4 ms·
There's a certain, perverse form of cognitive dissonance in thinking what Gawker did to Hogan was wrong, but ViolentAcrez and his posting of creepshots of under
by LA_Banker 10y ago
There's a certain, perverse form of cognitive dissonance in thinking what Gawker did to Hogan was wrong, but ViolentAcrez and his posting of creepshots of underage girls was somehow unimpeachable free speech – and therefore his freedom to continue doing such ought to be protected.
Do not the girls and women whose privacy he was invading not deserve the same right to privacy?
- jedberg 10y agoI never said what VA was doing was right or wrong, not did I say what they did to Hogan was right or wrong. I just said I don't feel bad because they were unethical in their journalism and caused real harm to people because of it (real people besides VA).
- LA_Banker 10y agoYou defend VA downthread while only decrying Gawker as being unethical. One takes photos of girls without their consent/knowledge while the other blurs the line of good journalistic taste. Yet it's only the latter that's unethical? It's not difficult to impute which you approve of.
- jedberg 10y agoI never defended VA, and never have. I think both were unethical and wrong.
- dang 10y ago> It's not difficult to impute which you approve of. That's crossing into personal attack, or at least sidling up to it. Please don't sidle that way here. In nuanced discussion, which is what we're hoping for on HN, there's plenty of ground between criticizing not-X and defending X.
- abz126 10y agoAnd when someone said "Oh, boo hoo, poor violentacrez." you didn't respect that they don't feel bad for him. You have a very clear case of hypocrisy here.