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
[–] 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
    •