LifeFuel The person who hacked the site has been identified, doxxed and his now terrified and offering apologies

[FrothySolutions]

You're assuming that the current system set in place is set up is based on perfect morality. You haven't actually explained why touching boobs of a single woman is worse than a DDoS attack that affects hundreds of people. All you've done is say "we have different protocols", without actually proving why they are worse. This is merely an appeal to the law.

Fuck off with acting like you know how I think. "You know this". what, are you saying I'm full of shit and don't believe in what I'm saying? You don't know shit you cuck. Fuck you, I stand by my words

A DDoS attack is illegal, and he had no intentions to stop. Incels are messed with because of people like you who argue its acceptable to treat incels like dirt, while society acts like offenses against women are a serious offense.

This reminds me of a video made by @BlkPillPres

View: https://youtu.be/t0dOsGHbCoE


Somewhere in that vid he says that society has basically agreed that its okay to treat low status men like shit, and that it's just part of "life being unfair". Well guess what, if you think it's unfair that this fucker got doxxed, then tough shit, life isn't fair, unfairness has spread itself. This punk brought it upon himself. And btw, as far as I'm concerned, no one here has committed a crime, so they DO have the right to doxx this fucker. It doesn't matter if you don't like it or support it.

You say I don't understand you, then you exhibit the exact feelings I accused you of having. You say "Oh, but the current system is wrong" even though you were the one who brought up the current system as an example of why this guy supposedly deserves to get doxxed? That's ass backwards logic.

But your real feelings, shown in this post, they do add up. They're selfish feelings, but they add up. Because someone dared fuck with what's precious to you, you as an aggrieved and victimized incel feel you're owed some blood. He "brought it on himself" not because of any existing laws, but because it's so unfair that incels have it so bad. Because "society has basically agreed that its okay to treat low status men like shit." This is revenge for "being treated like shit." You don't care about what's legal or not, you don't even believe in the legal system as it stands.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

You say I don't understand you, then you exhibit the exact feelings I accused you of having. You say "Oh, but the current system is wrong" even though you were the one who brought up the current system as an example of why this guy supposedly deserves to get doxxed? That's ass backwards logic.

But your real feelings, shown in this post, they do add up. They're selfish feelings, but they add up. Because someone dared fuck with what's precious to you, you as an aggrieved and victimized incel feel you're owed some blood. He "brought it on himself" not because of any existing laws, but because it's so unfair that incels have it so bad. Because "society has basically agreed that its okay to treat low status men like shit." This is revenge for "being treated like shit." You don't care about what's legal or not, you don't even believe in the legal system as it stands.

Different countries have different laws. I was bringing up the idea that in general, crime that are temporary can have long, life lasting punishments. The point of bringing up the current system wasn't to defend the current system, it was to serve as an example of how punishments can work.

He brought it on himself because he decided to mess with people. For example, if you go into the intercity as a white person and call a group of black people "niggers", you better expect they are gonna come after you. Similarly, if you decide to go towards an incel coping space, and mess with them, you better expect they're gonna be angry at you and want to get back at you. That's what it means to "bring it upon yourself". Incels having it bad didn't cause him to get doxxed, if he minded his own business none of this would have happened. He only has himself to blame for going out of his way to mess with incels.

Deciding not to take shit and instead stand up for yourself and fight back isn't "selfish", it's called not being a cuck. Something you clearly don't care about.

 

[mentalcel]

Get that motherfucker jailed.

 

[Infinity]

Where do I send the bill?

 

[FrothySolutions]

Different countries have different laws. I was bringing up the idea that in general, crime that are temporary can have long, life lasting punishments. The point of bringing up the current system wasn't to defend the current system, it was to serve as an example of how punishments can work.

He brought it on himself because he decided to mess with people. For example, if you go into the intercity as a white person and call a group of black people "niggers", you better expect they are gonna come after you. Similarly, if you decide to go towards an incel coping space, and mess with them, you better expect they're gonna be angry at you and want to get back at you. That's what it means to "bring it upon yourself". Incels having it bad didn't cause him to get doxxed, if he minded his own business none of this would have happened. He only has himself to blame for going out of his way to mess with incels.

Deciding not to take shit and instead stand up for yourself and fight back isn't "selfish", it's called not being a cuck. Something you clearly don't care about.

Incels having it bad is your justification for him getting doxxed. "He messed with us, we have it too bad already to not have our revenge."

Different countries have different laws. I was bringing up the idea that in general, crime that are temporary can have long, life lasting punishments. The point of bringing up the current system wasn't to defend the current system, it was to serve as an example of how punishments can work.

He brought it on himself because he decided to mess with people. For example, if you go into the intercity as a white person and call a group of black people "niggers", you better expect they are gonna come after you. Similarly, if you decide to go towards an incel coping space, and mess with them, you better expect they're gonna be angry at you and want to get back at you. That's what it means to "bring it upon yourself". Incels having it bad didn't cause him to get doxxed, if he minded his own business none of this would have happened. He only has himself to blame for going out of his way to mess with incels.

Deciding not to take shit and instead stand up for yourself and fight back isn't "selfish", it's called not being a cuck. Something you clearly don't care about.

Incels having it bad is your justification for him getting doxxed. "He messed with us, we have it too bad already to not have our revenge."

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Incels having it bad is your justification for him getting doxxed. "He messed with us, we have it too bad already to not have our revenge."

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that he messed with us, and therefore he brought this upon himself. You are shifting the focus off of him bringing it upon himself and onto the supposed justification for doing so.

See below

He "brought it on himself" not because of any existing laws, but because it's so unfair that incels have it so bad.

He brought it on himself because he decided to mess with people. For example, if you go into the intercity as a white person and call a group of black people "niggers", you better expect they are gonna come after you. Similarly, if you decide to go towards an incel coping space, and mess with them, you better expect they're gonna be angry at you and want to get back at you. That's what it means to "bring it upon yourself". Incels having it bad didn't cause him to get doxxed, if he minded his own business none of this would have happened. He only has himself to blame for going out of his way to mess with incels.

Don't bait and switch me, faggot.

 

[FrothySolutions]

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that he messed with us, and therefore he brought this upon himself. You are shifting the focus off of him bringing it upon himself and onto the supposed justification for doing so.

See below



Don't bait and switch me, faggot.

We're discussing whether he deserves to be doxxed. Whether anyone is justified in doxxing him. And you know that, but you want to somehow excuse yourself of any less-than-noble feelings here.

He should not have been doxxed. That's what I'm saying. Your response to that is "Oh, but it would be cucked to not doxx him." See? Sometimes you say what you mean.

 

[SoySupreme]

nigga acted tough then got scared when someone found out who he was

Stefan is a typical ITcel. He barks a lot on reddit but once the front is uncovered, he is a sniveling coward

 

[ilieknothing]

He should not have been doxxed. That's what I'm saying. Your response to that is "Oh, but it would be cucked to not doxx him." See? Sometimes you say what you

If he wasn’t doxed you would not have been able to access this website now. Doxing was the only way to get back online. It’s an appropriate reaction to what he did.

No harm is going to come to him anyways, he lives too far away for me to do anything and anyone who lives nearby probably wouldn’t be bothered

 

[Deleted member 40050]

We're discussing whether he deserves to be doxxed. Whether anyone is justified in doxxing him. And you know that,

you switched the convo to about how he brought it upon himself and decided to strawman me and say he brought it upon himself because of how incels are treated by trash by society

He "brought it on himself" not because of any existing laws, but because it's so unfair that incels have it so bad.

You did it right here, and I then answered

He brought it on himself because he decided to mess with people. For example, if you go into the intercity as a white person and call a group of black people "niggers", you better expect they are gonna come after you. Similarly, if you decide to go towards an incel coping space, and mess with them, you better expect they're gonna be angry at you and want to get back at you. That's what it means to "bring it upon yourself". Incels having it bad didn't cause him to get doxxed, if he minded his own business none of this would have happened. He only has himself to blame for going out of his way to mess with incels.

and you decided to evade this point and switch it to incels, and away from what he did.

If he wasn’t doxed you would not have been able to access this website now. Doxing was the only way to get back online. It’s an appropriate reaction to what he did.

No harm is going to come to him anyways, he lives too far away for me to do anything and anyone who lives nearby probably wouldn’t be bothered

Well said. For the sake of this forum, actions needed to be taken.

 

[FrothySolutions]

If he wasn’t doxed you would not have been able to access this website now. Doxing was the only way to get back online. It’s an appropriate reaction to what he did.

No harm is going to come to him anyways, he lives too far away for me to do anything and anyone who lives nearby probably wouldn’t be bothered

This is disingenuous. If doxxing really was an empty threat, why does it have an effect? What does he have to fear if there is no power we have over him now that he's doxxed? Why do we cry foul when anyone is doxxed? Sure, you personally won't do anything. But will no one do anything?

you switched the convo to about how he brought it upon himself and decided to strawman me and say he brought it upon himself because of how incels are treated by trash by society

You did it right here, and I then answered

and you decided to evade this point and switch it to incels, and away from what he did.

Well said. For the sake of this forum, actions needed to be taken.

You were the one who said it would be cucked not to retaliate. That was the initial reason you gave. That's what this has been about. "It's cucked not to pursue revenge over Incels.is."

 

[Deleted member 40050]

You were the one who said it would be cucked not to retaliate. That was the initial reason you gave. That's what this has been about. "It's cucked not to pursue revenge over Incels.is."

Correct, because it would be cucked to let someone mess with this site without doing anything about it. If incels didn't do anything about it, the site would be unaccessable.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Correct, because it would be cucked to let someone mess with this site without doing anything about it. If incels didn't do anything about it, the site would be unaccessable.

So... there ya go, that's what I've been accusing you of. You're justifying this doxxing with "It would be cucked to not take our revenge."

 

[Deleted member 40050]

So... there ya go, that's what I've been accusing you of. You're justifying this doxxing with "It would be cucked to not take our revenge."

I never said the word revenge. There you go again with putting words in my mouth.

It's called self defense. This site needs to be defended from those who attack it.

If he wasn’t doxed you would not have been able to access this website now. Doxing was the only way to get back online. It’s an appropriate reaction to what he did.

Read this again if you can. Last time you responded to the post you evaded the top line and only focused on the bottom.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I never said the word revenge. There you go again with putting words in my mouth.

It's called self defense. This site needs to be defended from those who attack it.

Read this again if you can. Last time you responded to the post you evaded the top line and only focused on the bottom.

Terrorizing his family is not "self defense," nor is it necessary to end the attacks. Who are you trying to bullshit?

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Terrorizing his family is not "self defense," nor is it necessary to end the attacks. Who are you trying to bullshit?

Since when did I say anything about his family? There you go again putting words in my mouth. Why don't you stop with this same repeated bullshit tactic, it's getting old.

 

[ilieknothing]

This is disingenuous. If doxxing really was an empty threat, why does it have an effect? What does he have to fear if there is no power we have over him now that he's doxxed? Why do we cry foul when anyone is doxxed? Sure, you personally won't do anything. But will no one do anything?

I didn’t say it is an empty threat. In my opinion it is likely that no one will do anything due to the high inhibition of incels. Someone might do something but I don’t think anyone will.

Some people cry foul when someone is doxed because the person often hasn’t done something to deserve it. In this circumstance I would say the guy definitely deserved being doxed.

 

[FlyFace]

He should not have been doxxed. That's what I'm saying.

How would he be reported for the crime if nobody knew of his identity? How would justice be exacted? Don't answer because I'm not reading the filth that you type.

This is disingenuous. If doxxing really was an empty threat, why does it have an effect? What does he have to fear if there is no power we have over him now that he's doxxed? Why do we cry foul when anyone is doxxed? Sure, you personally won't do anything. But will no one do anything?

Gee.. actions have consequences? Oh man. I mean I couldn't give less of a fuck. He should have fucking thought for a second before deciding to attack people over the internet.

 

[Undervalued]

Fuck that bitch ruin his life.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Since when did I say anything about his family? There you go again putting words in my mouth. Why don't you stop with this same repeated bullshit tactic, it's getting old.

His family, his personal life, his real life. If you come after those, you have gone too far. When you make a thread saying "The guy who doxxed us is blah blah blah etc," you have gone after his personal life. We have already put him in harm's way.

I didn’t say it is an empty threat. In my opinion it is likely that no one will do anything due to the high inhibition of incels. Someone might do something but I don’t think anyone will.

Some people cry foul when someone is doxed because the person often hasn’t done something to deserve it. In this circumstance I would say the guy definitely deserved being doxed.

So then you can't say no harm will come to him. In doxxing him, we have put him in harm's way.

How would he be reported for the crime if nobody knew of his identity? How would justice be exacted? Don't answer because I'm not reading the filth that you type.

Gee.. actions have consequences? Oh man. I mean I couldn't give less of a fuck. He should have fucking thought for a second before deciding to attack people over the internet.

What you do is you contact him privately and say "Stop the DDoS attacks because I don't want to press charges." You don't publish his private information. AKA, you don't doxx him. It's really simple, and you know that, but you don't want a simple solution to this. You don't just want the DDoS attacks to stop, you want "revenge."

 

[Deleted member 40050]

His family, his personal life, his real life. If you come after those, you have gone too far. When you make a thread saying "The guy who doxxed us is blah blah blah etc," you have gone after his personal life. We have already put him in harm's way.

I asked you earlier, who made you the authority here? Who are you to determine what is "too far"? You're trying to act like the moral police here, and tell us what to do, and if we don't do what you tell us to, you try and shame us. This is very presumptuous of you to do.

@PPEcel is FrothySolutions the moral police on this forum? Or is he trying to act too big for his britches?

What you do is you contact him privately and say "Stop the DDoS attacks because I don't want to press charges." You don't publish his private information. AKA, you don't doxx him. It's really simple, and you know that, but you don't want a simple solution to this. You don't just want the DDoS attacks to stop, you want "revenge."

It's not about revenge, it's about self defense. When other people see "this dude messed with incels, and he was doxxed", that serves as a DETERRENT against messing with incels.

It's like if a teenager (named Chad) messes with another teenager (named Brad), and Brad decides when people are around to give Chad a few punches. Chad brought it upon himself because he messed with Brad. Additionally, when people see Brad defend himself, they will say to themselves "oh I don't want that to happen to me, so I'm not gonna mess with Brad".

 

[ilieknothing]

So then you can't say no harm will come to him. In doxxing him, we have put him in harm's way.

He hasn’t been physically harmed, he hasn’t lost any money. Nothing has happened

 

[FrothySolutions]

He hasn’t been physically harmed, he hasn’t lost any money. Nothing has happened

You can't say no harm WILL come to him. Nothing has happened YET. He is already in harm's way, the only question is, will someone choose to take advantage of the danger we've put him in?

I asked you earlier, who made you the authority here? Who are you to determine what is "too far"? You're trying to act like the moral police here, and tell us what to do, and if we don't do what you tell us to, you try and shame us. This is very presumptuous of you to do.

@PPEcel is FrothySolutions the moral police on this forum? Or is he trying to act too big for his britches?

It's not about revenge, it's about self defense. When other people see "this dude messed with incels, and he was doxxed", that serves as a DETERRENT against messing with incels.

It's like if a teenager (named Chad) messes with another teenager (named Brad), and Brad decides when people are around to give Chad a few punches. Chad brought it upon himself because he messed with Brad. Additionally, when people see Brad defend himself, they will say to themselves "oh I don't want that to happen to me, so I'm not gonna mess with Brad".

See how inconsistent and hypocritical your words are? You go from "Oh I never said anything about his family" to "Well who cares what you think is 'too far,' who says we can't come after his family?"

And "self defense" is stopping the attack. You can stop the attack by talking to him privately. You don't need to do any more. And you know that. What you want is to make a spectacle. What you want is revenge. Not only is that not a thing you deserve, it's not a thing you need. You wanna stop the DDoS attacks? That could've been done without ruining his life.

So what's the stance this time? "Oh, we didn't ruin his life?" Or "Well who says we aren't allowed to ruin his life?"

 

[rcnfive]

You can't say no harm WILL come to him. Nothing has happened YET. He is already in harm's way, the only question is, will someone choose to take advantage of the danger we've put him in?



See how inconsistent and hypocritical your words are? You go from "Oh I never said anything about his family" to "Well who cares what you think is 'too far,' who says we can't come after his family?"

And "self defense" is stopping the attack. You can stop the attack by talking to him privately. You don't need to do any more. And you know that. What you want is to make a spectacle. What you want is revenge. Not only is that not a thing you deserve, it's not a thing you need. You wanna stop the DDoS attacks? That could've been done without ruining his life.

So what's the stance this time? "Oh, we didn't ruin his life?" Or "Well who says we aren't allowed to ruin his life?"

good lord, just go ahead and give this boy a blowjob already

 

[iamsubhuman]

That could've been done without ruining his life.

So what's the stance this time? "Oh, we didn't ruin his life?" Or "Well who says we aren't allowed to ruin his life?"

he's some upper class white kid with friends and had a girl to go to prom with, his life is definitely not ruined especially since both Incels.is and soyjak.party are pretty obscure forums.

most of us don't even care about him anymore. he wrote an apology, deleted his shit talking, and the forum has been running fine so far.

and if somebody presses charges, well... should've thought about the time before ya did the crime

 

[Deleted member 40050]

See how inconsistent and hypocritical your words are? You go from "Oh I never said anything about his family" to "Well who cares what you think is 'too far,' who says we can't come after his family?"

Holy fucking shit there you go AGAIN with putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about his family! I was talking about merely doxxing him. You're the one bringing extra variables into this. The "too far", refers to the doxxing of him, that you claim is too far.

And "self defense" is stopping the attack. You can stop the attack by talking to him privately. You don't need to do any more. And you know that. What you want is to make a spectacle. What you want is revenge. Not only is that not a thing you deserve, it's not a thing you need. You wanna stop the DDoS attacks? That could've been done without ruining his life.

So what's the stance this time? "Oh, we didn't ruin his life?" Or "Well who says we aren't allowed to ruin his life?"

And once again you ignored my points, like an evasive fucking coward.

It's not about revenge, it's about self defense. When other people see "this dude messed with incels, and he was doxxed", that serves as a DETERRENT against messing with incels.

It's like if a teenager (named Chad) messes with another teenager (named Brad), and Brad decides when people are around to give Chad a few punches. Chad brought it upon himself because he messed with Brad. Additionally, when people see Brad defend himself, they will say to themselves "oh I don't want that to happen to me, so I'm not gonna mess with Brad".

Another point you evaded was when I asked you who made you the authority here.

I asked you earlier, who made you the authority here? Who are you to determine what is "too far"? You're trying to act like the moral police here, and tell us what to do, and if we don't do what you tell us to, you try and shame us. This is very presumptuous of you to do.
PPEcel is FrothySolutions the moral police on this forum? Or is he trying to act too big for his britches?

Answer this fucking question, you pussy

 

[HarryDresden]

I don’t actually believe it’s him.

 

[PPEcel]

he's some upper class white kid with friends and had a girl to go to prom with, his life is definitely not ruined especially since both Incels.is and soyjak.party are pretty obscure forums.

most of us don't even care about him anymore. he wrote an apology, deleted his shit talking, and the forum has been running fine so far.

and if somebody presses charges, well... should've thought about the time before ya did the crime

*upper middle class

 

[FrothySolutions]

Holy fucking shit there you go AGAIN with putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about his family! I was talking about merely doxxing him. You're the one bringing extra variables into this. The "too far", refers to the doxxing of him, that you claim is too far.

And once again you ignored my points, like an evasive fucking coward.

Another point you evaded was when I asked you who made you the authority here.

Answer this fucking question, you pussy

Doxxing him brings his family into this. "Doxxing," as in publishing his private information. Now his family is involved.

And what points? "Who made me authority over you?" I'm sorry you're such a pissbaby that when anyone questions how much of a bad person you are, your response is "You're not my dad." I wish you would simply be less shitty of a person, but hey, I'm not your dad.

And I already explained to you, you do not need to terrorize people to stop the DDoS attacks. You say "Oh, but we need to make an example of him." No, you don't. If all you want is to stop the DDoS attacks, you don't.

Again, what you want is revenge. What you want is to "not be a cuck." If you don't want raccoons eating your trash, you could secure your trash better. You don't need to issue a threat to all of raccoonkind. But you want to issue threats to all of raccoonkind. It might help, but you don't need to. But you know as well as anyone else that stopping at what you "need" is not what you "want." You want revenge.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Doxxing him brings his family into this. "Doxxing," as in publishing his private information. Now his family is involved.

Most of the doxxing is about him, not his family. That's more of a mere side effect that some of his family info got leaked.

And what points? "Who made me authority over you?" I'm sorry you're such a pissbaby that when anyone questions how much of a bad person you are, your response is "You're not my dad." I wish you would simply be less shitty of a person, but hey, I'm not your dad.

Putting words in my mouth again, eh? I never said "you're not my dad". And I'm not the pissbaby, you're the one being a fucking cuck and acting all self righteous. I would say you are the bad person, coming onto this forum and deciding to shame this forum for taking measures to defend itself against its enemies.

And I already explained to you, you do not need to terrorize people to stop the DDoS attacks. You say "Oh, but we need to make an example of him." No, you don't. If all you want is to stop the DDoS attacks, you don't.

No, you do need to make an example out of him. Because even if this punk decides to stop, its very possible another punk who is bored will decide to mess with incels. And he can say to himself "nothing bad will happen, because they're not willing to fight back".

Again, what you want is revenge. What you want is to "not be a cuck." If you don't want raccoons eating your trash, you could secure your trash better. You don't need to issue a threat to all of raccoonkind. But you want to issue threats to all of raccoonkind. It might help, but you don't need to. But you know as well as anyone else that stopping at what you "need" is not what you "want." You want revenge.

Don't be so retarded in comparing raccoons to humans. You cannot send a message to raccoonkind like you can to people. Humans are very different than animals in this regard.

And stop telling me what I "know". When you say that, you act as if your statements are 100% true, and not merely your opinion. I would say this was needed because this site has many enemies and there needs to be a deterrent against messing with this site. If there is no deterrent, then people will decide to mess with it purely for fun because they are bored and see this site as an easy target.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Most of the doxxing is about him, not his family. That's more of a mere side effect that some of his family info got leaked.

Putting words in my mouth again, eh? I never said "you're not my dad". And I'm not the pissbaby, you're the one being a fucking cuck and acting all self righteous. I would say you are the bad person, coming onto this forum and deciding to shame this forum for taking measures to defend itself against its enemies.

No, you do need to make an example out of him. Because even if this punk decides to stop, its very possible another punk who is bored will decide to mess with incels. And he can say to himself "nothing bad will happen, because they're not willing to fight back".

Don't be so retarded in comparing raccoons to humans. You cannot send a message to raccoonkind like you can to people. Humans are very different than animals in this regard.

And stop telling me what I "know". When you say that, you act as if your statements are 100% true, and not merely your opinion. I would say this was needed because this site has many enemies and there needs to be a deterrent against messing with this site. If there is no deterrent, then people will decide to mess with it purely for fun because they are bored and see this site as an easy target.

"Who gives you authority over me" = "You're not my dad." It's you getting upset at the fact that I would dare critique you. That's a pissbaby mindset.

And no you don't need to doxx anyone. You stop future attacks the same way you stopped this one. By pressing charges.

And a "side effect?" A "leak?" Do you even understand what a doxx is? "Oh no, some of the information we found got out accidentally?" His name is published here, fuck kinda answer is that???

 

[Deleted member 40050]

"Who gives you authority over me" = "You're not my dad." It's you getting upset at the fact that I would dare critique you. That's a pissbaby mindset.

I never said "who gives you authority over me". I said "who made you authority", in terms of what counts as "going too far". I was saying you are not the arbitrator on what is "too far" and what isn't. The authority is not about you telling me what to do, its about you trying to acts as the moral police and assert what is "too far" and what not.

And no you don't need to doxx anyone. You stop future attacks the same way you stopped this one. By pressing charges.

That does not stop stop future attacks from taking place at all, it only serves as a way to subdue them when they do happen. There needs to be a deterrent so people don't even attempt to attack this site.

And a "side effect?" A "leak?" Do you even understand what a doxx is? "Oh no, some of the information we found got out accidentally?" His name is published here, fuck kinda answer is that???

His name being revealed is not a side effect. However the people who decide to do further research into him and then find out info about his family is the side effect.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I never said "who gives you authority over me". I said "who made you authority", in terms of what counts as "going too far". I was saying you are not the arbitrator on what is "too far" and what isn't. The authority is not about you telling me what to do, its about you trying to acts as the moral police and assert what is "too far" and what not.

That does not stop stop future attacks from taking place at all, it only serves as a way to subdue them when they do happen. There needs to be a deterrent so people don't even attempt to attack this site.

His name being revealed is not a side effect. However the people who decide to do further research into him and then find out info about his family is the side effect.

Me asserting what is "too far" is me telling you what to do.

And again, no you do not need a deterrent. You WANT a deterrent. The benefits of a deterrent do not justify the crime of doxxing a person. And that's what we're discussing. Whether or not you're justified in doxxing this kid. Or anyone for that matter. Your argument is "Doing something as contemptible as doxxing is necessary if we wanna scare people." Scaring people is not worth sinking to the depths of doxxing.

And you must not know what a doxx is. A doxx is not "partial." Once you reveal someone, there is no "But don't look at this other stuff we found." But even if you did think that you could somehow stop people at his name, once you have his name, you know about his family. You have his last name. Something he shares with his family.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Me asserting what is "too far" is me telling you what to do.

No, you asserting what is "too far", is trying to use your moral opinion and portray it as fact in order to support your argument. Giving a moral opinion is not telling someone what to do. For example, if I say "it's immoral to have sex outside of marriage", that isn't me telling people what to do. Saying "you better not have sex outside of marriage", would be me telling me them what to do.

And again, no you do not need a deterrent. You WANT a deterrent.

A need is a means to an end. You need oxygen, for what? To breathe and survive. You need a mattress, for what? To have a comfy surface to sleep on. You need heating in your home, for what? So you aren't super cold.

Furthermore, think of a security system. You need a security system in your house, along with a sign by your front door displaying your security system, in order to serve as a deterrent against those who want to invade your home. As I said earlier, the deterrent is needed to stop DDOS attacks from even being attempted.

The benefits of a deterrent do not justify the crime of doxxing a person.

Doxxing is not a crime. As PPEcel said here

It's not a threat.

It's not stalking.

Those two words have relatively narrow and specific definitions.

If doxxing was illegal, then why would this thread still be up? Shouldn't it be deleted since it's illegal? Well, it's not deleted, because doxxing is not illegal. Furthermore, no one has gotten in any legal trouble for doxxing this punk.

And that's what we're discussing. Whether or not you're justified in doxxing this kid. Or anyone for that matter. Your argument is "Doing something as contemptible as doxxing is necessary if we wanna scare people." Scaring people is not worth sinking to the depths of doxxing.

That's merely your opinion, not a fact. Other people who don't want this site to be DDOS'd think doxxing this kid is worth it, and that it's warranted.

And you must not know what a doxx is. A doxx is not "partial." Once you reveal someone, there is no "But don't look at this other stuff we found." But even if you did think that you could somehow stop people at his name, once you have his name, you know about his family. You have his last name. Something he shares with his family.

You can stop at his name, because even though his family shares his last name, you are not necessarily "going after" the family, and digging for their info. If someone else who stumbles across this kid's name, decides to look for their info, that is a side effect.

Also, it is partial in a way since it's not like we doxxed something like his social security number. So when doxxing a person, there are varying degrees to which they can be doxxed.

 

[AsianKungFao]

https://reddit.com/user/TheLolFactor101/

I didn't dox him, the soyjak site did FYI. He has now deleted all posts accepting responsibility. Follow the saga and updates here here. He fucked with the wrong group lmao.

View attachment 565707


EDIT: Apology note:
View attachment 565718

Url not found.

And the note looks like he's mocking the other person

 

[rcnfive]

Url not found.

And the note looks like he's mocking the other person

looks like they took it down, im not sure why

 

[FrothySolutions]

No, you asserting what is "too far", is trying to use your moral opinion and portray it as fact in order to support your argument. Giving a moral opinion is not telling someone what to do. For example, if I say "it's immoral to have sex outside of marriage", that isn't me telling people what to do. Saying "you better not have sex outside of marriage", would be me telling me them what to do.


A need is a means to an end. You need oxygen, for what? To breathe and survive. You need a mattress, for what? To have a comfy surface to sleep on. You need heating in your home, for what? So you aren't super cold.

Furthermore, think of a security system. You need a security system in your house, along with a sign by your front door displaying your security system, in order to serve as a deterrent against those who want to invade your home. As I said earlier, the deterrent is needed to stop DDOS attacks from even being attempted.

Doxxing is not a crime. As PPEcel said here

If doxxing was illegal, then why would this thread still be up? Shouldn't it be deleted since it's illegal? Well, it's not deleted, because doxxing is not illegal. Furthermore, no one has gotten in any legal trouble for doxxing this punk.

That's merely your opinion, not a fact. Other people who don't want this site to be DDOS'd think doxxing this kid is worth it, and that it's warranted.

You can stop at his name, because even though his family shares his last name, you are not necessarily "going after" the family, and digging for their info. If someone else who stumbles across this kid's name, decides to look for their info, that is a side effect.

Also, it is partial in a way since it's not like we doxxed something like his social security number. So when doxxing a person, there are varying degrees to which they can be doxxed.

A need is not "a means to an end." A need is when you have no other recourse. If I need a bed to sleep in, I could kill my neighbor and steal his bed. Or I could just buy one. Both are a means to an end. One is more justified than the other.

And this is not comparable to a security system because, for one, DDoSing a website is not comparable to burgling a house. For two, security systems are not built on the backs of someone else's suffering. This would be comparable to a security system if your security system was the strung up body of your home invader, with a sign reading "See what we did to this guy?" What you're advocating for is hurting people. Which you don't need to do. You just want to do it. And even if you wanted to compare this to a security system, if you can stop burglars without one, you don't need it. You might want one, and no one would begrudge you for having one. Because putting up a sign to stop burglars is not the same as terrorizing a specific someone to send a message.

And doxxing is a crime. PPEcel's argument is that this particular doxxing maybe doesn't fall under the specific legal statutes that would make it something like "menacing by stalking." But those statutes vary by state. And this wouldn't be the first time this forum allowed discussion of illegal activities. @Fat Link remembers. Sarge's response last time was "You can give 30 maybe for it? But we are not the police either, mostly just check which rules the thread is breaking and warn based off that." If your argument is "We bastions of decorum at Incels.is care oh so much about the law that we wouldn't risk it," well that's greycel talk.

And the doxx is not "partial," it's just that his SSN wasn't posted anywhere. Once you locate the information, you cannot say "Just look at part of it. Don't look at any of this other stuff we found."

 

[Deleted member 40050]

A need is not "a means to an end." A need is when you have no other recourse. If I need a bed to sleep in, I could kill my neighbor and steal his bed. Or I could just buy one. Both are a means to an end. One is more justified than the other.

In that example of the bed, you are discussing the methods of obtaining a bed, not the bed itself. The bed is necessary for sleeping, how you go about getting that bed is another topic altogether.

This site needs to prevent DDOS attacks from even being attempted on it. The only way to do that is to create a deterrent.

And this is not comparable to a security system because, for one, DDoSing a website is not comparable to burgling a house. For two, security systems are not built on the backs of someone else's suffering. This would be comparable to a security system if your security system was the strung up body of your home invader, with a sign reading "See what we did to this guy?"

A security system sign in front of your home says "if you break in, there will be consequences to pay". On top of that, people know to take that threat seriously because people in society have faced consequences for breaking into people's homes. So actually, they are built on other people's suffering.

What you're advocating for is hurting people. Which you don't need to do. You just want to do it. And even if you wanted to compare this to a security system, if you can stop burglars without one, you don't need it. You might want one, and no one would begrudge you for having one. Because putting up a sign to stop burglars is not the same as terrorizing a specific someone to send a message.

You need to doxx someone in order to send a message to people. You have not explained how you can stop DDOS attacks from happening. You have only talked about how to deal with them when they happen. In order for the site to have a detterent against those who wanna DDOS it, there needs to be an example set so they can reference. This is comparable to a security system because the example that exists is that other people have been punished for breaking and entering houses.

And doxxing is a crime. PPEcel's argument is that this particular doxxing maybe doesn't fall under the specific legal statutes that would make it something like "menacing by stalking." But those statutes vary by state. And this wouldn't be the first time this forum allowed discussion of illegal activities. @Fat Link remembers. Sarge's response last time was "You can give 30 maybe for it? But we are not the police either, mostly just check which rules the thread is breaking and warn based off that." If your argument is "We bastions of decorum at Incels.is care oh so much about the law that we wouldn't risk it," well that's greycel talk.

Discussion of illegal activities, and actual legal activities, are two different things. If doxxing was illegal, then merely discussing the topic of doxxing wouldn't be illegal, but the actual doxxing thread would be illegal.

And the doxx is not "partial," it's just that his SSN wasn't posted anywhere. Once you locate the information, you cannot say "Just look at part of it. Don't look at any of this other stuff we found."

That would be dependent on whether or not you leak the SSN. That social security number is not publicly available. Finding it would require hacking into a private government database. So if you find that info, and decide not to leak it, you have only released some of the information you have.

 

[rcnfive]

@Fat Link this thread has run its course, can we just unsticky it and let it die now?

 

[FrothySolutions]

looks like they took it down, im not sure why

Soyjak seems to have some concern, more than we have here at least.

In that example of the bed, you are discussing the methods of obtaining a bed, not the bed itself. The bed is necessary for sleeping, how you go about getting that bed is another topic altogether.

This site needs to prevent DDOS attacks from even being attempted on it. The only way to do that is to create a deterrent.

A security system sign in front of your home says "if you break in, there will be consequences to pay". On top of that, people know to take that threat seriously because people in society have faced consequences for breaking into people's homes. So actually, they are built on other people's suffering.

You need to doxx someone in order to send a message to people. You have not explained how you can stop DDOS attacks from happening. You have only talked about how to deal with them when they happen. In order for the site to have a detterent against those who wanna DDOS it, there needs to be an example set so they can reference. This is comparable to a security system because the example that exists is that other people have been punished for breaking and entering houses.

Discussion of illegal activities, and actual legal activities, are two different things. If doxxing was illegal, then merely discussing the topic of doxxing wouldn't be illegal, but the actual doxxing thread would be illegal.

That would be dependent on whether or not you leak the SSN. That social security number is not publicly available. Finding it would require hacking into a private government database. So if you find that info, and decide not to leak it, you have only released some of the information you have.

You do not need a deterrent. You want a deterrent. Sure, we need to stop DDoS attacks. We don't "need" to scare the world into not DDoSing us. That's one way to stop DDoS attacks, but not the only way.

And the security system is not built on anyone's suffering because the security system didn't hunt anyone down. The security system simply says "If you break in, the cops will come." We have gone beyond that. We have said "Here's the name and history of someone who tried to break in, go ruin his life." A fate not even actual burglars face, whose crimes are worse than this script kiddie prank. And again, you don't need it. You want it.

And I'm not just talking about "discussion" of illegal activities, I mean advocacy of illegal activities. It's happened before, you weren't here for it.

And we're talking about the information that was found, the information in the doxx. You cannot say "Hey we found all this information but you better only look at part of it, if you look at the rest of it that's on you, not me."

 

[rcnfive]

Soyjak seems to have some concern, more than we have here at least.

i asked admins tot ake it down here too. they did, for a while but then moved it to the sewers instead.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

You do not need a deterrent. You want a deterrent. Sure, we need to stop DDoS attacks. We don't "need" to scare the world into not DDoSing us. That's one way to stop DDoS attacks, but not the only way.

What other ways are there to prevent them from happening at all?

And the security system is not built on anyone's suffering because the security system didn't hunt anyone down. The security system simply says "If you break in, the cops will come." We have gone beyond that. We have said "Here's the name and history of someone who tried to break in, go ruin his life." A fate not even actual burglars face, whose crimes are worse than this script kiddie prank. And again, you don't need it. You want it.

I don't think the people who doxxed him advocated to hunt him down and attack him.

And I'm not just talking about "discussion" of illegal activities, I mean advocacy of illegal activities. It's happened before, you weren't here for it.

Well doxxing is not illegal, if the info is already public.

What is Doxxing & How to Protect Yourself Against it

doxxing can happen to anyone using the internet and so you need to protect yourself. This guide defines what doxxing is and will fill you in on everything what you need to know.

proprivacy.com

If the information is already public or obtained legally, doxxing is not a crime

And we're talking about the information that was found, the information in the doxx. You cannot say "Hey we found all this information but you better only look at part of it, if you look at the rest of it that's on you, not me."

Yes, the information in the doxx I believe was his name, school, and location. I don't believe his exact address was in the doxx. That has his family's last name in the dox, but not their first names. People have to go out of their way and look for more info on his family.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I don't think you're getting it, so I'm gonna break this down piece by piece.

What other ways are there to prevent them from happening at all?

Again, you do not need a deterrent. You WANT a deterrent. If you can stop DDoS attacks, you don't need a deterrent.

I don't think the people who doxxed him advocated to hunt him down and attack him.

Well doxxing is not illegal, if the info is already public.

What is Doxxing & How to Protect Yourself Against it

doxxing can happen to anyone using the internet and so you need to protect yourself. This guide defines what doxxing is and will fill you in on everything what you need to know.

proprivacy.com

Menacing by stalking is illegal regardless of how you get the information. I know where the President lives. If I say "Hey let's go to the White House and mess with the President," that's still illegal. As illegal as it is to take this guy's information and use it to threaten him. And if what you're saying is "Doxxing is a deterrent," we are already menacing him with the information we have. In order to deter the doxx, there would have to be some danger that future doxxers would be in if they messed with us. Danger we intend to threaten this current doxxer with.

Yes, the information in the doxx I believe was his name, school, and location. I don't believe his exact address was in the doxx. That has his family's last name in the dox, but not their first names. People have to go out of their way and look for more info on his family.

If you have his location, you're coming after him and the people around him. That's his family.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Again, you do not need a deterrent. You WANT a deterrent. If you can stop DDoS attacks, you don't need a deterrent.

I asked how you can prevent DDoS attacks. Prevent DDoS, Stop DDoS, that's what I'm asking. How do you stop people from trying to mess with the site and/or mess with the site?

For example, let's say some different teenage hacker decides "hey, I wanna mess with incels, I'm gonna DDoS that site". What is stopping him from doing so?

Menacing by stalking is illegal regardless of how you get the information. I know where the President lives. If I say "Hey let's go to the White House and mess with the President," that's still illegal. As illegal as it is to take this guy's information and use it to threaten him.

The doxxer never said "let's go mess with him."

And if what you're saying is "Doxxing is a deterrent," we are already menacing him with the information we have.

Not necessarily. You're reaching now. Me saying "doxxing is a deterrent", doesn't automatically necessitate that doxxing in all circumstances is illegal, and it doesn't mean that the information others have is menacing him.

In order to deter the doxx, there would have to be some danger that future doxxers would be in if they messed with us. Danger we intend to threaten this current doxxer with.

in order to deter the doxx? You mean deter the DDoS?

If you have his location, you're coming after him and the people around him. That's his family.

No, you're not. Saying "let's go after him", would be encouraging others to come after him.

 

[!CircumcisedManlet!]

I don't think you're getting it, so I'm gonna break this down piece by piece.



Again, you do not need a deterrent. You WANT a deterrent. If you can stop DDoS attacks, you don't need a deterrent.



Menacing by stalking is illegal regardless of how you get the information. I know where the President lives. If I say "Hey let's go to the White House and mess with the President," that's still illegal. As illegal as it is to take this guy's information and use it to threaten him. And if what you're saying is "Doxxing is a deterrent," we are already menacing him with the information we have. In order to deter the doxx, there would have to be some danger that future doxxers would be in if they messed with us. Danger we intend to threaten this current doxxer with.



If you have his location, you're coming after him and the people around him. That's his family.

>someone takes down the website via illegal means
>he brags about it using a public forum
>someone uses his precious posts on said forum to get his name
>google his name and find his parents facebook
>parents Facebook has location, school, ect

None of this is illegal. It’s simple research. I’m not reading all 6 pages of your bullshit but you sound supremely cucked. Let the kid take his licking, aka people telling his mom “your sons a little shit” and reporting him to the FBI for federal crimes he committed and admitted to committing
no one has his address, no one has his SSN, phone number, ect. We have info that was easily attainable through his own admissions. Nothing illegal has happened. You take your caption “post like the FBI is watching” to the extreme. Do you live in some totalitarian shithole where you think something would actually come of this? Of internet sleuths identifying someone who illegally took down multiple websites?

don’t even bother replying to me btw I don’t wanna argue I just wanted to tell you how I feel

 

[FrothySolutions]

I asked how you can prevent DDoS attacks. Prevent DDoS, Stop DDoS, that's what I'm asking. How do you stop people from trying to mess with the site and/or mess with the site?

For example, let's say some different teenage hacker decides "hey, I wanna mess with incels, I'm gonna DDoS that site". What is stopping him from doing so?

The doxxer never said "let's go mess with him."

Not necessarily. You're reaching now. Me saying "doxxing is a deterrent", doesn't automatically necessitate that doxxing in all circumstances is illegal, and it doesn't mean that the information others have is menacing him.

in order to deter the doxx? You mean deter the DDoS?

No, you're not. Saying "let's go after him", would be encouraging others to come after him.

You stop the DDoS attacks the same way we should've stopped this one. Do not publish his information. You contact him privately and say "If you keep this up, I will call the police." You do this for every DDoSer that tries to DDoS. You might be about to say "But how do you stop them from trying at all?" To which I will point out again, you do not NEED a deterrent. You WANT a deterrent. You're talking about a deterrent. Which you do not need.

And if doxxing isn't menace, then it isn't a deterrent. Because there must be some danger for me to fear. If the message here is "See how we found and posted this guy's name and wear he lives, you better not DDoS us," there must be some danger, some menace we face, in having our details published.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's bad for this guy to have his name and home published and other DDoSers will avoid messing with us, or it's harmless, and this guy, as well as all DDoSers, have nothing to fear.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

You stop the DDoS attacks the same way we should've stopped this one. Do not publish his information. You contact him privately and say "If you keep this up, I will call the police." You do this for every DDoSer that tries to DDoS. You might be about to say "But how do you stop them from trying at all?" To which I will point out again, you do not NEED a deterrent. You WANT a deterrent. You're talking about a deterrent. Which you do not need.

This isn't stopping the attacks. This is defusing them. Stopping is to stop the attack from happening, which could happen if there was advanced enough technology to stop the DDoS from having any effect. You seem to think "this site doesn't need to not be DDoS'd, it just needs for the DDoS attacks to never last extremely long".

So basically, whenever someone wants to mess with website, they can mess with this website, and people on this forum are obligated to just "suck it up" and deal with it for several days, until the problem is resolved? And the person who DDoS'd is let free because they only decided to mess with the site for a brief time period? And this can happen over and over again and we just have to take it?

I disagree. People on this forum do not owe mercy to the people to DDoS this website. You act like we owe these DDoSers a chance to stop their behavior and be let off scot-free. This sends the message to DDoSers "you can mess with this forum all you want, the worst that happens is they catch you and tell you to stop, then you can stop after you were caught". And then a different DDoSer can "have their turn", and not have to worry about potentially getting doxxed.

Stong levels of security and defenses is a NEED for a site, in order to be taken seriously. You are demoting it down to a "want".

And if doxxing isn't menace, then it isn't a deterrent.

No, that isn't how the law is defined. You are reaching.

Because there must be some danger for me to fear.

The law talks about bodily harm, doxxing and saying "go after this person", puts them at risk for bodily harm.

places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person

This is why saying "go after this person" is illegal. Because that is advocating for bodily harm. Merely posting someone's doxx and not advocating for people to go after them, isn't illegal (assuming the info was already available publicly)

Just because a person doesn't want to get doxxed, doesn't mean it qualifies as "danger" to them, in terms of bodily harm, so therefore it's not illegal.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's bad for this guy to have his name and home published and other DDoSers will avoid messing with us, or it's harmless, and this guy, as well as all DDoSers, have nothing to fear.

Depends how you define "bad". Bad doesn't necessarily make something illegal. Just because he doesn't want to be doxxed, and would prefer not to be doxxed, doesn't make the doxxing illegal. So if something happens that he prefers not to, then sure, it may be "bad", but it doesn't make it illegal.

 

[FrothySolutions]

This isn't stopping the attacks. This is defusing them. Stopping is to stop the attack from happening, which could happen if there was advanced enough technology to stop the DDoS from having any effect.

So basically, whenever someone wants to mess with website, they can mess with this website, and people on this forum are obligated to just "suck it up" and deal with it, until the problem is resolved? And the person who DDoS'd is let free because they only decided to mess with the site for a brief time period? And this can happen over and over again and we just have to take it?

I disagree. People on this forum do not owe mercy to the people to DDoS this website. You act like we owe these DDoSers a chance to stop their behavior and be let off scot-free. This sends the message to DDoSers "you can mess with this forum all you want, the worst that happens is they catch you and tell you to stop, then you can stop after you were caught". And then a different DDoSer can "have their turn", and not have to worry about potentially getting doxxed.

Stong levels of security and defenses is a NEED for a site, in order to be taken seriously. You are demoting it down to a "want".

No, that isn't how the law is defined. You are reaching.

The law talks about bodily harm, doxxing and saying "go after this person", puts them at risk for bodily harm.

This is why saying "go after this person" is illegal. Because that is advocating for bodily harm. Merely posting someone's doxx and not advocating for people to go after them, isn't illegal (assuming the info was already available publicly)

Just because a person doesn't want to get doxxed, doesn't mean it qualifies as "danger" to them, in terms of bodily harm, so therefore it's not illegal.

Depends how you define "bad". Bad doesn't necessarily make something illegal. Just because he doesn't want to be doxxed, and would prefer not to be doxxed, doesn't make the doxxing illegal. So if something happens that he prefers not to, then sure, it may be "bad", but it doesn't make it illegal.

Okay, so you wanna be a hawk about this? Then don't warn the DDoSer. Call the police then. And you want a deterrent? That is itself a deterrent. We don't need to publish the guy's information to report him, nor do we need to publish the guy's information to tell people that we called the police.

What you want is the "sharing his name and location with everyone." Which you don't need. Not even as a deterrent. You want it, because it's revenge. It makes the community look tough.

And again, the statutes vary by state. You're the one defining "bad" here. If hanging his details out in public is itself a deterrent, there must be something to fear in having your details out in public. That means we intentionally menaced him with something to fear.

 

[highinhibition]

why is this in the sewers?

_________________________

Welcome


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOcrKFiB_ts

 

[Dregster]

why is this in the sewers?

It will get moved back to bunkers when these 2 finish

_________________________

Welcome


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOcrKFiB_ts