Doxxing and Cancel Culture are Back on the Menu!

[iluvatar5150]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/13/business/charlie-kirk-death-fired-comments

The Charlie’s Murderers site, whose domain was registered anonymously and which says it is not a doxxing site, claims it has “received nearly 30,000 submissions,” according to a message on the site’s front page on midday Saturday. Currently, there are a few dozen submissions published on the site. “This website will soon be converted into a searchable database of all 30,000 submissions, filterable by general location and job industry. This is a permanent and continuously-updating archive of Radical activists calling for violence.”​

Expose Charlie's Murderers

www.charliesmurderers.com

Looking over the first handful of entries, it seems their idea of what constitutes “supporting political violence” is… extremely broad.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Yes.... and there is another site.
Justice for Charile
If you have information or screenshots of these wicked people, send them to the site, and they will contact the employers.
It is a good way to return some sense of right and wrong to the culture. Let them know this is not acceptable and that there are consequences for this kind of activity.
I cannot say I disagree.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/website-flagging-celebrations-charlie-kirk-death/#/questions/5662210

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes.... and there is another site.
Justice for Charile
If you have information or screenshots of these wicked people, send them to the site, and they will contact the employers.
It is a good way to return some sense of right and wrong to the culture. Let them know this is not acceptable and that there are consequences for this kind of activity.
I cannot say I disagree.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/website-flagging-celebrations-charlie-kirk-death/#/questions/5662210

Doxxing isn't the answer. Content moderation of websites and platforms is the answer.

Doxxing is malicious behavior, as @Aaron112 points out, it's not consistent with Christian ethics.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not unchristian to call out wrongdoing and wrongdoers.

Doxxing is stochastic terrorism. It's not merely pointing out somebody's error, it's meant as a threat or intimidation tactic.

 

[Servus]

Doxxing is stochastic terrorism. It's not merely pointing out somebody's error, it's meant as a threat or intimidation tactic.

Like when Tyler Robinson was doxxed?

 

[Richard T]

It's not unchristian to call out wrongdoing and wrongdoers.

Yes, with two or three witnesses let everything be confirmed.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The number is up to 40000 now.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) took to X on Thursday and vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”



The Louisiana Republican also demanded that any users who posted those “belittling” posts be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”

“I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked.

 

[bèlla]

What a sad world. Thanks for informing us. I passed this on to a few.

~bella

 

[Tropical Wilds]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/13/business/charlie-kirk-death-fired-comments

The Charlie’s Murderers site, whose domain was registered anonymously and which says it is not a doxxing site, claims it has “received nearly 30,000 submissions,” according to a message on the site’s front page on midday Saturday. Currently, there are a few dozen submissions published on the site. “This website will soon be converted into a searchable database of all 30,000 submissions, filterable by general location and job industry. This is a permanent and continuously-updating archive of Radical activists calling for violence.”​

Expose Charlie's Murderers

www.charliesmurderers.com

Looking over the first handful of entries, it seems their idea of what constitutes “supporting political violence” is… extremely broad.

Ah, so we’re on that phase of the regime now. Cool.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Doxxing isn't the answer. Content moderation of websites and platforms is the answer.

While I would agree with not doxxing people (in the form of giving out their addresses and phone numbers)... I don't think content moderation is the answer either.

That just allows people with abhorrent views to keep their status hidden (thereby letting them continue to apply those biases and grudges in the workplace)

Let's be honest here, if there's a person who thinks it's funny that Charlie's neck was spurting blood like a fountain, if that person is any position of authority at all, and knows certain subordinates are conservatives, they're most certainly not going to be applying fair treatment in the workplace.

As someone who does oversee people, if I had an employee who was...say... sympathetic to the KKK, I'd rather be able to know that so that I can apply that information appropriately to my decision making.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I must have slept through the time over the past 10 years where it was "off the menu"...

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Doxxing isn't the answer. Content moderation of websites and platforms is the answer.

Doxxing is malicious behavior, as @Aaron112 points out, it's not consistent with Christian ethics.

As I stated on another thread, these website need to have labels warning viewers that the website is toxic hate. The music, tv and movie industry have put labels letting viewers know what type of content the particular media contains, why not websites?

And I've already gone down the road with the other thread, they claim it would be censuring. When people come together in a bipartisan effort to say, "hey this is offensive in nature" this shows what toxic is. And I'm not talking about debatable topics such as abortion, taxes, whether there's a God, LGBTQ issues, climate change dealings. I'm talking about wanting people dead topics.

I truly believe that on both sides of the political spectrum, people can't see bad stuff coming from their own side. They pooh pooh it away like, it was an honest mistake. With these bipartisan people coming together and labeling these websites, they are saying to others, "this is what we find very bad and toxic.

As a caveat though, this does not apply to God but it does apply to those who twist God's words to commit and speak evil.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

As I stated on another thread, these website need to have labels warning viewers that the website is toxic hate. The music, tv and movie industry have put labels letting viewers know what type of content the particular media contains, why not websites?

And I've already gone down the road with the other thread, they claim it would be censuring. When people come together in a bipartisan effort to say, "hey this is offensive in nature" this shows what toxic is. And I'm not talking about debatable topics such as abortion, taxes, whether there's a God, LGBTQ issues, climate change dealings. I'm talking about wanting people dead topics.

I truly believe that on both sides of the political spectrum, people can't see bad stuff coming from their own side. They pooh pooh it away like, it was an honest mistake. With these bipartisan people coming together and labeling these websites, they are saying to others, "this is what we find very bad and toxic.

As a caveat though, this does not apply to God but it does apply to those who twist God's words to commit and speak evil.

TV, movies, and such do not have a “toxic hate” warning, just content advisories and generally flexible age restrictions. With websites, especially social media, the type of content that could be on the site and the steps to moderate that all exist in the terms of service. Besides which, websites clearly fall under what’s called “inherent risk.”

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As I stated on another thread, these website need to have labels warning viewers that the website is toxic hate. The music, tv and movie industry have put labels letting viewers know what type of content the particular media contains, why not websites?

And I've already gone down the road with the other thread, they claim it would be censuring. When people come together in a bipartisan effort to say, "hey this is offensive in nature" this shows what toxic is. And I'm not talking about debatable topics such as abortion, taxes, whether there's a God, LGBTQ issues, climate change dealings. I'm talking about wanting people dead topics.

I truly believe that on both sides of the political spectrum, people can't see bad stuff coming from their own side. They pooh pooh it away like, it was an honest mistake. With these bipartisan people coming together and labeling these websites, they are saying to others, "this is what we find very bad and toxic.

As a caveat though, this does not apply to God but it does apply to those who twist God's words to commit and speak evil.

For the most part, there has been a bipartisan effort to denounce what happened.

As much as I'll critique certain pundits... Hasan Piker, the Young Turks crew, Brian Stelter, and a whole host of others have given what I feel is a completely gracious and appropriate response to this situation.

However, "hateful content warnings" are a slippery slope. When there's 40% of the country that perceives "an opinion I don't agree with = hate", that's not a workable framework.

We'd have to reach a national consensus on what constitutes "hate" before that would be a workable system.

There's some level of agreement, but not enough to make it a standard.

For instance, a majority of people on the left and right would agree that the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood are hate groups. But when you drill down into "can a biological male be considered a woman?" questions, the two halves of the country are pretty far apart on that. One faction would say "No" is the common sense answer, the other half would say answering "No" to that question is "hateful".

 

[Hvizsgyak]

TV, movies, and such do not have a “toxic hate” warning, just content advisories and generally flexible age restrictions. With websites, especially social media, the type of content that could be on the site and the steps to moderate that all exist in the terms of service. Besides which, websites clearly fall under what’s called “inherent risk.”

Look, I know you mean well by pointing out these things. I'm a minimalist type of guy (short attention span). I use the least amount of words to get my point across believing the reader is smart enough to fill in the blanks of what I write. Yes, I know there isn't a "toxic hate" label for movies, tv shows and music. What should have been a given so I wouldn't have to write all these words is that the movies, tv shows and music have labels telling people what the content contains such as violence, foul language, nudity, smoking... I really believed people reading this post would understand the connection.

I still feel that a label on the website by a third party would be the best way to get these websites to tone down their inflammatory killing rhetoric. And that goes for both liberals, conservatives, left leaning, right leaning, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, humanists, atheists, gorgons, Klingons...

So please next time you read something of mind just realize a lot is implied because I dislike typing a lot. I lose track of my point and what I'm trying to say .

 

[Hvizsgyak]

We'd have to reach a national consensus on what constitutes "hate" before that would be a workable system.

But it should be done to show our unity. The national consensus is right on the button. My suggestion really was only pertaining to praising, glorifying and wanting someone dead. As I said before the labeling of websites has nothing to do with things that are debatable such as abortion, taxes, voting registration, LGBTQ issues, whether there is a God, police brutality and so forth. I agree, we'd never get a consensus on those topics but gleefully praising killing someone or groups of people, we can find consensus there easier (I think).

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Look, I know you mean well by pointing out these things. I'm a minimalist type of guy (short attention span). I use the least amount of words to get my point across believing the reader is smart enough to fill in the blanks of what I write. Yes, I know there isn't a "toxic hate" label for movies, tv shows and music. What should have been a given so I wouldn't have to write all these words is that the movies, tv shows and music have labels telling people what the content contains such as violence, foul language, nudity, smoking... I really believed people reading this post would understand the connection.

I got the connection, which would be why I also said: “With websites, especially social media, the type of content that could be on the site and the steps to moderate that all exist in the terms of service. Besides which, websites clearly fall under what’s called “inherent risk.”

I still feel that a label on the website by a third party would be the best way to get these websites to tone down their inflammatory killing rhetoric. And that goes for both liberals, conservatives, left leaning, right leaning, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, humanists, atheists, gorgons, Klingons...

You mean like a “terms of service?” Or a “user agreement?” Like this:

Those all clearly state that despite varying efforts on their part, you’re going to see things you might be offended by and you accept that risk by joining.

So please next time you read something of mind just realize a lot is implied because I dislike typing a lot. I lose track of my point and what I'm trying to say .

If something you say isn’t communicated because you didn’t want to be bothered with typing, it’s not my job to try and infer your secret meaning. It’s up to you to clearly express and explain it. That’s what one does on a forum.

Especially in this scenario where I did infer what you said just fine and your attempt to patronize me is entirely your fault at not reading what I wrote beyond the first sentence… And again, making sure you read a post completely is not something I’m responsible for.

 

[FireDragon76]

But it should be done to show our unity. The national consensus is right on the button. My suggestion really was only pertaining to praising, glorifying and wanting someone dead. As I said before the labeling of websites has nothing to do with things that are debatable such as abortion, taxes, voting registration, LGBTQ issues, whether there is a God, police brutality and so forth. I agree, we'd never get a consensus on those topics but gleefully praising killing someone or groups of people, we can find consensus there easier (I think).

There's rarely a national consensus that's worth considering, especially on controversial topics that get thrown up in algorithmically driven feeds. Distrust of expertise and lived experienced in favor of ideologies rooted in philosophical abstraction and myth are part of what got us into this trouble in the first place.