NY Times reporter leaked Jewish WhatsApp group data that fell into hands of anti-Israel activists who harassed members: report
Natasha Frost, a Times reporter who was based in Melbourne earlier this year, downloaded and shared 900 pages of content from a private WhatsApp chat.
Reminds me of the tactics used by jewish supremacists
Fr. It's always OK when whites get targeted. Now I'm supposed to care about the golem vs the master.
Literal karma at work. They just don't like it when people who aren't them get to collab to harass and ruin people.
This entire article is trying its best to downplay why they were there and what they were doing in said chat, and still couldn't completely absolve them. Which means they were absolutely doing a lot worse than this.
So let me get this straight. A group of "people" get together on a WhatsApp group to conspire to get other people fired from their jobs, so another group of people decides to conspire to get those whatsapp "people" fired from their jobs, and this means that the government needs to strengthen its hate speech laws so that the WhatsApp "people" can conspire to get other people fired from their jobs in peace?
I just can't imagine why so many normies are starting to resist things like this WhatsApp group.
I just want everyone involved in the story to die.
Haha
lol
Advocates for genocide and then got mad when people clapped back. Can you be more stereotypical?
So?
What good or appropriate use would a non-journo have with that chatroom data?
The Post article strongly implies that the chat was shared with someone for this Times story: A Post on Gaza Leads to Turmoil at Australia’s Public Broadcaster
It doesn't look like they have named the person Frost leaked it to, which is really confusing.
Back to the Post:
Isn't doxing already illegal in most places? Also, this wasn't doxing. 🙄
No, because most of the information shared by doxxing is already considered public information. There are jurisdictions that have an anti-doxxing statute, but those generally have additional requirements (suggesting criminal behavior, for example.)
Humans love victims and underdogs, its how the Left was able to exploit people for so long into feelings bad for all the non-white groups of the world despite them openly biting the hands that feed them and destroying everything around them.
Crying antisemitism is an age old tactic that has worked almost perfectly for the last century. So they keep yelling it hoping eventually their victim status will kick in and people will defend rush to their defense.
It’s also extremely feminine. Israel maneuvering America into war with Iran is classic “let’s you and him fight”.
It says something about the Anglo West that we fall for such feminine tactics over and over again.
It's just an extension of the Non Aggression Principle. Under the NAP the first person to claim injury is the moral actor, therefore the winning strategy is to claim injury early and often. Libertarianism is just a subset of Leftism.
Not that I don’t enjoy dunking on libertarianism, but I’m not sure how that philosophy is uniquely vulnerable to this, or at least, would be uniquely vulnerable for the reason you described. Claiming anything that was recognized as an actionable injury would still have a similar—perhaps even more potent—effect in a harshly authoritarian setting.
Authoritarian don't need the NAP to justify their actions, whereas Libertarians (at least a few years ago) were always harping on the NAP. It's just that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, and people just don't seem to get that.
Think about how claims of anti-semitism would work under a "might makes right" system: The universal answer would be "so what?"
Okay, but that's not necessarily unique to Libertarianism, which was my point. We can imagine a absolute might makes right system, but we can also imagine—and are much closer to living in—a highly authoritarian system where the worst crimes are things like "antisemitism" and "racism" and "sexism." I don't believe that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, because the NAP is not the only moral system in which committing certain offenses against someone is seen as wrong.
Could you provide an example? I cannot think of any that aren't just the NAP with a thin veneer over it.
What? How about "Thou shalt not murder"?
The NAP was only formulated in the 20th century. It derives from previously-existing moral standards, not the other way around. Almost every society in history has included rules about killing, theft, rape, property, etc. Even if you want to restrict it to social offenses—which I did not, because social offenses are absolutely not the only offense one could falsify in order to get someone in trouble—pretty much every society has had hierarchies as well. The serf isn't allowed to make a pass at the princess, and so on.
Even or especially here.
oy vey it's anuddah shoah
Yea, that'll happen
They deserve each other.
Ok? And?
good news