6 ms·

"nobody has to learn to get comfortable with something they find objectionable." Do you really believe that? Think about where that goes.

DanBC 11y ago
It's a bit easier if by objectionable we limit ourselves to threats of sexual violence or death threats.
- tomp 11y ago
  Anyone who considers online insults as "threats" is being insincere and only propagating their own agenda.
  - jameshart 11y ago
    On the contrary, anyone who plays down the specifically threatening nature of some of the online "insults" women like Kathy Sierra have had to endure (doxxing, detailed descriptions of violent acts, photoshops of violent acts, etc.) is being insincere and only propagating their own agenda.
    - tomp 11y ago
      > only propagating their own agenda I am, no doubt about it. My agenda is freedom of speech and dealing with real-world, not virtual, problems.
      - jameshart 11y ago
        Being the target of sustained harassment is a real world problem. You can't ask the women (And, sure, some men) who have been subjected to the troll-rage of the internet to just shake this off. What online harassers do needs to be treated as what it is: a deliberate attempt to harm another person. It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. That doesn't mean I think websites need to become an arm of the state, it means I think the state needs to get a whole lot more tech savvy and figure out how to find and prosecute these idiots. I don't think that threatens freedom of speech.
        tomp 11y ago
        > It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. So if someone is insulting you in public, you call the police? Or simply walk away?
        jameshart 11y ago
        Not 'insulting', vividly describing violent fantasies about me? Yes, yes I would.
        tomp 11y ago
        Well I sincerely hope that people like you don't start writing laws.
        jameshart 11y ago
        Why are you so adamant about protecting the freedom of strangers to make someone's online life a living hell? To send them specific, personal, detailed threats? I don't understand why you believe that is 'speech' worth protecting. Sure, there's a line, and some behavior that people complain about as harassment doesn't cross that line, but some behavior is way out of order and should be stopped, with the force of law. Drawing those lines, between what is acceptable and what is not, is the job of laws. That isn't the top of a slippery slope, it's not the thin end of a wedge that leads to censorship, it's the way society functions.
        tomp 11y ago
        I can think of 3 main reasons: - in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's not as bad as they (you, feminists, the UN, the "victims") claim it is - the solutions they suggest are difficult to implement - for example, you would need to eradicate online anonymity - whereas my solution is very simple - use personal blocking software or, better yet, just ignore the trolls - both of the points above lead me to conclude that their goals are insincere - that they're using "harassment" just as an excuse to legalize and implement more censorship and restrictions that will be used for nefarious political causes, the same as happened before with e.g. the "threats" of piracy and pedophilia Edit: another reason is that I don't really recall many laws that made the internet better (DMCA, EU cookie laws, the "right to forget", Australia's blacklist), so it's seems unlikely that this time they will do it right
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Have a look at the threats being sent to Caroline Criado Perez. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... The judge said it was "hard to imagine more extreme threats". > In summary these tweets said: “Fuck off and die...you should have jumped in front of horses, go die; I will find you and you don’t want to know what I will do when I do... kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried; seriously go kill yourself! I will get less time for that; rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-isabella-sorley-and-john-nimmo-jailed-for-abusing-feminist-campaigner-caroline-criado-9083829.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-is... > He said that, despite the defendants' claims, the harm threatened against Criado-Perez "must have been intended to be very high". > The judge said the effect of the abuse on Criado-Perez had been "life-changing". Your continued denial of the harassment that women face, in every thread, is really fucking weird.
    - tomp 11y ago
      Trolls gonna troll. I really don't know what else to say to you except "don't feed the trolls". I don't oppose you calling these "harassment" and I don't deny it happens. But I cannot take it seriously, it is far from "violence" and I wouldn't take it seriously even if it happened to me and even if I was annoyed by it, and I don't think these require or deserve any kind of police intervention.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Let's play a game. You send me your social media account names, and I get five days to change your mind.
        tomp 11y ago
        Gladly. You can deduce my name from the HN info. I just googled it - most of my accounts are there, although I only use LinkedIn with any frequency... Missing is Facebook, which you can also find pretty easily, I'm sure. Edit: I'm not really hiding anything, so you don't actually need my consent to start harassing (or "play-harassing" me). But if you seek my consent, I only give it for troll harassment (i.e. emotional abuse), not SJW/thought police harassment (perverting people's words to get them fired from their jobs, like Tim Hunt or Justine Sacco).

DanBC 11y ago

It's a bit easier if by objectionable we limit ourselves to threats of sexual violence or death threats.

tomp 11y ago
Anyone who considers online insults as "threats" is being insincere and only propagating their own agenda.
- jameshart 11y ago
  On the contrary, anyone who plays down the specifically threatening nature of some of the online "insults" women like Kathy Sierra have had to endure (doxxing, detailed descriptions of violent acts, photoshops of violent acts, etc.) is being insincere and only propagating their own agenda.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > only propagating their own agenda I am, no doubt about it. My agenda is freedom of speech and dealing with real-world, not virtual, problems.
    - jameshart 11y ago
      Being the target of sustained harassment is a real world problem. You can't ask the women (And, sure, some men) who have been subjected to the troll-rage of the internet to just shake this off. What online harassers do needs to be treated as what it is: a deliberate attempt to harm another person. It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. That doesn't mean I think websites need to become an arm of the state, it means I think the state needs to get a whole lot more tech savvy and figure out how to find and prosecute these idiots. I don't think that threatens freedom of speech.
      - tomp 11y ago
        > It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. So if someone is insulting you in public, you call the police? Or simply walk away?
        jameshart 11y ago
        Not 'insulting', vividly describing violent fantasies about me? Yes, yes I would.
        tomp 11y ago
        Well I sincerely hope that people like you don't start writing laws.
        jameshart 11y ago
        Why are you so adamant about protecting the freedom of strangers to make someone's online life a living hell? To send them specific, personal, detailed threats? I don't understand why you believe that is 'speech' worth protecting. Sure, there's a line, and some behavior that people complain about as harassment doesn't cross that line, but some behavior is way out of order and should be stopped, with the force of law. Drawing those lines, between what is acceptable and what is not, is the job of laws. That isn't the top of a slippery slope, it's not the thin end of a wedge that leads to censorship, it's the way society functions.
        tomp 11y ago
        I can think of 3 main reasons: - in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's not as bad as they (you, feminists, the UN, the "victims") claim it is - the solutions they suggest are difficult to implement - for example, you would need to eradicate online anonymity - whereas my solution is very simple - use personal blocking software or, better yet, just ignore the trolls - both of the points above lead me to conclude that their goals are insincere - that they're using "harassment" just as an excuse to legalize and implement more censorship and restrictions that will be used for nefarious political causes, the same as happened before with e.g. the "threats" of piracy and pedophilia Edit: another reason is that I don't really recall many laws that made the internet better (DMCA, EU cookie laws, the "right to forget", Australia's blacklist), so it's seems unlikely that this time they will do it right
- DanBC 11y ago
  Have a look at the threats being sent to Caroline Criado Perez. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... The judge said it was "hard to imagine more extreme threats". > In summary these tweets said: “Fuck off and die...you should have jumped in front of horses, go die; I will find you and you don’t want to know what I will do when I do... kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried; seriously go kill yourself! I will get less time for that; rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-isabella-sorley-and-john-nimmo-jailed-for-abusing-feminist-campaigner-caroline-criado-9083829.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-is... > He said that, despite the defendants' claims, the harm threatened against Criado-Perez "must have been intended to be very high". > The judge said the effect of the abuse on Criado-Perez had been "life-changing". Your continued denial of the harassment that women face, in every thread, is really fucking weird.
  - tomp 11y ago
    Trolls gonna troll. I really don't know what else to say to you except "don't feed the trolls". I don't oppose you calling these "harassment" and I don't deny it happens. But I cannot take it seriously, it is far from "violence" and I wouldn't take it seriously even if it happened to me and even if I was annoyed by it, and I don't think these require or deserve any kind of police intervention.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Let's play a game. You send me your social media account names, and I get five days to change your mind.
      - tomp 11y ago
        Gladly. You can deduce my name from the HN info. I just googled it - most of my accounts are there, although I only use LinkedIn with any frequency... Missing is Facebook, which you can also find pretty easily, I'm sure. Edit: I'm not really hiding anything, so you don't actually need my consent to start harassing (or "play-harassing" me). But if you seek my consent, I only give it for troll harassment (i.e. emotional abuse), not SJW/thought police harassment (perverting people's words to get them fired from their jobs, like Tim Hunt or Justine Sacco).