[yanderekko]

>Doxxing an innocent person minding their own business because you don't like their race, gender orientation, or sexuality, is entirely different from doxxing someone in retaliation for their bad actions.

So we've just gone mask off to "doxxing is good when we do it."

[softcactus]

It's ok to arrest someone in the act of attacking another person. It's not ok to arrest someone standing on the side of the street looking at their phone.

If you can understand the distinction above, you should be able to understand the difference with Taylor Lorenz vs Libs of Tiktok. Unless you're operating in bad faith or just trying to be a contrarian in which case, more power to you.

[yanderekko]

>It's ok to arrest someone in the act of attacking another person.

Yes, if we're talking about actual physical assault and not mere criticism. Are you actually arguing that Lorenz prevented imminent acts of physical violence through her doxxing? Because this doesn't pass the laugh test unless you're relying on the usual vague "stocastic terrorism" arguments that are used to justify censoring pretty much any culturally conservative speech.

[ec109685]

She was a celebrity on talk shows who runs an extremely popular Twitter account that makes extremely disingenuous posts to bring furry on the people she didn’t agree with.

Releasing who she is was fine.

If a Ku Klux clan member had a very popular anonymous YouTube channel making fun of black people and bragging about it on Tucker Carlson, is it journalism to investigate and share where they work and who they are?

[yanderekko]

Maybe, but I wouldn't modulate whether or not it's journalism based on the partisan affiliation of the doxxing target.

[softcactus]

It's not based on partisan affiliation, I never said anything of the sort. I said bad actions/bad actors.

The fact that you assumed I was talking about targeting conservatives just goes to show that they happen to be the ones rocking the boat with violent rhetoric, which occasionally gets backed up by actions.

[yanderekko]

>It's not based on partisan affiliation, I never said anything of the sort. I said bad actions/bad actors.

This is just shifting the partisan question-begging to the notion of "bad actions/bad actors." Why not just embrace the "doxxing is good when we do it" point that I originally made?

[softcactus]

> Yes, if we're talking about actual physical assault and not mere criticism. Are you actually arguing that Lorenz prevented imminent acts of physical violence through her doxxing?

Yes.

> vague "stocastic terrorism" arguments that are used to justify censoring pretty much any culturally conservative speech.

The arguments aren't vague when mass killers have mentioned right-wing talking heads in their manifestos and suicide notes. Maybe conservatives (people of all political affiliations actually) should watch what they say instead of crying when they face consequences for their speech, no?

[yanderekko]

Plenty of mass killers have cited left-wing sources as well. Demanding that people of all political affiliations self-censor based on vague and unprovable stochastic terrorism claims is an obvious nonstarter and I believe its apparent support is simply due to a (perhaps justified) tribalistic belief that such censorship will be demanded of one's enemies to a disproportionate extent than it's demanded of one's self.

[softcactus]

Yes, if a left wing agitator is rallying their followers to violence, they should face some sort of consequences, and they often have throughout the 20th century. It's not hard to find examples of American three-letter agencies targeting radical leftists. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.