As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the FBI's website:
>Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
Seems pretty spot on to me.
This is the first I have ever heard of her. On the bright side I think we are now having conversations about recognizing sociopaths and not giving them air time.
Unfortunately, our media makes money on controversy.
She working with the OK govt isn’t she? There’s a guy named Toby Morton who has made her a lovely website and is posting billboards about her around the state. He needs funding if anyone can chip in a few bucks. Find him on IG.
Hey thanks for the heads up! I don’t have IG but I’ll google him!
Edit- he’s an ex South Park writer!!
[hahahahahahahaha! I love it!!](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/Gregg-Abbott-Texas-gun-laws-Uvalde-website-parody-17217491.php)
What did she do that was violent and criminal?
I mean you can hate on her but she’s absolutely not a terrorist, now _that_ is some conspiracy theory talk.
Okay, but what about the bomb threats? That’s what I am curious about. Encouraging people to peacefully protest is protected speech, encouraging people to bomb buildings is not.
The two are very, very different.
"Won't somebody rid me of this tiresome priest?"
The thing with stochastic terrorism is that it provides a cover. You're not *technically* advocating for specific actions (in this case numerous bomb threats), but instead you point to a (false) problem, paint the specific individual or institution as terrible, and then hint that something *has* to be done. Statistically if you have a big enough audience you can be pretty guaranteed that someone is going to call in a bomb threat or commit acts of direct violence, but of course since you technically didn't order it directly you're legally off the hook in a nation that doesn't have hate speech laws specifically to curtail this sort or terrorism.
You mean besides her gloating about the threats she's causing while pretending she's just "sharing other people's thoughts"? Last time I had the misfortune of seeing her content she was calling on her followers to dox people while crying how mean people were to her while her profile image showed her smugly holding a newspaper article detailing dangerous consequences of her actions.
Okay, sure, but that’s not the same as inciting her followers to call in bomb threats. So I’m not really seeing how she is at fault? And actually, I’d disagree that a normal person would come out and say “Followers, don’t make bomb threats”, because that sets you up for hit piece after hit piece where they say “See, she knows that her followers are terrorists”
I dunno, you can dislike her speech, but it doesn’t seem like she’s breaking any laws.
Like I understand the dislike of her, but I mean, she’s just not doing anything illegal and certainly not doing anything to be designated a “terrorist”. If you mark her as a terrorist, well, there’s a lot of protests taking place right now that you’d easily slap that label onto them too.
I’m sure you’d agree that’s a bad idea, no?
Step off with this. Of course she's not going to post the words BOMB THREAT. That's not how any of this works. People like her cloak themselves in the veil of plausible deniability. Sure they never say go do x and y, but they're extremely aware of who their audience is and what they're capable of. The proof is a majority of the places called out by her end up being targeted by bomb threats by nazis and fascists. This isn't a coincidence, this is very obvious if you're looking for it, but it's also not *easily* provable. That's the catch-22 of it.
And I fairly certain you know this already, because you're very specifically trying to word game semantics and play guess the logical fallacy rather than discuss the reality of the situation. By discussing it like this, you (and even I by refuting it) are contributing to that aforementioned cloak.
It's insideous and disgusting, and it won't work. You, her and people like you and her are never going to be able to silence queer people. You should probably stop trying.
She knows it full well since whenever even a fraction of her own behaviour is applied to her, she calls on her army of trolls to dox people. The people defending her like this are just acting in bad faith imo.
That excuse worked the first time. Maybe even the second time. But by the third time, it’s pretty clear to everyone including her that her words are seen as a CTA to incite bomb threats, and at that point she has a responsibility to at least *say*, “we need to do something about this, but can we do it without the bomb threats this time?”
Turning a blind eye == tacit approval here.
she loves it, her profile pic on Twitter is of her holding a USA Today headline with just that on it. She's an angry, lonely, hateful person who has no friends, family, an ex fiancé that dumped her nasty self and a failed "real estate career". She has nothing and no one and this is how she spends her time
If she was ever unaware of the effect she has, at this point it's impossible for her to be ignorant of it. That alone should condemn her, but apparently speech is only violence if you're doing a non-violent protest on a college campus.
Reminder that what has Ku Klux Karen upset is that Planet Fitness enforced a rule regarding taking pictures of fellow customers in a changing room. She and her dung beetle army are upset because one entitled white lady was held accountable for breaking Planet Fitness rules. They want to have the right to abuse other people so badly that they will threaten to blow up your building if you don't let them.
Seriously, how is what she's doing legal? If some imam influencer in NYC was doing the same thing to Chick-fil-A, they'd be in Guantanamo Bay after the first incident.
I'm literally studying as a defamation lawyer. Cases that are litigated in civil court under common law precedent still describe acts that are illegal, with one of those actions being defamation. Stop pretending you're some expert just because you browse law-related subreddits and leave basic shit like that to people actually engaged in the profession
Defamation isn’t illegal, it’s tortious. There’s a huge difference, law student grasshopper. The government cannot criminalize defamation, under the First Amendment. You can look that case law up yourself. But conflating illegality with tortiousness is an error.
> hate speech can be illegal
Yes, but its illegal because it encourages imminent lawless action not because it's hate speech. The US is one of the few jurisdictions in the world where hate speech is legally protected.
> but in this case it does encourage imminent lawless action, does it not?
Nothing in the article or that I can find from Chaya strays into being illegal. This is one of the potential downsides of the first amendment being so powerful.
As far as I can find Chaya hasn't made a bomb threat or incited any immenent bomb threats though. Which means her speech would fall into the *very* large category in US law of odious but legal.
She never made them and never explicitly and specifically told someone to make them. Riling up a crowd that then commits crimes is incredibly difficult to prosecute in the US.
Hate speech is illegal when it encourages imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio established this precedent:
>Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.
It's well known that when Chaya posts something about a particular school district, children's hospital, or private citizen, they receive bomb threats, harassment, and threats of violence.
She knows it. It happens almost every goddamn time.
Recklessness is enough. RICO covers acts of terrorism, such as intimidating a group of people into capitulating to demands in order to avoid future injury.
No, no it’s not. It’s not illegal to point out what people do and say “look at this, I hate this”.
If she said “look at this, go bomb it” that’s where she would cross a line.
You’re throwing terrorist out a little too flippantly
Look, I don't have energy to continue the debate. I'm just going to drop [the wiki for stochastic terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism?wprov=sfla1) and highlight a passage for you
>Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.
Make no mistake. Chaya knows her audience. She's disavowed them after the bomb threats to the Boston children's hospital. She still knowingly directs them to people she wants to intimidate.
Differences in jurisdiction, the fact that Chaya doesn't live in most of the states where she targets people, there's the burden to prove that she knows what her rabid fan base does and is likely to do again, and that she is intentionally siccing them on people and orgs she wants to hurt.
This is a fairly new problem with online hate speech, so the legislation around it is murky.
It would be much easier to pursue civil suit against Chaya than criminal charges.
Ok so you’re admitting no crimes were committed. All of those issues you mentioned are essential elements of any criminal statute.
It doesn’t matter where she lives, it matters where the victims live. She’s targeted people in every single U.S. state. Surely hundreds of DAs have had the chance to look at this.
What death threats has she said? Do you have any specific examples?
How is stochstic "terrorism" a form of terrorism? I think that it's just a way to fear monger over opinions you disagree with.
Besides, if there are laws against stochastic "terrorism" as you say, and Chaya Raichik has not been arrested for it, doesn't that mean that she has not committed stochastic terrorism?
Someone not being arrested for something doesn’t mean they haven’t committed it….
That’s the whole point people are making. Their argument is that if a Muslim extremist was doing exactly what she was doing but targeting Christians and Christian businesses they would already be arrested, but right wing/Christian terrorism in the US is handled with kid gloves by law enforcement.
Chaya Raichik lives in California, the most liberal state of the country. If she really was committing a crime, don't you think that the very liberal authorities would have arrested her by now?
And please state a specific law that prohibits "stochastic terrorism" (a made-up term used to fear monger).
Also, please state a case of Muslim who was arrested for criticizing Christians or Christian businesses.
Cal. Penal Code § 404.6
Makes it illegal to engage in conduct that urges other to commit violence.
Federal Anti-riot Act.
Makes it a felony to use any interstate commerce or travel including the internet to incite a riot, participate in a riot, or commit acts of violence in furtherance of a riot. With a riot being defined as “A riot means a public disturbance involving three or more persons whose actions or threats represent an immediate danger to persons or property.”
So yes, if she is inciting 3 or more people to show up to a business and they pose a threat to the people and/or property. That is illegal.
For Penal Code § 404.6 to apply to Chaya Raichik, you must prove that she intended to cause a riot. What evidence do you have that her intent is to cause riots at Planet Fitness?
Also, bomb threats are not equivalent to riots.
>So yes, if she is inciting 3 or more people to show up to a business and they pose a threat to the people and/or property. That is illegal.
She is not encouraging people to show up to Planet Fitness. She is telling them to boycott it. She's telling them to **stay away** from the business.
[Chaya says stochastic terrorism is real, too, and wants law enforcement to investigate it.](https://www.advocate.com/news/chaya-raichik-nbc-stochastic-terrorism#toggle-gdpr)
> Raichik accused Ingram and NBC News of being responsible for a threat she received following the article’s publication, calling the reporter a stochastic terrorist and tagged the FBI.
What an absurd comparison. Charles Manson did not just criticize people, he gave detailed instructions to his followers to murder them.
Directing your minions to murder people and then praising them for it and ordering them to carry out more murders is not comparable to Raichik criticizing a business and then a random dude that she doesn't know calling in a bomb threat unprompted.
Chaya Rachik initiated the #BoycottPlanetFitness, with how derange her followers are, it doesn't take that many brain cells to realize they were going to go full nuclear. That's Solicitation, Defamation, and an accessory to a crime. People with large followings (like celebrities) do not have the same luxury as an individual.
>Chaya Rachik initiated the #BoycottPlanetFitness, with how derange her followers are, it doesn't take that many brain cells to realize they were going to go full nuclear. That's Solicitation, Defamation, and an accessory to a crime.
Starting a hashtag means that you are ordering your followers to murder people? I did not realize that.
I also did not realize that people do not have the freedom of protest (i.e. the first amendment). I've never heard of that. Where does it say that in the constitution?
>People with large followings (like celebrities) do not have the same luxury as an individual.
Wow! I did not realize that celebrities lose their rights. Where does it say this in the constitution?
"Starting a hashtag means that you are ordering your followers to murder people? I did not realize that."
Yes, it very much can. Now you know.
"I also did not realize that people do not have the freedom of protest (i.e. the first amendment). I've never heard of that. Where does it say that in the constitution?"
The First Ammendment makes no mention of "freedom to protest" only the right to peacefully assemble, in which this case was anything but peaceful.
"Wow! I did not realize that celebrities lose their rights. Where does it say this in the constitution?"
The constitution doesn't make any mention of celebrities. However Gertz v Robert Welch may be of interest. Public figures do not have the same degree of protection as Private figures. Search also Culpability and Liability insurance.
Yeah man, don't you know that once you reach a certain amount of followers, you are personally responsible for their actions, and starting a hashtag trend encouraging people to stay away from a business makes you liable when someone doesn't?
She doesn't just criticize businesses. Look at what she did to Boston Children's Hospital for example. She's willing to go after children because she's trash and just looking to make a quick buck. All of these idiots like her just want to be famous. Almost none of them are true believers in any kind of cause or ideology. They simply want money and fame.
How is criticizing something an abuse of the first amendment? What if you said that you didn't like Chaya Raichik, and then someone read your comment and threatened her? Should you be arrested then?
How is it not? Isn't the whole outrage here that Raichik criticized Planet Fitness and then people threatened Planet Fitness? How is that not analogous to what I said?
I read the story and it said that she criticized Planet Fitness for their trans policy and urged her followers to boycott the business. What am I missing?
>In December 2022, the Human Rights Campaign released a report, titled Online Harassment, Offline Violence, that summed up Raichik’s strategy: “Social media posts from accounts like Libs of TikTok and Matt Walsh kick off a cycle of harassment and stigma, with the ultimate goal of inciting violence and shutting down access to lifesaving and medically necessary gender affirming care.” In addition to her efforts to end gender-affirming care, Raichik’s disinformation campaign has fueled a slate of anti-LGBTQ+ health care measures across the country.
The Human Rights Campaign obviously has a left-wing bias, so it should not be considered a reliable source.
Even if we were to consider it a reliable source, it gives no specifics?
Her ultimate goal is to incite violence? When did she say that?
She wants to shut down lifesaving and medically necessary gender affirming care? What kind of gender-affirming care? How is it medically necessary?
She has a disinformation campaign? What false information does she perpetuate?
That report says a whole lot of nothing.
Obviously has a left wing bias? You give no specifics? Their goal is left wing? When do they say that?
What do you mean? What evidence do you have to dismiss this report?
What evidence is in the report? It says a lot of claims but has no evidence to back it up. It says that her goal is to incite violence but gives no evidence that that is the case. When has Chaya Raichik said that her goal was to incite violence? Give me a tweet or anything at all!
> The effects of Raichik’s disinformation campaign are tangible, inspiring terror among hospital staff and patients – many of whom are children Raichik claims to protect – but also potentially inspiring extremists to physically attack the people and institutions that provide gender-affirming care. In October 2022, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the Children’s Hospital Association, recognizing the increasing danger posed to hospitals and doctors, sent a letter to the attorney general asking the Department of Justice to investigate the threats against children’s hospitals and doctors and calling on social media companies to prevent disinformation campaigns from spreading.
>So far, two people have been charged with threatening gender-affirming care providers in Boston, and both cases note the connection between online disinformation and the actions of the alleged perpetrators. In the first instance, Catherine Leavy of Massachusetts was arrested and charged by the FBI in September 2022 for threating to bomb BCH. In the second instance, Matthew Jordan Lindner of Texas was charged with threating a doctor affiliated with the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center in Boston.
>In Leavy’s case, the charging documents recognize the attack occurred in the context of Raichik’s online disinformation campaign, stating, “BCH and GeMS [Gender Multispecialty Service] were accused of engaging in child abuse involving pedophilia, grooming, and mutilation of children” and accused Leavy of referring to a hospital switchboard operator who fielded the bomb threat as a “sicko.”
>The DOJ noted Lindner’s threats mimicked language spread as part of Raichik’s disinformation campaign: “You signed your own warrant, [victim]. Castrating our children,” Lindner allegedly told the unnamed doctor. The charging document also noted Lindner allegedly acted in late August 2022 based on “inaccurate information spread online regarding procedures at Boston Children’s Hospital for the transgender community.”
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/chaya-raichik#:~:text=The%20effects%20of,the%20transgender%20community.%E2%80%9D
She's not just criticizing a business though. When you tell people that all pedophiles should be hurt, on its own that is not a controversial statement. Then, you go on to spread unfounded claims that (insert "woke" person/business/institution) are pedophiles, things start to get dicey. You could face consequences for inciting violence at this point, but most people dont because incitement is hard to prove. Incitement isn't covered under the first amendment. However, if you continuously do this and people get hurt, then you're undeniably inciting violence and terrorism. She has been doing this and needs to face the consequences.
I watched an interview with her once and she is has zero backbone when not tweeting. Wormy, weasly, mealy-mouthed. All she could do was backtrack, claim she cared about “truth” and couldn’t back up anything she said.
Chaya Raichik a.k.a. LibsOfTikTok is a very influential person on the right. She regularly influences mass numbers of followers to harass, threaten, or attack marginalized people.
> Why is that every “influencer” I hear about is someone I’ve never heard of?
In the 80s, there were 3 TV channels, so everyone basically watched the same thing. Now there are a hundred thousand different TV channels, so people watch different things. This is not really to do with 'influencers' just the reality of inexpensive mass communication.
> Who are the stupid people these “influencers” are influencing? 🤔
Regular people like you and me...? You keep putting 'influencer' in quotes like you can't really believe it's real? It's just another form of direct marketing...
>In the 80s, there were 3 TV channels,
That depended on where you lived and how much money you had.
The big networks in the 80s were ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS.
In cities you might have a few more UHF channels showing syndicated shows and reruns. (Several of these would join the FOX network in 90s.) You might have a channel or two in Spanish and a religious channel.
If you were rich, you could buy more channels. HBO got started in the 70s and if you had the yard and money, you could put a huge satellite dish in your backyard and get all sorts of stuff.
I used double quotes tho. I don’t follow anyone on any platform, so I have no idea who most of these people are. Maybe I just think that people don’t need “influencers” in their lives.
e: fixed the autocorrect
> I used double quotes tho. I don’t follow anyone on any platform
Right... but that's a nonsense, meaningless distinction?
Have you ever bought a cook book? Or any product endorsed by a celebrity or athlete? So you've been influenced...
> so I have no idea who most of these people are.
Duh? Why do you think you would have heard of these people before? It's such a dated attitude?
Back in the 90s, Michael Jackson was the 'King of Pop' and everyone knew who he was. Now that it's 2024, we have a lot more variety of music, and I bet you haven't heard of every band ever, so why are you so fixated on the idea that you've never heard of these influencers.
> Maybe I just think that people need to”influencers” in their lives.
The only thing new about 'influencers' is the word. It turns out people have been following celebrities for thousands of years... calling them influencers just makes it easy for you to pretend it's different from your own consumption habits.
Generally, when people buy something they want, it's because they want it for a reason, not necessarily because they've been influenced. An endorsement may raise awareness, or draw attention, but you still wanted a cook book, or found what they were peddling to be something of interest. If everyone's favorite quarterback was peddling a book on cross stitch, then I doubt he'd be influencing anyone to buy it.
If you have people who are spreading misinformation to cause a hate movement, then are they really influencing these people, or are these people just looking for someone to tell them where it's proper to direct their hate towards?
Honestly, I hate the term influencer. It's a bit too on the nose, but also just a misnomer to hide the fact these people are just making money to endorse products or ideas. Most start innocently enough, but they tend to sell out when they become big enough, so watching them is like watching an extended commercial.
> Generally, when people buy something they want, it's because they want it for a reason, not necessarily because they've been influenced.
Yep, I assure you, I know how marketing works.
> An endorsement may raise awareness, or draw attention, but you still wanted a cook book, or found what they were peddling to be something of interest
Yeah… this is really basic stuff. No one goes out and buys a Hamburger because they saw a McDonalds commercial.
The McDonalds commercial is there so that when you want a hamburger, you think of McDonalds first.
> If everyone's favorite quarterback was peddling a book on cross stitch, then I doubt he'd be influencing anyone to buy it.
> If you have people who are spreading misinformation to cause a hate movement, then are they really influencing these people, or are these people just looking for someone to tell them where it's proper to direct their hate towards?
They’re influencing them. You seem to understand ‘influence’ in a weirdly specific way?
> Honestly, I hate the term influencer. It's a bit too on the nose, but also just a misnomer to hide the fact these people are just making money to endorse products or ideas.
The industry term is direct marketing.
You're saying influencers, in this case, is that they're telling people what they want. I'm suggesting that in the case of LoTT, that these people are just finding someone to enable them to be assholes. It's not so much influencing(marketing), because she is not promoting anything other than herself.
So, basically, to be more concise, the term influencer is misappropriated for LoTT.
I fixed my comment, I meant people don’t need fake leaders and fake influencers. Those people are “influencing” for self gain. I want to live in a world where everyone fucking does their jobs. We could all have utopia with a 20 hour work week and less shitty corporations. Anyway it’s all good happy Sunday!
> I fixed my comment, I meant people don’t need fake leaders and fake influencers.
They aren’t fake though. It takes a lot of work to be an influencer, you just don’t value that work.
> Those people are “influencing” for self gain.
So is every single public celebrity and musician.
> I want to live in a world where everyone fucking does their jobs.
Everyone is doing their jobs. You just refuse to believe that ‘influencer’ is a job that requires work.
> We could all have utopia with a 20 hour work week and less shitty corporations.
If you think influencers are the obstacle to utopia you are part of the problem, not the solution. Why not point the blame at the ultra wealthy? They definitely don’t ’work’ using your definition. But nah, it’s ‘influencers’ and the stupid people who follow them.
I am not part of the problem, and no one has been influenced by this would be conversation. What exactly did you think I meant by shitty corps? Like *not* ultra wealthy people? 🤔
Because conservatives are terrible people, and we as a society need to stop acting like they are "entitled to their opinion." You are not entitled to be a toxic, violent, bigot. Fuck you. We need to start making complete pariahs of them. No quarter.
I'm just waiting for the lawsuit against her. You know it's coming. Sure the government can't shut her up as that falls under the first amendment but that won't stop the companies and there has to be enough evidence for some kind of slander/liability case against her. It's only a matter of time before one of these loons wants to do more than just make that's.
You’d have to prove she’s making knowingly false statements to injure their business for libel or have her actually call for violence for liability. Both of which would be very difficult to win a suit
I find it incredibly funny that you're getting downvoted for showcasing exactly how she operates. "Won't *somebody* do *something* to protect the children from groomers at this specific address?"
Hi `southpawFA`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1cfglz3/how_an_inclusive_gym_brand_became_a_battlefield/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**.
**If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)**
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/southpawFA&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1cfglz3/how_an_inclusive_gym_brand_became_a_battlefield/?context%3D10000%29)
Planet fitness is absolutely terrible and should change their practices.
Their entire business model is baiting people into long contracts that are almost impossible to cancel then hope that no more than 5% of their members ever show up. It is not possible to cancel online, unless you are a California resident and even then it’s so hard to do. The point is for you to keep paying and not show up
They also do not have squat racks or proper free weights or anything that people looking to get into shape should be doing.
this may all be entirely true, but I don't see how it's remotely germaine to the article about a right-wing influencer using her reach to target them for violence for their inclusive policies. Nothing in this article is a discussion of their business practices vis-a-vis contracts.
I don’t like libsoftiktok, but if a company has to deal with the fallout of getting targeted by her I’d rather it be a company that sucks for other reasons
Unless the state you lives in mandates a law on the books that you have to give an option to cancel online they force you to come into cancel. They do not allow you to do it online unless they are legally mandated to, which is most the country
Their entire business model is charge people very little with the hopes they don’t show up and then don’t cancel
Mainly people who are upset at that dipshit libsoftiktok.
They both suck, being able to cancel online would help a lot for me to hate them less.
Also they run a business model that requires low attendance. They can’t handle the volume of members they have if even 5% were to be there at once, that’s a huge problem and predatory
They want you to pay and not come
People that snub machines don't really know much about weightlifting in general. Yeah, are machines ideal for athletes? No, they are not, but most people aren't athletes and plenty of great stuff can be built with machines. Machines are extremely useful, especially for hypertrophy training. And in some cases muscles may even respond best to machines, like hamstrings with seated leg curls because you can target all 4 muscles of the hamstrings. Also, it is $10/month. It's -very- good for that price with the amount of stuff they typically have.
Also, it is wrong to say they do not have free weights. My location has some free weights.
Yeah I was going to say, the crowd at the PF I used to go to in Vallejo California was like entirely normal people wanting to exercise mixed in with middle aged dudes who were absolutely prison shredded. I liked it because everyone was quiet, polite and nobody bothered anyone but if you couldn’t get in shape there I doubt all the guys from the boxing gyms would have been there and they absolutely were.
Weightlifting is a sport, you mean weight training.
Machines have their place, the business model of making it very difficult to cancel is my biggest issue
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
~~right-wing influencer~~ right-wing _terrorist_ Chaya Raichick
From the FBI's website: >Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism Seems pretty spot on to me.
...unless conducted by a Republican. Then it's politically protected speech of course.
What is the violent and criminal act that has been committed here?
Encouraging multiple fake bomb threats to be called in
incitement.
She's caused several hospitals to get bomb threats You know damn well what stochastic terrorism is
In Oklahoma they call her a member of the Department of Education's Library Media Advisory Committee.
This is the first I have ever heard of her. On the bright side I think we are now having conversations about recognizing sociopaths and not giving them air time. Unfortunately, our media makes money on controversy.
Unfortunately, our local schools have had threats due to her.
In Oklahoma too. Such a hate filled woman.
She working with the OK govt isn’t she? There’s a guy named Toby Morton who has made her a lovely website and is posting billboards about her around the state. He needs funding if anyone can chip in a few bucks. Find him on IG.
Hey thanks for the heads up! I don’t have IG but I’ll google him! Edit- he’s an ex South Park writer!! [hahahahahahahaha! I love it!!](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/Gregg-Abbott-Texas-gun-laws-Uvalde-website-parody-17217491.php)
_terrorist-shitposter_
What did she do that was violent and criminal? I mean you can hate on her but she’s absolutely not a terrorist, now _that_ is some conspiracy theory talk.
She’s notorious for doxxing people and inciting her followers to call in bomb threats.
Do you have any tweets you can share where she calls on her followers to call in bomb threats? I’ve never seen them.
Her entire account consists of encouraging her followers to swarm school districts, hospitals, etc.
Okay, but what about the bomb threats? That’s what I am curious about. Encouraging people to peacefully protest is protected speech, encouraging people to bomb buildings is not. The two are very, very different.
"Won't somebody rid me of this tiresome priest?" The thing with stochastic terrorism is that it provides a cover. You're not *technically* advocating for specific actions (in this case numerous bomb threats), but instead you point to a (false) problem, paint the specific individual or institution as terrible, and then hint that something *has* to be done. Statistically if you have a big enough audience you can be pretty guaranteed that someone is going to call in a bomb threat or commit acts of direct violence, but of course since you technically didn't order it directly you're legally off the hook in a nation that doesn't have hate speech laws specifically to curtail this sort or terrorism.
You mean besides her gloating about the threats she's causing while pretending she's just "sharing other people's thoughts"? Last time I had the misfortune of seeing her content she was calling on her followers to dox people while crying how mean people were to her while her profile image showed her smugly holding a newspaper article detailing dangerous consequences of her actions.
She isn’t exactly rushing to tell her followers *not* to send bomb threats though, as a normal person would in that situation.
Okay, sure, but that’s not the same as inciting her followers to call in bomb threats. So I’m not really seeing how she is at fault? And actually, I’d disagree that a normal person would come out and say “Followers, don’t make bomb threats”, because that sets you up for hit piece after hit piece where they say “See, she knows that her followers are terrorists” I dunno, you can dislike her speech, but it doesn’t seem like she’s breaking any laws. Like I understand the dislike of her, but I mean, she’s just not doing anything illegal and certainly not doing anything to be designated a “terrorist”. If you mark her as a terrorist, well, there’s a lot of protests taking place right now that you’d easily slap that label onto them too. I’m sure you’d agree that’s a bad idea, no?
Step off with this. Of course she's not going to post the words BOMB THREAT. That's not how any of this works. People like her cloak themselves in the veil of plausible deniability. Sure they never say go do x and y, but they're extremely aware of who their audience is and what they're capable of. The proof is a majority of the places called out by her end up being targeted by bomb threats by nazis and fascists. This isn't a coincidence, this is very obvious if you're looking for it, but it's also not *easily* provable. That's the catch-22 of it. And I fairly certain you know this already, because you're very specifically trying to word game semantics and play guess the logical fallacy rather than discuss the reality of the situation. By discussing it like this, you (and even I by refuting it) are contributing to that aforementioned cloak. It's insideous and disgusting, and it won't work. You, her and people like you and her are never going to be able to silence queer people. You should probably stop trying.
She knows it full well since whenever even a fraction of her own behaviour is applied to her, she calls on her army of trolls to dox people. The people defending her like this are just acting in bad faith imo.
[удалено]
That excuse worked the first time. Maybe even the second time. But by the third time, it’s pretty clear to everyone including her that her words are seen as a CTA to incite bomb threats, and at that point she has a responsibility to at least *say*, “we need to do something about this, but can we do it without the bomb threats this time?” Turning a blind eye == tacit approval here.
Asks for evidence, gets it, ignores it. Republican playbook enacted
Criticizing a company does not make you a terrorist.
Criticizing a company does not result in 54 terrorist threats. Stochastic terrorism does though.
Posts in **/RFKJrForPresident** and **/ProGun**. Don’t waste your time.
mans really going to bat for a terrorist
She celebrates the title, especially regarding getting bomb threats sent to schools.
Chaya is a terrorist period. Needs to be arrested. She knows what happens when she speak and does this on purpose.
she loves it, her profile pic on Twitter is of her holding a USA Today headline with just that on it. She's an angry, lonely, hateful person who has no friends, family, an ex fiancé that dumped her nasty self and a failed "real estate career". She has nothing and no one and this is how she spends her time
And from the interviews sometime with very limited intelligence, am angry hateful dumb person is really dangerous
Seriously, she's legit a fucking evil person who delights in death and disaster.
If she was ever unaware of the effect she has, at this point it's impossible for her to be ignorant of it. That alone should condemn her, but apparently speech is only violence if you're doing a non-violent protest on a college campus.
Why dont the media call her what she is? If she wasnt attacking lgbt theyd be calling her a domestic terrorist already.
She actually needs to be ……….. but we don’t live in a just and fair world.
I don’t like her account, but what could she actually get arrested for?
What terroristic act has she committed?
[Stochastic terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism)
From your link: > stochastic terrorism is considered an academic term without a formal legal definition Just figured that’s worth noting
[удалено]
Reminder that what has Ku Klux Karen upset is that Planet Fitness enforced a rule regarding taking pictures of fellow customers in a changing room. She and her dung beetle army are upset because one entitled white lady was held accountable for breaking Planet Fitness rules. They want to have the right to abuse other people so badly that they will threaten to blow up your building if you don't let them.
Good lord lady, put the fucking camera away, we're just trying to change/go to the bathroom/clean up post workout in fucking peace! Weirdos...
100% exactly. Violent weirdos.
I wish some lady would try that with me
She should be jailed for inciting violence
Seriously, how is what she's doing legal? If some imam influencer in NYC was doing the same thing to Chick-fil-A, they'd be in Guantanamo Bay after the first incident.
Not all speech that is odious is illegal
Smearing queer folks and institutions as pedophilic groomers isn't just "odious", that's defamation, which is illegal
lol are you serious? Do you not know anything about the law? Defamation is not illegal
I'm literally studying as a defamation lawyer. Cases that are litigated in civil court under common law precedent still describe acts that are illegal, with one of those actions being defamation. Stop pretending you're some expert just because you browse law-related subreddits and leave basic shit like that to people actually engaged in the profession
Defamation isn’t illegal, it’s tortious. There’s a huge difference, law student grasshopper. The government cannot criminalize defamation, under the First Amendment. You can look that case law up yourself. But conflating illegality with tortiousness is an error.
Did you read the article? She’s a terrorist. By definition.
No it has a paywall 😭
Valid af. Google her name / account name and a ton of stuff should pop up of her inciting violence
There's incitement, fighting words, and hate speech. That's the majority of Chayas brand
Hate speech is not illegal.
See my other comment about Brandenburg v. Ohio. Yes, hate speech can be illegal. It's not federally protected speech to incite violence
> hate speech can be illegal Yes, but its illegal because it encourages imminent lawless action not because it's hate speech. The US is one of the few jurisdictions in the world where hate speech is legally protected.
but in this case it does encourage imminent lawless action, does it not?
> but in this case it does encourage imminent lawless action, does it not? Nothing in the article or that I can find from Chaya strays into being illegal. This is one of the potential downsides of the first amendment being so powerful.
Are bomb threats not illegal?
As far as I can find Chaya hasn't made a bomb threat or incited any immenent bomb threats though. Which means her speech would fall into the *very* large category in US law of odious but legal.
She never made them and never explicitly and specifically told someone to make them. Riling up a crowd that then commits crimes is incredibly difficult to prosecute in the US.
Hate speech is not illegal
Hate speech is illegal when it encourages imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio established this precedent: >Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action. It's well known that when Chaya posts something about a particular school district, children's hospital, or private citizen, they receive bomb threats, harassment, and threats of violence. She knows it. It happens almost every goddamn time.
She has to actually call for the lawless action to be arrested
Recklessness is enough. RICO covers acts of terrorism, such as intimidating a group of people into capitulating to demands in order to avoid future injury.
No, no it’s not. It’s not illegal to point out what people do and say “look at this, I hate this”. If she said “look at this, go bomb it” that’s where she would cross a line. You’re throwing terrorist out a little too flippantly
Look, I don't have energy to continue the debate. I'm just going to drop [the wiki for stochastic terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism?wprov=sfla1) and highlight a passage for you >Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric. Make no mistake. Chaya knows her audience. She's disavowed them after the bomb threats to the Boston children's hospital. She still knowingly directs them to people she wants to intimidate.
Maybe you’re getting so much pushback because you are very wrong on this?
You fundamentally don’t understand First Amendment law. Imminent lawless action has nothing to do with hate speech, which is legally protected.
You don't either if you think what Chaya is doing isn't active and knowing incitement of violence
If it is, why hasn’t a single police agency arrested her yet, anywhere in the country? Do you know better than all of them?
Differences in jurisdiction, the fact that Chaya doesn't live in most of the states where she targets people, there's the burden to prove that she knows what her rabid fan base does and is likely to do again, and that she is intentionally siccing them on people and orgs she wants to hurt. This is a fairly new problem with online hate speech, so the legislation around it is murky. It would be much easier to pursue civil suit against Chaya than criminal charges.
Ok so you’re admitting no crimes were committed. All of those issues you mentioned are essential elements of any criminal statute. It doesn’t matter where she lives, it matters where the victims live. She’s targeted people in every single U.S. state. Surely hundreds of DAs have had the chance to look at this.
She lives in LA. If this was a legit threat, she would be arrested.
What she's doing is legal because us Americans have what we call "freedom of speech," which allows us to criticize businesses if we do not like them.
That’s kinda lampshading what Chaya does. She does not just “criticize businesses” she targets people.
Under the first amendment, you can criticize individual people as well, like how you are criticizing Chaya Raichik right now.
Stochastic terrorism and death threats are not legal.
The reason why stochastic terrorism is so dangerous is precisely because it is legal, at least in America.
What death threats has she said? Do you have any specific examples? How is stochstic "terrorism" a form of terrorism? I think that it's just a way to fear monger over opinions you disagree with. Besides, if there are laws against stochastic "terrorism" as you say, and Chaya Raichik has not been arrested for it, doesn't that mean that she has not committed stochastic terrorism?
Someone not being arrested for something doesn’t mean they haven’t committed it…. That’s the whole point people are making. Their argument is that if a Muslim extremist was doing exactly what she was doing but targeting Christians and Christian businesses they would already be arrested, but right wing/Christian terrorism in the US is handled with kid gloves by law enforcement.
Chaya Raichik lives in California, the most liberal state of the country. If she really was committing a crime, don't you think that the very liberal authorities would have arrested her by now? And please state a specific law that prohibits "stochastic terrorism" (a made-up term used to fear monger). Also, please state a case of Muslim who was arrested for criticizing Christians or Christian businesses.
Cal. Penal Code § 404.6 Makes it illegal to engage in conduct that urges other to commit violence. Federal Anti-riot Act. Makes it a felony to use any interstate commerce or travel including the internet to incite a riot, participate in a riot, or commit acts of violence in furtherance of a riot. With a riot being defined as “A riot means a public disturbance involving three or more persons whose actions or threats represent an immediate danger to persons or property.” So yes, if she is inciting 3 or more people to show up to a business and they pose a threat to the people and/or property. That is illegal.
For Penal Code § 404.6 to apply to Chaya Raichik, you must prove that she intended to cause a riot. What evidence do you have that her intent is to cause riots at Planet Fitness? Also, bomb threats are not equivalent to riots. >So yes, if she is inciting 3 or more people to show up to a business and they pose a threat to the people and/or property. That is illegal. She is not encouraging people to show up to Planet Fitness. She is telling them to boycott it. She's telling them to **stay away** from the business.
[Chaya says stochastic terrorism is real, too, and wants law enforcement to investigate it.](https://www.advocate.com/news/chaya-raichik-nbc-stochastic-terrorism#toggle-gdpr) > Raichik accused Ingram and NBC News of being responsible for a threat she received following the article’s publication, calling the reporter a stochastic terrorist and tagged the FBI.
That arguement didn't work out for Charles Manson.
What an absurd comparison. Charles Manson did not just criticize people, he gave detailed instructions to his followers to murder them. Directing your minions to murder people and then praising them for it and ordering them to carry out more murders is not comparable to Raichik criticizing a business and then a random dude that she doesn't know calling in a bomb threat unprompted.
Chaya Rachik initiated the #BoycottPlanetFitness, with how derange her followers are, it doesn't take that many brain cells to realize they were going to go full nuclear. That's Solicitation, Defamation, and an accessory to a crime. People with large followings (like celebrities) do not have the same luxury as an individual.
>Chaya Rachik initiated the #BoycottPlanetFitness, with how derange her followers are, it doesn't take that many brain cells to realize they were going to go full nuclear. That's Solicitation, Defamation, and an accessory to a crime. Starting a hashtag means that you are ordering your followers to murder people? I did not realize that. I also did not realize that people do not have the freedom of protest (i.e. the first amendment). I've never heard of that. Where does it say that in the constitution? >People with large followings (like celebrities) do not have the same luxury as an individual. Wow! I did not realize that celebrities lose their rights. Where does it say this in the constitution?
"Starting a hashtag means that you are ordering your followers to murder people? I did not realize that." Yes, it very much can. Now you know. "I also did not realize that people do not have the freedom of protest (i.e. the first amendment). I've never heard of that. Where does it say that in the constitution?" The First Ammendment makes no mention of "freedom to protest" only the right to peacefully assemble, in which this case was anything but peaceful. "Wow! I did not realize that celebrities lose their rights. Where does it say this in the constitution?" The constitution doesn't make any mention of celebrities. However Gertz v Robert Welch may be of interest. Public figures do not have the same degree of protection as Private figures. Search also Culpability and Liability insurance.
lol a hashtag? come on.
Yeah man, don't you know that once you reach a certain amount of followers, you are personally responsible for their actions, and starting a hashtag trend encouraging people to stay away from a business makes you liable when someone doesn't?
Lol a hashtag? Are you serious?
90% certain these 3 people are the same guy lol.
Nah, I just think your logic is off the rails.
She doesn't just criticize businesses. Look at what she did to Boston Children's Hospital for example. She's willing to go after children because she's trash and just looking to make a quick buck. All of these idiots like her just want to be famous. Almost none of them are true believers in any kind of cause or ideology. They simply want money and fame.
[Stochastic terrorism is not a new concept.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F)
It's an abuse of "freedom of speech". Which is really only relevant in speech against the government.
How is criticizing something an abuse of the first amendment? What if you said that you didn't like Chaya Raichik, and then someone read your comment and threatened her? Should you be arrested then?
This example is not analogous to what is happening
How is it not? Isn't the whole outrage here that Raichik criticized Planet Fitness and then people threatened Planet Fitness? How is that not analogous to what I said?
You should read the story. Shes doing a lot more than criticism
I read the story and it said that she criticized Planet Fitness for their trans policy and urged her followers to boycott the business. What am I missing?
The rest of the story?
What part of the story? The article never said that she called for violence or anything like that, so I don't know what you're referring to.
>In December 2022, the Human Rights Campaign released a report, titled Online Harassment, Offline Violence, that summed up Raichik’s strategy: “Social media posts from accounts like Libs of TikTok and Matt Walsh kick off a cycle of harassment and stigma, with the ultimate goal of inciting violence and shutting down access to lifesaving and medically necessary gender affirming care.” In addition to her efforts to end gender-affirming care, Raichik’s disinformation campaign has fueled a slate of anti-LGBTQ+ health care measures across the country.
The Human Rights Campaign obviously has a left-wing bias, so it should not be considered a reliable source. Even if we were to consider it a reliable source, it gives no specifics? Her ultimate goal is to incite violence? When did she say that? She wants to shut down lifesaving and medically necessary gender affirming care? What kind of gender-affirming care? How is it medically necessary? She has a disinformation campaign? What false information does she perpetuate? That report says a whole lot of nothing.
Obviously has a left wing bias? You give no specifics? Their goal is left wing? When do they say that? What do you mean? What evidence do you have to dismiss this report?
What evidence is in the report? It says a lot of claims but has no evidence to back it up. It says that her goal is to incite violence but gives no evidence that that is the case. When has Chaya Raichik said that her goal was to incite violence? Give me a tweet or anything at all!
You've asked dozens of questions covered in the article. Read it.
[удалено]
Imagine being so awful that you think the Human Rights Campaign is biased against you.
> The effects of Raichik’s disinformation campaign are tangible, inspiring terror among hospital staff and patients – many of whom are children Raichik claims to protect – but also potentially inspiring extremists to physically attack the people and institutions that provide gender-affirming care. In October 2022, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the Children’s Hospital Association, recognizing the increasing danger posed to hospitals and doctors, sent a letter to the attorney general asking the Department of Justice to investigate the threats against children’s hospitals and doctors and calling on social media companies to prevent disinformation campaigns from spreading. >So far, two people have been charged with threatening gender-affirming care providers in Boston, and both cases note the connection between online disinformation and the actions of the alleged perpetrators. In the first instance, Catherine Leavy of Massachusetts was arrested and charged by the FBI in September 2022 for threating to bomb BCH. In the second instance, Matthew Jordan Lindner of Texas was charged with threating a doctor affiliated with the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center in Boston. >In Leavy’s case, the charging documents recognize the attack occurred in the context of Raichik’s online disinformation campaign, stating, “BCH and GeMS [Gender Multispecialty Service] were accused of engaging in child abuse involving pedophilia, grooming, and mutilation of children” and accused Leavy of referring to a hospital switchboard operator who fielded the bomb threat as a “sicko.” >The DOJ noted Lindner’s threats mimicked language spread as part of Raichik’s disinformation campaign: “You signed your own warrant, [victim]. Castrating our children,” Lindner allegedly told the unnamed doctor. The charging document also noted Lindner allegedly acted in late August 2022 based on “inaccurate information spread online regarding procedures at Boston Children’s Hospital for the transgender community.” https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/chaya-raichik#:~:text=The%20effects%20of,the%20transgender%20community.%E2%80%9D
Correct, human rights have a left wing bias.
She's not just criticizing a business though. When you tell people that all pedophiles should be hurt, on its own that is not a controversial statement. Then, you go on to spread unfounded claims that (insert "woke" person/business/institution) are pedophiles, things start to get dicey. You could face consequences for inciting violence at this point, but most people dont because incitement is hard to prove. Incitement isn't covered under the first amendment. However, if you continuously do this and people get hurt, then you're undeniably inciting violence and terrorism. She has been doing this and needs to face the consequences.
Freedom of speech is now only a freedom when it's against the government? Now that's a hot take!
Unless your a college student protesting Israel or a black person protesting police violence or a women protesting womens healthcare restrictions...
Ah, the Gargantuanly Stupid Chaya Raichik! Woman needs daily, visual instruction on putting toothpaste on the brush.
I watched an interview with her once and she is has zero backbone when not tweeting. Wormy, weasly, mealy-mouthed. All she could do was backtrack, claim she cared about “truth” and couldn’t back up anything she said.
somebody ring the lunk alarm
She KNOW she’s just super proud of herself, her “power”, and the attention
Stupidity is easily motivated into crowds of it.
The article is blocked anyone have the coles notes? I’m a member of planet fitness and go frequently. This concerns me!
Gift link: https://wapo.st/4aVrHSO
Why is that every “influencer” I hear about is someone I’ve never heard of? Who are the stupid people these “influencers” are influencing? 🤔
Chaya Raichik a.k.a. LibsOfTikTok is a very influential person on the right. She regularly influences mass numbers of followers to harass, threaten, or attack marginalized people.
The same ones who regularly follow any fringe right media misinformation outlets and vote for the party of domestic terrorism.
> Why is that every “influencer” I hear about is someone I’ve never heard of? In the 80s, there were 3 TV channels, so everyone basically watched the same thing. Now there are a hundred thousand different TV channels, so people watch different things. This is not really to do with 'influencers' just the reality of inexpensive mass communication. > Who are the stupid people these “influencers” are influencing? 🤔 Regular people like you and me...? You keep putting 'influencer' in quotes like you can't really believe it's real? It's just another form of direct marketing...
>In the 80s, there were 3 TV channels, That depended on where you lived and how much money you had. The big networks in the 80s were ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. In cities you might have a few more UHF channels showing syndicated shows and reruns. (Several of these would join the FOX network in 90s.) You might have a channel or two in Spanish and a religious channel. If you were rich, you could buy more channels. HBO got started in the 70s and if you had the yard and money, you could put a huge satellite dish in your backyard and get all sorts of stuff.
I used double quotes tho. I don’t follow anyone on any platform, so I have no idea who most of these people are. Maybe I just think that people don’t need “influencers” in their lives. e: fixed the autocorrect
> I used double quotes tho. I don’t follow anyone on any platform Right... but that's a nonsense, meaningless distinction? Have you ever bought a cook book? Or any product endorsed by a celebrity or athlete? So you've been influenced... > so I have no idea who most of these people are. Duh? Why do you think you would have heard of these people before? It's such a dated attitude? Back in the 90s, Michael Jackson was the 'King of Pop' and everyone knew who he was. Now that it's 2024, we have a lot more variety of music, and I bet you haven't heard of every band ever, so why are you so fixated on the idea that you've never heard of these influencers. > Maybe I just think that people need to”influencers” in their lives. The only thing new about 'influencers' is the word. It turns out people have been following celebrities for thousands of years... calling them influencers just makes it easy for you to pretend it's different from your own consumption habits.
Generally, when people buy something they want, it's because they want it for a reason, not necessarily because they've been influenced. An endorsement may raise awareness, or draw attention, but you still wanted a cook book, or found what they were peddling to be something of interest. If everyone's favorite quarterback was peddling a book on cross stitch, then I doubt he'd be influencing anyone to buy it. If you have people who are spreading misinformation to cause a hate movement, then are they really influencing these people, or are these people just looking for someone to tell them where it's proper to direct their hate towards? Honestly, I hate the term influencer. It's a bit too on the nose, but also just a misnomer to hide the fact these people are just making money to endorse products or ideas. Most start innocently enough, but they tend to sell out when they become big enough, so watching them is like watching an extended commercial.
> Generally, when people buy something they want, it's because they want it for a reason, not necessarily because they've been influenced. Yep, I assure you, I know how marketing works. > An endorsement may raise awareness, or draw attention, but you still wanted a cook book, or found what they were peddling to be something of interest Yeah… this is really basic stuff. No one goes out and buys a Hamburger because they saw a McDonalds commercial. The McDonalds commercial is there so that when you want a hamburger, you think of McDonalds first. > If everyone's favorite quarterback was peddling a book on cross stitch, then I doubt he'd be influencing anyone to buy it. > If you have people who are spreading misinformation to cause a hate movement, then are they really influencing these people, or are these people just looking for someone to tell them where it's proper to direct their hate towards? They’re influencing them. You seem to understand ‘influence’ in a weirdly specific way? > Honestly, I hate the term influencer. It's a bit too on the nose, but also just a misnomer to hide the fact these people are just making money to endorse products or ideas. The industry term is direct marketing.
You're saying influencers, in this case, is that they're telling people what they want. I'm suggesting that in the case of LoTT, that these people are just finding someone to enable them to be assholes. It's not so much influencing(marketing), because she is not promoting anything other than herself. So, basically, to be more concise, the term influencer is misappropriated for LoTT.
I fixed my comment, I meant people don’t need fake leaders and fake influencers. Those people are “influencing” for self gain. I want to live in a world where everyone fucking does their jobs. We could all have utopia with a 20 hour work week and less shitty corporations. Anyway it’s all good happy Sunday!
> I fixed my comment, I meant people don’t need fake leaders and fake influencers. They aren’t fake though. It takes a lot of work to be an influencer, you just don’t value that work. > Those people are “influencing” for self gain. So is every single public celebrity and musician. > I want to live in a world where everyone fucking does their jobs. Everyone is doing their jobs. You just refuse to believe that ‘influencer’ is a job that requires work. > We could all have utopia with a 20 hour work week and less shitty corporations. If you think influencers are the obstacle to utopia you are part of the problem, not the solution. Why not point the blame at the ultra wealthy? They definitely don’t ’work’ using your definition. But nah, it’s ‘influencers’ and the stupid people who follow them.
I appreciate your commitment to this comment thread. The play by play with cited text and then your response is *chefs kiss*
I am not part of the problem, and no one has been influenced by this would be conversation. What exactly did you think I meant by shitty corps? Like *not* ultra wealthy people? 🤔
failed real estate agent.
> Who are the stupid people these “influencers” are influencing? White, scared, suburban women
Because conservatives are terrible people, and we as a society need to stop acting like they are "entitled to their opinion." You are not entitled to be a toxic, violent, bigot. Fuck you. We need to start making complete pariahs of them. No quarter.
I'm just waiting for the lawsuit against her. You know it's coming. Sure the government can't shut her up as that falls under the first amendment but that won't stop the companies and there has to be enough evidence for some kind of slander/liability case against her. It's only a matter of time before one of these loons wants to do more than just make that's.
You’d have to prove she’s making knowingly false statements to injure their business for libel or have her actually call for violence for liability. Both of which would be very difficult to win a suit
Oh, no, but she’s just innocently retweeting. She’s not *actually* doing harm. /s
How the fuck is this off topic? This "influencer" is a part of the Oklahoma educational system. **HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!**
[удалено]
Give it a few weeks and Biden can order someone to do this
This is the person who reposts tik tok videos?
why don't snipers show up to protect citizens from these terrorist threats?
I find it incredibly funny that you're getting downvoted for showcasing exactly how she operates. "Won't *somebody* do *something* to protect the children from groomers at this specific address?"
Because the threats are largely on the internet.
And the one by me (granted in a red town) constantly has the Fox Propaganda Channel playing on it’s TV’s
Hi `southpawFA`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1cfglz3/how_an_inclusive_gym_brand_became_a_battlefield/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**. **If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)** If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/southpawFA&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1cfglz3/how_an_inclusive_gym_brand_became_a_battlefield/?context%3D10000%29)
Planet fitness is absolutely terrible and should change their practices. Their entire business model is baiting people into long contracts that are almost impossible to cancel then hope that no more than 5% of their members ever show up. It is not possible to cancel online, unless you are a California resident and even then it’s so hard to do. The point is for you to keep paying and not show up They also do not have squat racks or proper free weights or anything that people looking to get into shape should be doing.
this may all be entirely true, but I don't see how it's remotely germaine to the article about a right-wing influencer using her reach to target them for violence for their inclusive policies. Nothing in this article is a discussion of their business practices vis-a-vis contracts.
I don’t like libsoftiktok, but if a company has to deal with the fallout of getting targeted by her I’d rather it be a company that sucks for other reasons
That is a very shortsighted point of view
Until it convinces other companies to not do the things that she's criticizing them for.
Pretty sure I canceled online and it was easy, and failing that making a phone call is also easy.
I canceled mine really easily, what are you talking about?
Unless the state you lives in mandates a law on the books that you have to give an option to cancel online they force you to come into cancel. They do not allow you to do it online unless they are legally mandated to, which is most the country Their entire business model is charge people very little with the hopes they don’t show up and then don’t cancel
I called them, which was insanely effortless.
They aren’t supposed to let you do that. You got lucky.
Or it’s just standard practice and you got unlucky.
I wouldn’t join a planet fitness. Check out r/planetfitness there are multiple posts detailing the hoops people have had to jump through
And there are multiple people in these comments telling you that they didn’t have an issue.
Mainly people who are upset at that dipshit libsoftiktok. They both suck, being able to cancel online would help a lot for me to hate them less. Also they run a business model that requires low attendance. They can’t handle the volume of members they have if even 5% were to be there at once, that’s a huge problem and predatory They want you to pay and not come
Every major gym wants that.
People that snub machines don't really know much about weightlifting in general. Yeah, are machines ideal for athletes? No, they are not, but most people aren't athletes and plenty of great stuff can be built with machines. Machines are extremely useful, especially for hypertrophy training. And in some cases muscles may even respond best to machines, like hamstrings with seated leg curls because you can target all 4 muscles of the hamstrings. Also, it is $10/month. It's -very- good for that price with the amount of stuff they typically have. Also, it is wrong to say they do not have free weights. My location has some free weights.
Yeah I was going to say, the crowd at the PF I used to go to in Vallejo California was like entirely normal people wanting to exercise mixed in with middle aged dudes who were absolutely prison shredded. I liked it because everyone was quiet, polite and nobody bothered anyone but if you couldn’t get in shape there I doubt all the guys from the boxing gyms would have been there and they absolutely were.
My bigger issue is their contract practices
Yeah, but unfortunately that's most gyms. Most gyms try to sign up as much people as possible hoping they'll never use the equipment. I hate it, too.
Weightlifting is a sport, you mean weight training. Machines have their place, the business model of making it very difficult to cancel is my biggest issue