General Discussion

Kurska

(5,739 posts)

112. As stupid, heartless, idiotic and cruel as what 4chan is doing

Tue Sep 23, 2014, 07:37 PM

Sep 2014

Putting is on the same level of genocide (which ISIS is guilty of) is asinine. 4chan is to isis as shoplifter is to home invader. You're also assuming 4chan is some sort of organized force with central direction or at minimum organized sub-units. 4chan is just another online forum (with admittedly has a fairly vile userbase) of whom 99.999999999999% haven't ever hacked anyone. All you're doing is mythologizing them in a way, which only encourages other bad actors to seek attention.

"4chan" isn't any more capable of doing anything than reddit or even du is. There is no official 4chan twitter threatening her, it is users who individually do it and then sometimes post on 4chan about it.

4chan has TWENTY MILLION unique users a month. Calling them all terrorists because of tiny fraction of them is absolutely ridiculous.

Funnily enough, we have a thread howling about how bad 4chan is, yet more often than not talking about the threat of ISIS is met with laughter and derision.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

294 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Terrorists of 4chan [View all] riqster Sep 2014 OP

Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women seabeyond Sep 2014 #1

and thank you for clarifying the definition of terrorism. we found people needed the definition. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #2

a tool. a weapon. shame, humiliate, degrade women thru their sexuality. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #3

Too many people have a limited definition of terror. riqster Sep 2014 #6

thank you. your post is excellent in insight. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #7

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #9

as i am continually kicked off the board, in no shame at all. regardless how others would like me seabeyond Sep 2014 #10

No worries, that poster has been auto-removed! nt alp227 Sep 2014 #145

and there you go. lmao. why would i give a shit. lol. thanks for heads up. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #146

A perfect summation of the message. riqster Sep 2014 #11

i suggest he may be a .... well. that he gives the choice in seriousness. seabeyond Sep 2014 #12

Well, I alerted, just in case. riqster Sep 2014 #14

lol. i forget that tool sometimes. lets see. someone so obvious easily gets the boot, seabeyond Sep 2014 #18

It was done quickly. Yay MIRT! riqster Sep 2014 #28

yep. btw. i think your OP/thread is awesome in thought. big thumbs up. seabeyond Sep 2014 #30

Thanks back atcha. I learn a lot from your posts. riqster Sep 2014 #32

How does one become a member of 4chan? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #4

Go read and post? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #5

Ah 4chan, the jnternets' equivalent of international waters. Initech Sep 2014 #8

Never went there. And after this, I sure as Hell never will. riqster Sep 2014 #49

Yeah same here. Initech Sep 2014 #58

I have. At it's best it's dreck with the occasional flash of genius Warpy Sep 2014 #101

Uck. My stomach wouldn't survive the experience. riqster Sep 2014 #102

I haven't been back in over a year Warpy Sep 2014 #103

Oh great, even progressive have started calling anything they don't like "terrorism" Taitertots Sep 2014 #13

or... one can actually read the definition and use the word appropriately. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #15

Are you going to post the definition? Taitertots Sep 2014 #29

ok. so? seabeyond Sep 2014 #31

You are ignoring the definition and using it inappropriately Taitertots Sep 2014 #35

i disagree with you. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #37

And you used the wrong definition, as I point out down thread. riqster Sep 2014 #39

"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." ieoeja Sep 2014 #106

Nice post. riqster Sep 2014 #107

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #139

The definition sounds spot on to me. yardwork Sep 2014 #286

I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com riqster Sep 2014 #38

Save that real terrorists actually kill and bomb to promote... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #164

No, that is your own definition of a terrorist. riqster Sep 2014 #168

Trolls don't use terror. DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #173

ya. they do. i have had enough trolls use threats, throwing out sexist slurs, ect.... seabeyond Sep 2014 #175

Read the definition. riqster Sep 2014 #182

You are relying purely on the 'frightens others' definition; but she wasn't frightened muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #202

because she was not intimidate does not negate a threat and a message to women on the net. seabeyond Sep 2014 #203

I don't think it is common to say you're going to post naked pictures of someone muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #205

The normal usage of the term is part of the problem. riqster Sep 2014 #208

Oh, rubbish - I'm talking about the normal use in the English language as a whole muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #209

to terrorize a person or group. what does that look like to you? in "normal" usage. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #210

People in fear of their life or significant physical harm (nt) muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #214

that is your only definition of terrorizing a person? a very narrow usage. seabeyond Sep 2014 #217

So, apart from this ridiculous application to Emma Watson, in what other situation muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #219

i think our girls that are isolated, raped by groups, videod, distributed as porn, are terrorized seabeyond Sep 2014 #220

Rape is physical harm, but terrorism is also about more than physical harm muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #223

create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror. seabeyond Sep 2014 #225

You've put your problem in bold; "a civilian population" muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #232

i give you the relevant highlights that contradict your narrow definition. seabeyond Sep 2014 #233

No, I'm saying what you did put in bold contradicts your position muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #238

the intent is to silence all women in going after watson and other women consistently, constantly seabeyond Sep 2014 #239

No, I am saying that your "normal use" definition is wrong. riqster Sep 2014 #212

Just using the dictionary definition. riqster Sep 2014 #19

Oh great. Even a progressive doesn't understand that denying women a voice pnwmom Sep 2014 #44

+1 LostInAnomie Sep 2014 #75

So 4Chan's threats towards Emma Watson are "things we don't like" alp227 Sep 2014 #149

Oh great, those who consistently take the right-wing stance on every issue on this board are upset. Ikonoklast Sep 2014 #170

So, then, according to that definition... Bragi Sep 2014 #16

wow. you do not think in degrees. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #20

Both are using threats as a coercive measure. riqster Sep 2014 #22

Yes, they are the same. "Terrorism" is a method, not a specific action. DetlefK Sep 2014 #24

Well said. riqster Sep 2014 #27

A terrorist could threaten to blow up a building. Even if the building is empty of people, pnwmom Sep 2014 #45

Blackmail does not equal terrorism Bragi Sep 2014 #80

This isn't blackmail. No one's asking for money. They're trying to silence her with personal pnwmom Sep 2014 #82

Blackmail doesn't require a financial demand Bragi Sep 2014 #85

Blackmail is personal KitSileya Sep 2014 #118

Per the definition provided and cited, it's a terrorist act. riqster Sep 2014 #83

Your definition is wrong Bragi Sep 2014 #86

Do you think that individuals cannot be the targets of terrorist acts? riqster Sep 2014 #87

it is using blinders to define. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #89

It's easier for some people. nt riqster Sep 2014 #90

"a prime example of misinfirmation" Bragi Sep 2014 #91

You don't accept a bog-standard definition of a simple word? riqster Sep 2014 #93

Ever noticed this? Bragi Sep 2014 #99

Respectfully, the dictionary is the agreed-upon source for definitions. riqster Sep 2014 #100

the implicit minimisation of the crime? Bragi Sep 2014 #111

Dictionaries are not tyrannical. They are important reference works that help us communicate. riqster Sep 2014 #186

It's seems, young men in online-communities are especially pretentious, whiny women-haters: DetlefK Sep 2014 #17

Taylor Swift said ... seabeyond Sep 2014 #23

Disgusting. No one should have to deal with that. riqster Sep 2014 #98

The goal is to waste the energies of the target so they can't participate at a higher level, freshwest Sep 2014 #151

An excellent post. Thank you! riqster Sep 2014 #152

Then explain... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #162

More victim-blaming, misogynistic tripe. riqster Sep 2014 #213

I work in IT, and there is lot of that. riqster Sep 2014 #26

That "socially inept" excuse is getting old. malthaussen Sep 2014 #40

i am in. i agree. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #42

Indeed, I am not making the argument. Thanks for acknowledging that. riqster Sep 2014 #46

As a tactic, I favor insulting their intellects. malthaussen Sep 2014 #51

In some cases, it can work. riqster Sep 2014 #57

Intellectual arrogance can cut both ways, though. malthaussen Sep 2014 #66

I don't offer it as a dialogue. Company policy dictates non-hostile work environments. riqster Sep 2014 #67

Okay, now I'm really envious. malthaussen Sep 2014 #70

last sentence... such a good question. excellent. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #72

Yeah, I hope he catches it, it was an edit. n/t malthaussen Sep 2014 #76

One of those rare cases where company policy is on the side of the angels. riqster Sep 2014 #73

agreed ! nt steve2470 Sep 2014 #115

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #140

4Chan is a safe haven for nasty, obscene little boys MineralMan Sep 2014 #21

respectfully, i am done giving this behavior to little boys. even in man form. it has become an seabeyond Sep 2014 #25

Good point - I also see a lot of bad behavior described as "adolescent" behavior hedgehog Sep 2014 #33

Nasty and obscene are the keywords. MineralMan Sep 2014 #34

yes. Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #84

Agreed. I have a little boy who has a precious heart. prayin4rain Sep 2014 #36

Nice broad brush you got there TransitJohn Sep 2014 #114

Whatever you say... MineralMan Sep 2014 #128

Oh, okay then, continue with your prejudice. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #153

Thats because they've never been... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #163

I guess we'll see, but I think y'all are getting trolled. fbc Sep 2014 #41

having a thought out and insightful conversation is not being trolled. regardless of the outcome. seabeyond Sep 2014 #43

I think it a worthwhile convo in any event. riqster Sep 2014 #47

Uhhh yup. VScott Sep 2014 #48

welcome to du vscott seabeyond Sep 2014 #52

Thank you. VScott Sep 2014 #109

Good call. JVS Sep 2014 #122

I think it was just under a decade ago... Blue_Adept Sep 2014 #50

no. bush defined only brown skinned people terrorists. there were plenty of seabeyond Sep 2014 #54

I think it was just under ten minutes ago when members here would trivialize and minimize actions... LanternWaste Sep 2014 #59

Internet you don't make eye contact with. Marr Sep 2014 #53

Sounds right. A road accident that people gawk at. riqster Sep 2014 #62

Parts of 4chan have been the hellholes of the internets hifiguy Sep 2014 #55

No doubt. But being aware of the hellholes is a good idea all by itself. riqster Sep 2014 #63

Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #165

Terrorizing people makes the perp a terrorist. riqster Sep 2014 #167

Labeling trolls on the internet diminishes the actions of real terrorists... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #172

Read the definition. The shoe fits. riqster Sep 2014 #180

LOL. JTFrog Sep 2014 #194

was he banned? he did well to stay quiet for a while. got overconfident. interesting. thanks. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #197

Yes indeed. n/t JTFrog Sep 2014 #200

His other posts remain on the thread. riqster Sep 2014 #215

i am not opposed to a good smack down and understanding of his positions. it behooves us all, seabeyond Sep 2014 #218

Not all trolls! Recursion Sep 2014 #56

OK, that's funny. Or... riqster Sep 2014 #60

Exactly (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #61

Yeah I read about it that ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #64

Stupid can still be dangerous. riqster Sep 2014 #65

Totally agree ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #68

When stupid is gathered in groups hifiguy Sep 2014 #77

Heh! ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #88

Not to nitpick, but I think it's "exponentially". riqster Sep 2014 #95

You are correct and thanks for the catch. hifiguy Sep 2014 #96

Indeed it does. riqster Sep 2014 #97

What a dismal, dismal site. marble falls Sep 2014 #69

It's an International Cultural Complex daredtowork Sep 2014 #71

example, revenge porn. how many participate that did not set it up. +1 to your post. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #74

Yep. daredtowork Sep 2014 #78

4chan IS relevant as an individual case of gender terrorism. riqster Sep 2014 #79

It's absolutely relevant daredtowork Sep 2014 #81

I'm sure the folks at 4chan NobodyHere Sep 2014 #92

They have a good understanding of how to use the law as a shield. riqster Sep 2014 #94

4chan is a cesspool of jerks... Agschmid Sep 2014 #104

So the fact that they are threatening Emma Watson is just boys being jerks? riqster Sep 2014 #108

I said no such thing. Agschmid Sep 2014 #117

I am sorry that I hurt you. I responded to what you wrote in response to my OP. riqster Sep 2014 #119

Thanks for the response, sometimes my short replies get me in trouble. Agschmid Sep 2014 #127

I hear you. Being laconic has caused me some issues as well. riqster Sep 2014 #129

this is the point. we really need to update our criminal code, to allow this to be a crime. seabeyond Sep 2014 #130

I agree. Agschmid Sep 2014 #131

DU Kurska Sep 2014 #105

I consider both groups to be terrorist organizations, albeit with different methods and foci. riqster Sep 2014 #110

As stupid, heartless, idiotic and cruel as what 4chan is doing Kurska Sep 2014 #112

That is a misreading of my post, coupled with an unjust attribution. riqster Sep 2014 #120

No you said 4chan is a terrorist organization. Kurska Sep 2014 #154

HAH hilarious Kurska Sep 2014 #155

Read the post of yours to which I responded: riqster Sep 2014 #166

Oh lord Kurska Sep 2014 #171

So it's OK to commit terroristic acts as long as it is a smear campaign? riqster Sep 2014 #179

No, it is wrong to call innocent people terrorists or accuse them of harboring them. Kurska Sep 2014 #184

The marketing firm used 4chan to promulgate its terroristic material. riqster Sep 2014 #206

4chan is no more responsible than twitter. Kurska Sep 2014 #221

Correct, because I have not insulted anyone except those who sent the threats. riqster Sep 2014 #241

Ahem Kurska Sep 2014 #243

Rantic Media doesn't give two shits about 4Chan,they aren't sufrommich Sep 2014 #181

Regardless of the motive. Kurska Sep 2014 #185

and, regardless of the motive, this woman was attacked on the net with the weapon seabeyond Sep 2014 #187

Which no one is contending is right or okay. Kurska Sep 2014 #222

bullshit. i linked to a di thread, of du men, with different names, who... do not give a shit. seabeyond Sep 2014 #227

We're talking bout DU, this thread. Kurska Sep 2014 #229

lol. du men. bubba. du men. and they do not care. cause the very men have to pretend here..... seabeyond Sep 2014 #231

I see absolutely no one I recongize Kurska Sep 2014 #235

4chan was used to do this. riqster Sep 2014 #211

No 4chan is a website with a userbase and you can't prove that userbase sent anything. Kurska Sep 2014 #224

I have been in IT since the the 70's, and know a bit about how the Internet works. riqster Sep 2014 #246

You're really just demonstrating your lack of knowledge about 4chan at this point Kurska Sep 2014 #247

Since you keep changing your "explanation" of the technology, there isn't much point in this. riqster Sep 2014 #250

Um, this isn't about any particular aspect of technology. Kurska Sep 2014 #254

Such rot. You fail to explain how I was wrong, and to answer my post. riqster Sep 2014 #255

I thought you were done responding though. Kurska Sep 2014 #256

Thanks... freshwest Sep 2014 #113

VR terrorism. Thanks, someone had to speak up about 4chan. Rex Sep 2014 #116

S'truth. Thanks. riqster Sep 2014 #125

These nasty little 4chan kids also plan campaigns via IRC channels intaglio Sep 2014 #121

But they aren't wearing turbans or blowing shit up, so supposedly they aren't terrorists. riqster Sep 2014 #126

It appears the terrorists you decry are as phony as Bush's yellowcake. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #123

They acted in a terroristic fashion. They are terrorists. QED. riqster Sep 2014 #124

You realize the threat to Ms. Watson was a viral marketing campaign, yes? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #133

why is this the new meme? why is there such a push from some men to take over the conversation seabeyond Sep 2014 #134

The threat itself was a false flag. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #138

yet the point you, others totally ignore is that they did it because this is what 4chan and the net seabeyond Sep 2014 #141

Well put. Doing a terroristic act for other purposes doesn't take away the terrorizing behavior. riqster Sep 2014 #150

Using misogyny and terror for marketing? That is not exculpatory. riqster Sep 2014 #135

The title of this thread is the terrorists of 4chan AngryAmish Sep 2014 #137

Using terroristic tactics for another purpose does not change the terroristic nature. riqster Sep 2014 #142

So does it matter at all to you that you identified the wrong "terrorists" Kurska Sep 2014 #158

Exactly. The unwilingess in this thread to acknowledge the error is silly and sad. nt. Hosnon Sep 2014 #285

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #132

TY. riqster Sep 2014 #136

the daily beast is posting it was a hoax to get the website shutdown GusBob Sep 2014 #143

The behavior described in the OP is not changed by the disclosure. riqster Sep 2014 #144

marketer is still a fucking terrorizing motherfucker who should be locked up for a long time, with n seabeyond Sep 2014 #147

I wish it were that obvious. Sadly, it appears not to be. riqster Sep 2014 #148

Sooo, you gonna apologize to 4chan for calling them a terrorist organization? Kurska Sep 2014 #157

Exactly. Both groups of men attacked high profile females for their own purposes. pnwmom Sep 2014 #160

Looks like you got punked Kurska Sep 2014 #156

Not really. Emma Watson WAS terrorized, but by a different group of "pranksters." pnwmom Sep 2014 #159

Rantic media claims this was a smear campaign on 4chan Kurska Sep 2014 #174

"buyint it" would be buying the line it was about going after 4chan. they did it for clicks. $. seabeyond Sep 2014 #176

A group of anonymous creeps targeted a high profile woman. It doesn't matter which group pnwmom Sep 2014 #199

Yeah these "terrorists" comparable to the KKK LittleBlue Sep 2014 #188

wrong. that is the meme others are trying to create. wrong. because.... seabeyond Sep 2014 #190

The purpose of the threat was to shut down 4chan LittleBlue Sep 2014 #191

No, the purpose of the threat was to make money: sufrommich Sep 2014 #192

Your links don't contradict that 4chan was targeted LittleBlue Sep 2014 #195

"this was not targeted at Emma Watson." watson was very much the target. seabeyond Sep 2014 #198

What? Dr. Strange Sep 2014 #196

Yes, that's what Rantic "claimed" it's aim was. sufrommich Sep 2014 #201

regardless the motive or intent. that does not matter. a WOMAN was THREATENED seabeyond Sep 2014 #193

Bingo. riqster Sep 2014 #216

So it doesn't matter that you guys targeted the wrong people? Kurska Sep 2014 #228

i did not target anyone, being hte net, i am clueless. i have ONE argument. a woman was THREATENED seabeyond Sep 2014 #230

Throughout this entire thread you've ridden shotgun to the OP, who continues to attack a victim. Kurska Sep 2014 #234

a whole lot of straw seabeyond Sep 2014 #236

What facts are you disputing? Kurska Sep 2014 #237

Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women seabeyond Sep 2014 #240

And if that cause is so important to you Kurska Sep 2014 #242

Wow... DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #161

No, actually I'm not. riqster Sep 2014 #169

calling these misogynistic motherfuckers out seabeyond Sep 2014 #177

You mean completely the wrong people whose name was used in a money making stunt? Kurska Sep 2014 #226

That's our society as it exists today. We're much better off with open & free 'internet speech' Sunlei Sep 2014 #178

The first amendment. A good thing, really. riqster Sep 2014 #183

says someone who is not being attacked, threatened to shut up? ya. so fuggin much better seabeyond Sep 2014 #189

open chats have always been this way. yes there are online 'bullies' and plenty of smack talkers. Sunlei Sep 2014 #204

HA. truly a smile. k, see, i am not gonna line by line, correct you. why bother. right? nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #207

4chan should be raided and shut down by the DOJ mwrguy Sep 2014 #244

It was a hoax. Kurska Sep 2014 #245

Sigh. Semi-literate people should not try to pose as experts on the Intertubez. riqster Sep 2014 #248

Hmm, I really don't see why you have to make this personal. Kurska Sep 2014 #249

This one was mwrguy Sep 2014 #251

oops. looks like your op with all of those triggers and righteous rhetoric Doctor_J Sep 2014 #252

Take a gander Kurska Sep 2014 #253

Nope. Read through the thread carefully. I called out the users. riqster Sep 2014 #259

I don't know a lot about photography... NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #257

The actual creation of fake images has been held as legal in some cases. But it's not just images. riqster Sep 2014 #258

I would be very surprised to see anyone prosecuted... NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #262

Again, the images themselves are not the issue. riqster Sep 2014 #263

Okay, well I guess we'll see how it plays out. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #264

If it proceeds as usual, nothing will be done. riqster Sep 2014 #265

and the meme is here. i called it. within an hour that it began. and the meme is here. seabeyond Sep 2014 #268

a white wash, and a re write. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #269

Oops. Hoax. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #260

Nope. The acts were terroristic in nature, regardless of the motivation behind them. riqster Sep 2014 #261

Not only were you sexist towards men: "needle-d***ed, wussy" Hosnon Sep 2014 #266

Bollocks. The behavior called out has not changed as a result of the disclosures. riqster Sep 2014 #267

Of course not. But "4chan" didn't do it. Hosnon Sep 2014 #281

I did not say that every 4chan user was involved. riqster Sep 2014 #292

and YET the woman was still threatened. and YET women across the net heard the message LOUD and seabeyond Sep 2014 #270

Ah, but Sea, that is not the point. riqster Sep 2014 #271

man uses women in whatever way, as means of $, mancard, manhood, for dominance, seabeyond Sep 2014 #272

OR, the net will threatens. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #273

Minor quibble: riqster Sep 2014 #274

quibble away. i am disagreeing with you. the net accomplished this, and is creating this. and of seabeyond Sep 2014 #275

every single person that participated, be it the men in this thread, redirecting it from a threat to seabeyond Sep 2014 #276

and the net, needs to just keep saying.... no!. you and i, buddy. seabeyond Sep 2014 #277

I see that as the fault of those who refuse to admit they were trolled. Hosnon Sep 2014 #284

I see this as the acts of individuals, using the net. riqster Sep 2014 #278

so many participated. every man that ignore, dismissed and marginalized. media that promoted and seabeyond Sep 2014 #279

Wait...so now the people who IGNORED the trolls are also responsible? NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #288

But not by "4chan". Hosnon Sep 2014 #282

All true. A lot of people got played on this. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #280

Nothing wrong with shifting blame to the proper party. Hosnon Sep 2014 #283

Agreed, but I still think the term "terrorist"... NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #287

I agree with that too. The term should not be used lightly. nt. Hosnon Sep 2014 #289

4chan is the ISIS of the internet. rug Sep 2014 #290

I'd disagree: some 4chan users are terrorists. riqster Sep 2014 #293

That is a poor definition of terrorism Harmony Blue Sep 2014 #291

Disagree, in this case: it was political. riqster Sep 2014 #294