they have developed and refined successfully could be rolled out to other targets.
For example, immigration lawyers. Or left-wing politicians. Or journalists who won't shut up when they are told to. Freedom of speech becomes meaningless if it is only available to whoever can mobilise the greatest number of thugs.
I certainly wouldn't refute what you're saying, but it should be pointed out that both sides do this. Each side's nutjob radicals do their best to act like dangerous sulky teenagers and cancel or harm the other side and then paint their opponents as utter evil and themselves as angels.
I can't think of a "leftwing" site that is doxing ordinary people and sending thugs after them. Fascists are always keen to normalise their behaviour as simply "the opposite side of the coin". It isn't. Fascism isn't the opposite side of any coin. It's an authoritarian ideology that elevates one group above all others, and demonizes other groups. In Europe and America that group is usually white supremacists, but in India Mohdi is doing a pretty good job creating a Hindu supremacist movement.
Well, don't antifa brutalise people that they don't agree with?
Also, on the coin that Fascism exists, on the other side is communism & marxism. Both are very authoritarian and all eventually lead to a terrible end game. There are plenty of examples in the 20th century. BTW both sides would absolutely refute what I've just said, pointing to the otherside as being the worst, but they are ultimately the same.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
I would like to point out that theoretical Communism and by extension Marxism are not inherently evil, but have been in the most notorious instances hijacked by those who would seek to mercilessly control a population while enriching themselves. Indeed, common definitions now include the idea that a communist government is typically an authoritarian one.
We've also seen in the UK that socialist agendas fail to live up to their egalitarian aspirations.
Instead we are left with a system that rewards those who seek power and money at the expense of others.
We're constantly told that free-market capitalism (also incorrectly referred to as freedom) is the right way, but let's be honest; it's not working out that well for the average person right now, is it?
"socialist agendas fail to live up to their egalitarian aspirations."
Such as what? There are clear and well-known examples of "socialist agendas" that work perfectly well. The NHS for one, until it was systematically starved of funding by, oh yes, the right wing. Pensions. Free education. Free emergency services. Maternity leave. Unemployment payments.
Shall I go on? All these were opposed by the conservative (with a small c) MPs at the time. The creation of the NHS was virulently opposed by the Conservatives (large C), despite their latter attempts to claim they were instrumental in setting it up.
Scandinavian countries run a lot of "socialist agendas", and have high living standards for most of the population.
You are correct though - we have a system propped up by a media fear campaign that demonises any attempt at bettering peoples' lives as "marxist" and extols greed and selfishness.
You are implying that it's somehow equal: that the amount of fascism on the right is balanced out by the number of communists/marxists on the left.
Not only is this plainly false, but the 2 extremes don't compare in their extremeness.
I suggest a bit of reading up on the subject.
"Each side's nutjob radicals do their best to act like dangerous sulky teenagers and cancel or harm the other side "
Really? Citations of attacks by "leftists" (that's anyone vaguely centrist for any Americans - you don't have an "extreme left" despite outraged squawking by some commentators here) that resulted in severe injury (cars being deliberately driven into a peaceful march, for example) or murder (labour MP Jo Cox shot by a BF loon).
The three suicides that are generally claimed to be caused by kiwi farms are chloe sagal, julie terry berry, and byuu or near.
chloe sagal committed suicide by self-immolation, after being effectively excommunicated from the gay community; she had been evicted from her home a few weeks beforehand. her statements at her suicide, as described by eye witnesses, were about homelessness and lack of mental health care in the united states.
julie terryberry was trapped in an abusive relationship with a man who forced her to participate in extreme pornography. she committed suicide when it looked like he was about to abandon her. she left no note.
as for byuu, the story surrounding his alleged suicide becomes more lurid and unbelievable with every telling. other than a photograph of an easily faked urn that was allegedly sent to his former employer (why it would be sent to him and not his family is anyone's guess), there is no evidence that byuu is dead and a great deal of evidence that he is in fact still alive.
They aren't. Of the three, only Chloe mentioned kiwi farms, but that was in passing, as a general complaint about all the things she hated at the time. she implicitly blamed her community's closing ranks against her, and explicitly blamed lack of mental health care as the reason for her suicide.
I believe it is also important to note that Cloudflare has not "blocked" anyone.
Cloudflare provides anti-DDOS and associated services that they have decided to refuse to provide to Kiwifarms.
Cloudflare did this because they found that they might be helping facilitate "potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life" if they were to continue to provide services to Kiwifarms.
In my opinion Cloudflare has refused to be soldiers in what appears to be a war with all the same stakes as a war.
Cloudflare stated they didn't want to refuse their services to anyone despite pressure campaigns. It was Kiwifarms themselves that managed to convince Cloudflare to make an exception to their general policy.
Kiwifarms has not been blocked. They have been abandoned like Bill Sykes was by his dog.
"Cloudflare, by abandoning KF, are facilitating criminal acts. DDOS is a criminal act."
You really are quite deranged in your desperation to support the most unpleasant people aren't you? And you dont even have the bravery to post under a name, just hide and snipe like some kind of (in your head at least) far right robin hood.
Way back in the good old days, when Usenet made the Wild West look like a virgin's picnic, it was discovered that the best way to deal with online unpleasantness was for the actual users to mange their own kill files. Trolls deprived of responses moved away.
Today we are all clamouring to be protected from each other. Why? It's all a formative experience.
If people are idiotic enough to publish anything under their real names on the internet, that might evoke a negative response, then they should be advised of the benefits of anonymity.
And remember that far more violence and criminal damage is caused by the Left wing groups like extinction rebellion, black lives matter, Animal liberation front, Antifa and so on (who are perfectly capable of their own false flags).
Astro turfing, spamming and trolling social media is now a career move for many people. It is not a question of preventing it, it is a question of dealing with it. Kill files work.
The problem with this particular site is not that they are saying unpleasant things you can ignore if you don't like them. It's that they dox people, and then incite real world thuggery against them. Putting their site on your blocked list won't protect you when one of its readers throws a brick through your window.
XR might cause problems with transport or parliament, but they have not killed anyone.
See the Trump-inspired invasion of congress *with weapons* for examples of right wingers causing death.
That the "system" is unable to shut down the lawbreakers on both sides; and that both sides are motivated to take criminal actions to defend various viewpoints is a sign of how far the "system" has gotten from being able to take the necessary actions.
"Ashley Babbit, who was shot without justification, through a door opened by security, after calmly speaking to a police officer."
Dear god you actually believe this rubbish, don't you? She was shot while climbing through a window as part of a mob carrying nooses, at least some of which were armed with semi-automatic weapons. I assume basic reading is beyond you, or you could actually look up the facts for yourself instead of bleating out the MAGA "ooh we're victims of the leftists" well-proven lies. What's next, the elections were a "steal"?
Lonnie Coffman of Falkville, Alabama, was sentenced to four years in prison for bringing loaded guns, ammunition and Molotov cocktail ingredients to Washington on Jan. 6.
Guy Reffitt, was convicted (among other charges) for being unlawfully present on Capitol grounds while possessing a firearm and transporting firearms during civil disorder.
Christopher Alberts, Maryland, was found carrying a Taurus G2C semi-automatic handgun on Capitol grounds on January 6.
Mark Sami Ibrahim, 32, was also indicted by a grand jury for bringing a firearm within the United States Capitol and its grounds.
Among the more than 800 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, more than 85 have been accused of using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
"insurrection is an act of violent resistance against a civil authority or government, that may involve any weapon or hand-to-hand combat. On January 6th, the act of using a crowd-control railing to hit those charged with defending the Capitol building is an act of insurrection,"
the crowd "battered the capitol police with flagpoles, sprayed bear spray, and shoved, kicked, and punched officers, among other episodes of violence, all while chanting, 'Hang Mike Pence!'"
Grow up.
The name "Kiwi Farms" fortunately has nothing to do with kiwi birds, kiwifruit, or people from New Zealand, where it has been blocked since March 2019 for providing torrents of the Christchurch shooter's uncensored livestream and manifesto.[28] In fact, the forum was originally known as the "CWCki Forums". (The CWCki, pronounced like 'Quickie', is a wiki dedicated to monitoringWikipedia the aforementioned Christine Chandler.) The site was christened "Kiwi Farms" to mock someone with a speech impediment saying the original name, struggling with its unintuitive pronunciation.[29]
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Genesis_of_the_name
It's worth noting that apparently the operator of this vile website actually tried to protect "someone with a speech impediment" from a number of competing teams of trolls that had actually stolen her property, blackmailed her into taking nudes and distributing them and so forth. Despite being nazis apparently the site operator and users banded together to get said someone the money she needed to attend a brony convention.
She was then banned from attending the brony convention and is now awaiting trial for something you'd wish you hadn't heard in a youtube lore documentary you clicked on randomly one day.
"the only way to keep a privately-owned forum running is to host it in Russia"
Bingo!
Thanks! I have every box ticked in my "spot a sad little hard right everyone-is-out-to-get-me anonymous poster".
Nazi apologist? Tick
Excuse right wing thuggery? Tick
Extol Russia as a bastion of liberty? Tick
Post anonymously? Tick
Spread disinformation and make wild unjustified claims? Tick
Good grief, do you actually believe the garbage you spew? I've seen more wholesome material washing up on my local beach after a heavy downpour.
The "campaign to have the company deny service to the forum" certainly wasn't why Cloudflare stopped hosting Kiwi Farms, or at least not directly. They stopped because of how many people in tech decided that Cloudflare's inaction was unacceptable and decided it wasn't a good look to be a Cloudflare customer. The campaign helped make more people aware, though.
The number of people and companies switching to other services probably scared the poop out of CEO Matthew Prince and and VP Alissa Starzak. That's the reason why Cloudflare dropped Kiwi Farms.
Now Cloudflare acts like they're the victims, using words like "censorship" to get people riled up. Really, they should stop pretending that free speech includes illegal stuff, and that "illegal" is only defined as that activity which is so bad that a jury must be convened and an indictment filed. Anything less than that, according to Cloudflare, should be not only allowed, but protected (and made in to profit, of course).
A lot of Anonymous Coward posts today and a lot of passionate posting.
It also feels like there's a bit more trolling going on considering the content.
I can't say I'm loving the amount of AC posts going on.
Thankfully the mods are keeping on top of stuff without going all Cloudflare on them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
