- cross-posted to:
- antifa
- cross-posted to:
- antifa
You must log in or # to comment.
nazis are such fucking cowards. believe all the shit in stonetoss comics? shout it with your full chest. own it. state your views, with your real name, in your real life.
See what the world really thinks of these fuckhead nazis.
Name and shame.
My favorite part is how scared Hans Kristian Graebener (who wrote Stonetoss, the neo-nazi cartoon) was of having his identity exposed, and it was a nationalist right-wing social media leak that did it because they know nothing about infosec.
So in addition to being cowards, they’re also idiots.
It’s not just cowardice. It’s also strategy. There are many Americans out there who hate Nazis but support fascist beliefs as long as they aren’t coming from Nazis. There are many social media moderators out there who will immediately ban self-admitted Nazis but approve of fascist posts and beliefs - this is especially common on modern Reddit where the most important thing is not to scare off advertisers. So Neo-Nazis online learned a long, long time ago to hide their power level, so they can keep posting fascist shit without being banned and gradually radicalize people into agreeing with them.
It’s also cowardice, of course. I’ve found cowards are often authoritarians. They feel more secure with a “big man” backing them. It’s why bullies at school attack their targets in gangs and then run to the teacher to cry if the target fights back. And it’s also why teachers typically take the bully’s side and punish the target for fighting back. Cowardly authoritarians gravitate to careers that give them power over children, and they protect their own.
(Now that I write that, there seems to be a clear parallel with Stonetoss spewing vile shit at minorities for like a decade and running to Elon the minute he faces any personal consequences for his hate. Fascists gonna fash, I guess.)
Last week, the previously unknown individual behind a popular neo-Nazi web comic known as Stonetoss was identified on Twitter/X by antifascist researchers from the Anonymous Comrades Collective. This was followed by a concentrated campaign by Twitter/X staff to suppress any post on the website that revealed the alleged name of Stonetoss— with journalists, researchers, and the antifascist collective themselves all being targeted with suspensions and account locks. The campaign was personally requested by Stonetoss to Twitter/X owner Elon Musk, who has been under fire as of late for positively engaging with and defending countless other neo-Nazi accounts as well.
I can see how this might violate some policy against doxxing individuals, but it’s remarkable how consistently Elon Musk just happens to find himself defending neo-Nazis while silencing the left.
Right-wing cancel culture at its finest
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have a policy against doxxing on online spaces. As long as it is enforced consistently.
I don’t use or follow the details of Twitter nonsense very closely so I have no idea if this is the case.
It’s not the case.
Not very surprising. I have no idea why their user base hasn’t left yet.
When a consistent enforcement of a policy protects neo nazis the policy needs to get evaluated tho
Open to that discussion but doxxing can be dangerous for some people more than others. Overall I see more downside than upside on large platforms. If it is allowed, I would expect more innocents/good people to be harmed than neonazis. And as we can see here, there are plenty of other spaces for this type of information to be shared.
Of course, since Elon Musk decides their policies and we don’t, it’s a bit of a moot point.
Absolutely any policy that protects people can protect neo nazis. If a platform wants someone gone for being a dickwad, they can just ban them (not that that’s gonna happen to nazis on twitter). Questioning sensible rules because they happen to protect bad people sometimes is some dystopian shit. It’s the same line of argument as wanting to ban e2e encryption to scan messages for csam.
Doxxing is a crime in some places, only selectively enforcing that would be quite the problem.
The stuff he posts publicly already does that.
Wow what a vile human
im neither shocked or supprised about any of this. was only a matter of time until something like this would happen
I’m seeing some discussion in the comments about the ethics of doxxing in this case and I would like to discuss that. I believe that doxxing this individual is ethical if the goal is a more tolerant and equitable society.
Is it generally ethical to shoot people with guns to kill them? Generally not, I think we can all agree. What about shooting the SS soldier who has come to murder you and your loved ones? What about shooting the SS soldier who has come to your neighborhood not to murder you or your loved ones but one of your neighbors? In these cases most people who are not SS officers will agree these are acceptable times to kill. It’s still a terrible thing to kill someone regardless of the circumstances, but in these instances there weren’t other options. The reason there weren’t other options is that the Nazi party created an environment where certain groups of people had no option other than to escape by any means necessary.
The above example of appropriate uses of violence is further down the line than what we are discussing here, which is an attempt to establish the kind of society described above. It is a moral imperative to stop this attempt. Fortunately we live in a society where it is generally unacceptable to be a Nazi even among the right (regardless of that they would support it if it was not traditionally hated). Doxxing in this case ties an identity to the propaganda, subverting the anonymity which although in many cases is valuable was abused in this case and should have been revoked as it has been.
There is no moral equivalence here of the reverse. If an anonymous individual had a reputation for speaking controversial truths for pro-social purposes, for example condemning the genocide currently being carried out by the state of Israel as an Israeli citizen, and was doxxed so that they would be silenced the effect is a world with fewer challenges to these kinds of atrocities. Where doxxing the Nazi resulted in the reduction of the promotion of a violent ideology, doxxing the activist resulted in less reduction of a violent ideology. While there are definitely ethical gray areas and plenty of disagreement, there is plenty of agreement for good reason that promoting Nazi ideology is not in a gray area. Just as it would be inappropriate to denounce killing in the context of those defending themselves from Nazis, it is inappropriate to denounce the doxxing of a Nazi to prevent the promotion of the kind of culture which Nazis desire.
I agree with your argument, but would like to add something about this part
Is it generally ethical to shoot people with guns to kill them? Generally not, I think we can all agree. What about shooting the SS soldier who has come to murder you and your loved ones? What about shooting the SS soldier who has come to your neighborhood not to murder you or your loved ones but one of your neighbors? In these cases most people who are not SS officers will agree these are acceptable times to kill. It’s still a terrible thing to kill someone regardless of the circumstances, but in these instances there weren’t other options. The reason there weren’t other options is that the Nazi party created an environment where certain groups of people had no option other than to escape by any means necessary.
Firing shots at the SS officier to protect someone is not the same action as executing someone (which is ehat the SS officer is planning in your example). Yes firing shots might kill them, but its not necessarily the goal of that action. I think there is a big difference between doing violence with the intent to kill and doing violence with the intent to stop, chase of or scare away.
That difference is why I agree with the “by any means necessary” sentiment of militant antifascism.
This is a great point. The intent in either case is to avoid violence even in the case violence was used as a means of escape. Hans Graebener wasn’t doxed because of a hate campaign against people like him, he was doxxed because he was fueling a hate campaign against vulnerable people. This is a defensive act.
I hate it when any of this asshole’s drawings get meme’d, even when the captions are changed, I don’t even look, just downvote so it doesn’t appear again whenever I refresh the homescreen, and move on. The less attention given to this fonne stoss tonssing-type mental illness, the better for societal health as a whole.
deleted by creator
