4 ms·

It was never illegal. It has always been legal. Debates were around asking if people could change the law to make it retroactively illegal. Also: down voted ag

It was never illegal. It has always been legal. Debates were around asking if people could change the law to make it retroactively illegal. Also: down voted again for emotionally manipulative and outright vile rhetoric. If Hacker News is a place for free speech and open debate, you casually turning every conversation you can to molestation, rape and violence is a violation of the social contract we all have to keep the tone civil, and hurts the goal of honest debate.

kuschku 10y ago
But that's literally what I don't care about? Google cando whatever they want, no matter how crazy it would be, in the US, as long as they follow the laws Ivoted for where I live. I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I literally wouldn't care if they used Blackwater's army to level entire cities if the people chose to allow this by voting. It's literally the worst case scenario, and hundred times more, and I wouldn't care. But I do care about them following the laws I voted for where I live. And yes, it was already illegal. German law has a principle where an action being done once or twice is very different from the same being automatically done thousands of times. That includes collecting SSIDs, likely.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > And yes, it was already illegal. Oh really. Fascinating. That seems to line up with the history. > I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I would like to make it clear I specifically don't care what your justification is for invoking that specter. It's at best utterly irrelevant and unneeded. At worst, it's threatening. Find a better way to express this and you won't get downvotes. It's on you to communicate yourself in a socially acceptable way. If you don't care about that, then accept the downvotes as salty fluid that waters the tree of your liberty.
nerdponx 10y ago
Did you just see the word "rape" and downvote blindly?
- KirinDave 10y ago
  I read the whole thing, understood it, dismissed it. Vague or explicit allusions to sexual violence are about as funny/helpful/fair/meaningful/good/logical/whatever as vague allusions to racial violence. So yeah, free downvote for mentioning it outside of a discussion that actually includes it meaningfully.
  - nerdponx 10y ago
    That's a shame. Extreme/hyperbolic examples have an important place in discourse. They force you to consider your ideas to their logical ends. In this case it illustrated that a line needs to be drawn somewhere by giving an example of something we all agree is reprehensible. As far as I can tell, though, you're opposed to mentioning racial and sexual violence at all in conversation. What is the point of that kind of self-censorship? Rape will continue to be rape even if you never read or say that word again.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      You seem to think that maintaining a polite level in discourse amounts to be censorship. Curiously, we never feel the need to make these hyperbolic examples in the highest levels of discourse (be they academic or political), and yet somehow feel incredibly strongly about allowing them on internet sites. Attempting to evoke violence, sexual assault and child abuse in discourse about something as abstract as the proper rules for radio light interpretation is not a positive addition. We have plenty of opportunities to actually discuss said topics and no dearth of extreme metaphors to reach for to extend arguments to the absurd. We need not pretend this speech is vital for this community. Eroding the bulwark that protects this low and lazy standard as discourse is a net good for the community. Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.
      - nerdponx 10y ago
        > Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country. This is where we differ. If we were talking about healthcare and someone brought up that point, I'd stop and think about it for a minute. Just because it refers to something evil and terrifying doesn't make it any less of a good point. I actually learned something in this back-and-forth about how people perceive offensiveness in public dialogue, and react to perceived that offensiveness. I hope you make an effort to learn something too, and don't just come away with a haughty sense of victory.

kuschku 10y ago

But that's literally what I don't care about? Google cando whatever they want, no matter how crazy it would be, in the US, as long as they follow the laws Ivoted for where I live. I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I literally wouldn't care if they used Blackwater's army to level entire cities if the people chose to allow this by voting. It's literally the worst case scenario, and hundred times more, and I wouldn't care. But I do care about them following the laws I voted for where I live. And yes, it was already illegal. German law has a principle where an action being done once or twice is very different from the same being automatically done thousands of times. That includes collecting SSIDs, likely.

KirinDave 10y ago
> And yes, it was already illegal. Oh really. Fascinating. That seems to line up with the history. > I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I would like to make it clear I specifically don't care what your justification is for invoking that specter. It's at best utterly irrelevant and unneeded. At worst, it's threatening. Find a better way to express this and you won't get downvotes. It's on you to communicate yourself in a socially acceptable way. If you don't care about that, then accept the downvotes as salty fluid that waters the tree of your liberty.

nerdponx 10y ago

Did you just see the word "rape" and downvote blindly?

KirinDave 10y ago
I read the whole thing, understood it, dismissed it. Vague or explicit allusions to sexual violence are about as funny/helpful/fair/meaningful/good/logical/whatever as vague allusions to racial violence. So yeah, free downvote for mentioning it outside of a discussion that actually includes it meaningfully.
- nerdponx 10y ago
  That's a shame. Extreme/hyperbolic examples have an important place in discourse. They force you to consider your ideas to their logical ends. In this case it illustrated that a line needs to be drawn somewhere by giving an example of something we all agree is reprehensible. As far as I can tell, though, you're opposed to mentioning racial and sexual violence at all in conversation. What is the point of that kind of self-censorship? Rape will continue to be rape even if you never read or say that word again.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    You seem to think that maintaining a polite level in discourse amounts to be censorship. Curiously, we never feel the need to make these hyperbolic examples in the highest levels of discourse (be they academic or political), and yet somehow feel incredibly strongly about allowing them on internet sites. Attempting to evoke violence, sexual assault and child abuse in discourse about something as abstract as the proper rules for radio light interpretation is not a positive addition. We have plenty of opportunities to actually discuss said topics and no dearth of extreme metaphors to reach for to extend arguments to the absurd. We need not pretend this speech is vital for this community. Eroding the bulwark that protects this low and lazy standard as discourse is a net good for the community. Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.
    - nerdponx 10y ago
      > Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country. This is where we differ. If we were talking about healthcare and someone brought up that point, I'd stop and think about it for a minute. Just because it refers to something evil and terrifying doesn't make it any less of a good point. I actually learned something in this back-and-forth about how people perceive offensiveness in public dialogue, and react to perceived that offensiveness. I hope you make an effort to learn something too, and don't just come away with a haughty sense of victory.