834
Seems to be a pattern (discuss.online)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://xcancel.com/theliamnissan/status/1939721061710574072#m

The Idaho shooter who killed two fire fighters. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/30/us/idaho-fire-shooter-wess-roley

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -134 points 1 year ago (48 children)

Why are you doxxing people? I get it, they like trump, fuck them. But ultimately putting blame on the parents and showing their faces is fucked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 48 child comments
    •
  • [–] 127 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    Are you serious right now? We live in a time of mass strife brought on by the redcaps. If you dont want your face and name on the internet dont support fascism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [+] -119 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    Ah so it is okay to doxx people according to you

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [+] 122 points 1 year ago (13 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    It is doxxing when you grab a photo and then add information to it saying "these are the parents of the person you hate, go hate them too" and spread it to hundreds of people. And the only reason you don't see it is because you don't like the political party they support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    My definition of doxxing comes from wikipedia and is supported. People here think their opinion of what doxxing is, is real, despite no proof or actual definition. I already went through the definition and shown that this is indeed doxxing. Want to read it, here

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

    And yes, this post contains private information. It contains the information of "these are this guys parents" which would only be known to the select few neighbors at best. Furthermore, it contains information about their political beliefs. So yes, it absolutely is doxxing with the intention of shaming the parents. The info doesn't need to be completely private and hidden - aggregating info from public databases or facebook counts as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Historically, the term has been used to refer to both the aggregation of this information from public databases and social media websites (like Facebook), and the publication of previously private information obtained through criminal or otherwise fraudulent means

    Literal quote from the wikipedia article I linked. It. Is. Doxxing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago*

    Definition from oxford languages, search for and publish private or IDENTIFYING information about an individual, typically with malicious intent.

    You are literally arguing semantics on something that is obviously doxxing because you don't like the fact that someone got doxxed that you don't like. For every definition that doesn't specifically say "identifiable" information, there are three that do. But by all means, you go out and find the ones that let you sleep at night. I'm done with having a "world battle" over something that's despicable behavior.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 74 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    They are sending their masked goons to kidnap people. They should not sleep safe or soundly. I'll make sure to feed your high horse when they come for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Ah yes so the best way to handle that is to doxx parents of a murderer because they are MAGA. That will show the government!

    All you are doing is stooping down to their level and using their tactics against people who didn't have anything to do with the situation other than the fact of "they had a kid".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If you're MAGA, you endorse Jan 6 and support a convicted felon to lead the world.

    Fuck MAGA.

    Fuck these two—in spite of their alleged murderer son.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You don't commit crimes against people because "they support maga". Otherwise what you are doing is legitimizing them committing crimes against you, because you aren't maga. Let the courts handle this, not public opinion, and defo not public opinion aimed at the parents of the perp.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    My point was that their proud wearing of MAGA caps, in my view, renders them deplorable even if their child's killing spree was not in any way their fault. (Which, come on, it almost certainly is.)

    Fuck them in spite of him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    You keep using the word "doxx." I don't think you understand what that word means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Off of wikipedia - it is an act of publically providing personally identifiable information about an individual without their consent

    1. There is their face - personally identifiable
    2. There is "these are the parents of a murderer" which is the additional information.

    And if you read up on the article you will know that "aggregation from public databases and social media" counts too.

    It may be carried out for reasons such as online shaming (...)

    So yeah, this is 100% doxxing, so save me your "oh you don't know what it means" spiel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wow, some folks really do have trouble with the concept of cause and effect, don't they? They gave consent when they publicly posted the pics online.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No, they didn't give consent to have their names and faces shown publicly to people like you who would shame them for the crime of having a kid that grew up and commited murder.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Actually they did when they posted their names and photos publicly to the internet. "Public" doesn't mean only the people that you like.

    Edit: Additionally, I find your "people like you" statement hilarious. You know nothing about me, you're upset that these parents were publicly identified, and you assume my motivations (completely incorrectly.) When something is PUBLICLY posted, that means there are NO restrictions on who sees it. Consent is not qualified by "oh I posted it publicly but not for this group of people I don't like." Public means everyone. Had they posted it PRIVATELY, you'd have an argument. But they did not, so you don't have a valid argument, you're just upset. There's a difference between the two.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Read up on the wikipedia definition of doxxing. It states plainly - it can be done from public databases or from social media, and that the goal is often to shame someone. This fits 100%. Otherwise you could argue that "it's not doxxing, I just went through this guys comments and he slipped up and said that he lives in X city, then posted a photo that let me triangulate his exact location in the city from landmarks". It is doxxing and a criminal act.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    His own parents had no contact orders against him after he made numerous threats on their lives. He was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. He posted radicalized ideas and conspiracy theories on his X account.

    Trumpism is both a disease and a mental disorder, and ignoring your deranged kid because he's too difficult to handle and who obviously has some F***ed up ideas about the world is pretty messed up on their behalf.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Okay, so?

    Does that mean they shouldn't have protective orders out? What should they be doing, forcefully trying to insert themselves into a situation where they are in danger and the kid has shown multiple times he isn't interested / is actually threatening?

    This to me makes it even more fucked up that their faces are being shown like this online.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You aren't very smart. This really the hill you wanna die n? Defending to hide free and open information ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    How is OP "trying to hide" anything? Saying we shouldn't aggregate and publish PII about the parents of a terrorist who have sought legal protection from that person isn't "trying to hide" anything, it's pleading for others to prevent harassment. There's zero evidence that the parents have anything to do with this and some evidence of the opposite, yet the OP is trying to create a link because they share political opinions with the current administration.

    I get it, I strongly dislike Trump and have since I saw him in the primaries back in the 2010s, and I would like nothing more than for every bad thing to be legitimately caused by him and his ideas. But that's not the case, and that doesn't mean every crazy person with a gun was somehow corrupted by parents who likely voted for Trump.

    It's much more likely that the parents did their best to teach the kid respect for first responders (conservatives tend to have a hard-on for police and firefighters), guns, etc, and the kid stumbled onto a manipulative online community at just the wrong time in his life (say, a messy divorce) and that corrupted him. Or maybe it's a classic case of schizophrenia. Idk, but I'm pretty sure his parents' political beliefs are unrelated. This could've happened to a family with progressive views who also happen to like guns, I knew plenty of those growing up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I think most peoples attitudes towards trumpies being 'doxxed' is circumstance. For instance I can make the case that trump voters doxxed every single muslim in the US of A by saying he'd ban them, or the central park 5--even after they were proven innocent--or people of Mexican descent for being rapists. And then voting for the hate filled sack. So its ok to dox the masses but not individuals? How many mass shootings have happened because of that? How many untold number of those minorities were turned town jobs or shunned by society because Trump came down that elevator and said they were 'bad hombres'?

    What goes around comes around is what I think the saying is? Maybe that's why no one shedding any tears for these folks? Just my two cents. But I don't think anyone should feel this way, its all driven by politics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I can make the case that trump voters doxxed every single muslim in the US of A by saying he’d ban them

    That's not doxxing though. Doxxing means deanonymizing an individual by publicly revealing personally identifiable information about them. Saying, "you should hate this group because X, Y, and Z" isn't doxxing unless you also provide PII about the individuals in that group, it's "just" hate speech.

    But I don’t think anyone should feel this way, its all driven by politics.

    Agreed. Hating someone because of group affiliation is always bad, whether that's a racial or political group.

    Do you really want to live in a society where it's acceptable to hate someone based purely on who they voted for? I sure don't. I've met good and bad people across the political spectrum, so judging people based on party affiliation is a terrible way to go about things.

    I'm absolutely on board with protesting Trump and his policies, I'm not on board with jumping on people because they voted for the guy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    ...is this even doxxing? There's nothing personally identifying that isn't already public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You are putting their faces in the public to hundreds / thousands of people, telling them "go hate these people". Yes, it is doxxing. This will lead to crazies harassing them. You can also reverse image search them to directly find them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It's reverse image searchable in part because you can also search "Wess Roley parents" and it's right there.

    The 'that isn't already public' part of my comment is kinda important- this information and this image is already public, so posting it isn't doxxing anyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    As I said multiple times - doxxing can use public databases and social media to gather that information. Read the wikipedia definition, it is right there.

    Imagine a vtuber posting a photo on their private facebook. Then their neighbors grabbing that photo, knowing they are said vtuber, going to the fandom, linking the photo as "this is the vtuber, they live at XYZ". Would you still go "oh that's not doxxing, they posted their faces on the internet that one time!"? Of course you wouldn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    In phycology it's usually the parents that fuck their kids up. I see it all the time. If they had turbulent marriage then the kid had a turbulent life.

    From CNN

    “Court documents show that Roley had a tumultuous family life growing up. His mother filed for divorce in September 2015, when her son was 10 years old, and wrote in court documents that her husband had threatened her, pushed her to the ground, and “punched several holes in the walls.”

    “He threatened to sit outside my house with a sniper rifle or burn my house down,” she wrote.

    A judge granted a protective order preventing Roley’s father from having contact with his wife or son, but later amended the order to remove the son after his father wrote in a court filing that “I am not a danger to my son or anyone else” and that his wife “did not tell the truth in her statement.”

    The divorce was granted in November 2015, and Roley’s mother was designated as his “primary residential parent.”

    Sometimes the kids are just dicks though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •