ISIS also deplatformed itself with it's ultra-violent and gory videos.

The white supremacists got this right, but starting with mellower content, memes, and not throwing one in directly in the deep end. Look at this guy, he avoided swastikas because he knows they are a huge turn-off to non-radicalized people.

They’re also fairly pointless as a symbol if you’re trying to say anything but ‘look how edgy I am!’

Agreed, but I think they're saying they start with more innocuous symbols and messaging at the beginning of their ideological radicalization.

Is there an actual organised white supremacist movement behind incidents like this?

As I understand it, ISIS has a logistical presence and can provide weapons and training as well as ideology. Is something similar happening with attackers like this, too?

I doubt there is (although people like Breivik seemed to at least claim to be connected to some sort of "knights templar" conspiracy community), but even if these people are organised only loosely, the platforms they are on still function as echo chambers were they continously gin each other up.

So I think OPs point is still very much valid. When we see isis terrorism or extremism we dismantle their organisations, put the full weight of our intelligence agencies behind it, and hound them to the other end of the world, as we should. But when we encounter extremism and terrorism in our very own communities, we let them joke about it on 4chan and reddit. There is something very wrong about that indifference.

We didn't go after ISIS because of the things they talked about, but because of specific crimes they committed as an entity, or conspired to commit.

And we didn't go after people that share their religion with ISIS (i.e. Salafi extremists), but are not otherwise involved with it, or at least we can't prove that they are.

What do you think is the reason counter-terror forces aren't moving quickly to address white supremacists?

Less experience? I mean until now, white supremacist terrorist attacks haven't been at the forefront of counter-terror forces. Why that may be? is another question altogether.

What do you mean by "at the forefront of counter-terror forces"? Like, they haven't been the most serious threat? Or are a strange new threat?

Essentially not considered that serious.

> Is there an actual organised white supremacist movement behind incidents like this?

I'd have to double check, but I'm not sure that all isis terrorist attacks were done by people who had physically met another isis member--I was under the impression that a number of them were just inspired by propaganda online, similar to so many of the far-right attacks we've seen over the past couple of years.

That's right. There was eventually an effort to inspire and give instructions "lone-wolf" attacks, so that a central organization couldn't be targeted. This is what white supremacists and nationalists are doing today, as it was quite successful for ISIS.

As I understand it, white supremacists and fellow travelers organize in looser groups than ISIS as an entity.

The term Scripted Violence, or Stochastic Terrorism are the terms I've heard, for messaging and ideology that repeatedly creates "lone wolves" with similar views and goals.

That's because a guy going into a mosque with a rifle decorated in nazi symbols and gunning down as many people as he can has to be just anything other that what it obviously is.

Ish. There is still plenty of ISIS crap floating around, it’s just targeted more effectively through direct social networks like whatsapp. My dad (!) had to ban from his football club’s chatgroup the father of one kid, because he insisted in spamming ultra-islamic crap. I’m pretty sure he’s still somewhere, forwarding shit to anyone who’ll listen.

It’s a very hard problem. The printed press indirectly generated the Protestant schism, which resulted in centuries of wars and murderous events. The internet is having an equivalent effect today.

The alternate reality that is the internet is a huge emerging social issue.

I have to say right off the bat, I'm not in favor of governments or big corporations being gatekeepers of what is allowed to be on the internet (moral hazard).

At the same time, views not in accordance with actual history (or indeed with reality) propagate at an amazing pace and certain subgroups readily embrace them as reality.

In case of shooter (reading his manifesto), he has a juvenile and one dimensional view of "white history" and "white culture" which fails to understand or account for movements of ideas and culture, and fallaciously lumps everyone of a certain skin tone into one cultural group. I have no doubt this view, fanciful as it is, was echoed by his fellows until it became absolute truth in his mind.

It is a problem, and not just for white supremacist types and radical Islamists either. Not sure the best solution or if there even is one.

Of course, the "can this be shown in Germany" flag isn't just on Nazi tweets; it's on anything which looks like it might be a Nazi tweet to a really dumb algorithm. Including anti-Nazi tweets, which as it turns out often reference Nazi imagery and terminology too. Seems it really isn't worth the effort or the risk to try and tease apart the two, given the legal danger of getting it wrong. Be careful what you wish for...

> Seems it really isn't worth the effort or the risk to try and tease apart the two

Yes. It is.

I keep hearing about this growing white supremacist threat, and while in some dark corners of the internet there do seem to be some examples of it, I can't say that I have any reason to think it's growing. What I've seen growing is the willingness of supposedly anti-racist groups to label as white supremacist anyone who disagrees with them on any issue, which is not helpful.

I'd be interested to learn why some seem to find this comment objectionable.

The growing white supremacist threat is indicated by the rise in hate crimes in the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/us/hate-crimes-fbi-2017.h...

Two objectionable things:

- You’re wrong about the rise of right-wing extremist violence, as the sibling comment points out.

- This is a thread celebrating the life of someone killed by a right-wing extremist. Your reply is basically “I don’t think they are a problem, can’t we talk about mean SJWs instead”

This thread may have originally been about celebrating someone's life, but politics was inserted well before my comments.

Let's not buy into the argument of the increasing supremacist threat, which is more fear mongering based on a political agenda that plays on emotion rather than real data.

Happy to see real data that suggests a worldwide trend though, if any, that is not subjective.

"white supremacists in Canada and the U.S. killed at least 40 people, up from 17 in 2017."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...

1. That doesn't show any long term trend.

2. It isn't normalized against overall violence trends.

3. Although obviously terrible, it's still an incredibly small number of people in absolute terms. 259 people died while taking selfies since 2011 [0].

[0]. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/health/selfie-deaths-trnd/ind...

And even less people are killed by terror threats worldwide. Also a small number of people die from shark attacks or from airplane crashes. It doesn't stop people from taking safety precautions.

What data would convince you that the threat of white supremacy is increasing?

Research done with a well designed methodology that explains how the data was classified in the first place.

It has to explain how it labels "hate" crimes; is the crime perpetrated by a clear member of the said group, how do you define the relation, etc.