New Hampshire homes: “Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.”

submitted by Chipit from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Is this the first election where that's happened, or does this kind of thing happen often? It's, what, 20% of the population who've been given threats on their safety based on how they vote?

… Isn't that illegal?

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Those are fake.
But feel free to investigate it more.

It is not in line with any of the Proud boys principles to do threats that.
But it is in line with the extreme left principles to spread these as black propaganda or hoax "hate-crimes".
And they have been openly threatening to attack trump voters. And actually do it.

[–]turtlew0rk 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why did I have to scroll down so far to see anyone question this silly bullshit? So if Trump does not concede power the solution to that is to burn down the homes of those who voted for him, but only before fair warning to make sure they have a homeowners policy (which is mandatory to have) that covers fire damage (which is the only thing that literally all of them already cover) is in place?

Seems like insurance fraud more so than a military strategy and makes me doubt if people actually know what a civil war even is.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Who cares if it was spread as propaganda? These were sent to a large subset of Democrat voters in Florida; it will have an effect on voting, regardless of what other effect it was intended to have.

Why is one instance of voter-threatening an issue, but another not?

[–]battering-ram 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why would this be sent to Democrats as this letter clearly expresses hatred towards Trump which the Democrats are in favor of.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry; I mixed the parties up. I was talking about the one fake-from the Proud Boys.

[–]battering-ram 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ah! that makes sense. I agree with what you are saying man

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's easy enough to dismiss a spam email as low-energy "foreign interference" hoaxers or whatever, but it's quite another thing to have an actual paper notice posted by an actual person to your actual house.

I mean, these might both still be hoaxes. But if that paper one exists, even as a hoax, it's far more threatening.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

True.

Then again, the paper one would've been pretty localised (there's a limit to how many pieces of paper you can put through letterboxes), whereas there's no reason to think the email one would've gone to anything less than everyone in the database.

Which is worse? Few people × very threatening, or many people × less threatening? I think the answer here's obvious: there is at yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When posted on the internet, that photo of the physical piece of paper with a staple torn out of it does psychological wonders though.

It doesn't have to be sent to your personal inbox where you can dismiss it as spam. You just have to see it, and think damn.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hmm… But wouldn't photos of the paper make people think “we can't let them threaten us” and vote for the threatened-against? So you've got a localised prevention but a national boon… this is making my head hurt. Too much to think about.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

officialproudboys.com doesn't exist, so it's probably spoofed. You should stop using Google, it doesn't have protection against hackers. I use protonmail, and it takes extensive measures to protect you from not only spoofing, but also dangerous scripts such as trackers that utilize remote content.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It used to exist; they lost control of the domain recently. (Though other people think it was a homoglyph attack.)

And yeah, it was spoofed via a compromised saudi-re.com account. The point isn't that it was the Proud Boys (as little as I like them, the organisation probably wasn't responsible); the point is that potential voters were threatened. This will reduce the number of targets who vote, regardless of who was responsible.

I also use ProtonMail, but only because I haven't got a self-hosted system set up yet. I don't think ProtonMail is as confidential as they claim; I only use them because they (probably) don't sell my data to advertisers, and because GoogleMail doesn't block emails from it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, okay.

[–]battering-ram 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Might be a Domain issue because it's available on the Internet Archive.

http://web.archive.org/web/20201017034735/https://officialproudboys.com/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, it is. But if it's not currently up, then how can an email be sent from there? Or maybe just the webpage is down but other ports are still open?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Even the “Proud Boys” are doing this? I thought they weren’t radicals, everything I’ve seen makes it look like the protest peacefully and watch the protests to prevent violence. I knew they were aligned with Trump, nonetheless I guess I was wrong. Never really looked into them anyway, just liked their polos as I love Fred Perry.

Not surprising though. It’s so funny how all these people think they’re fighting for “democracy” when they’re trying to threaten people into voting for certain candidates.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think proud boys are threatening people. Those papers are likely fake. You can even ask them.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We did some sleuthing (by “we”, I mean other-people-but-I-was-there-too) and it turns out that that's a copycat domain. So it's not the Proud Boys. It probably is members of the organisation, but the domain shouldn't be considered evidence that the leaders are involved.

Organisations can't really be divided into “radicals” and “not radicals” like that. There's a heuristic I came up with to work out how likely it is for certain people to promote violence against innocents (roughly determined by how well they uphold a certain set of philosophies) – but I'm not certain how good the heuristic is, because in addition to (retroactively) predicting the usual horribleness, it also says I'm much more likely to cause violence than someone like Richard Stallman.