5 ms·

I can't say I like Pai, but I find death threats even worse.

by MollyR 9y ago

Afforess 9y ago
I don't really agree. I'm not one to readily or easily condone violence, but this falls into the grey area, like "punching nazis". If threats of violence are the only tools left to us to protect values, then it is better we use violence, then we lose the values. This sounds really terrible, and not all values are worth violence, but it's probably true - internet freedom is a lot to lose in 2018. The best sort of way to think about this is to imagine Ajit Pai as some sort of Feudal Lord appointed head of the Internet by a King. In this sort of scenario, it would be nearly a no brainer to threaten violence - who the hell cares about some Lord in some distant comfy Castle, protected by an even more distant King? But no - we live in a Democracy! One with an elected President by the popular vote, the will of the people, and ... er...wait... Violence sucks. Death threats are bad. But sometimes the other side is even worse. We need to not cache "violence is bad" and actually stop and think first. I don't actually think Ajit Pai deserves death. But he probably does deserve to feel not-safe. If he is unhappy with that, he can always quit.
- hux_ 9y ago
  Right. Now how do I send you a death threat?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You only make him into a victim/martyr and delegitimize your side when you give into stuff like this. You don't like the result of the democratic process, fix it. What happens when the other side decides threatening violence is justified because they can make analogies too and worse they feel under threat? What happens when people who don't have a limit go from threat to action?
  - denkmoon 9y ago
    >What happens when people who don't have a limit go from threat to action? This is already happening, just with greed instead of direct violence. They both have the effect of causing sub-par life quality for the victims.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Pica_soO 9y ago
    Wrong, if you dont like the outcome of the democratic process, you buy the system and fix it so it becomes unable to produce outcomes you dont like.
- geodel 9y ago
  I think the best sort of way to think is that world is interesting place where rules valley geeks like get repealed, politicians they support lose election, and the most violent thing they are able to do is probably demolishing a mission style burrito.
- jshaqaw 9y ago
  Net neutrality is lovely but if people think this is the biggest problem we have coming out of the Trump administration then they really need to consider their priorities.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- brandonmenc 9y ago
  > The best sort of way to think about this is to imagine Ajit Pai as some sort of Feudal Lord appointed head of the Internet by a King. Except that's not at all what's happening here. You're just telling yourself this so you can rationalize punching the guy. > But no - we live in a Democracy! Exactly. The next step is for Congress to pass a bill re: net neutrality, which is quite possible, and probably the better option anyways. No punching necessary.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > I'm not one to readily or easily condone violence You just did. Over a relatively minor repeal of legislation. Because ISPs might take advantage of the repeal. > like "punching nazis" Then you just label your opponents nazis and you can feel justified assaulting everyone you disagree with.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    To add to this "punching nazis" insanity: If you start ignoring the rule of law and advocating violence then the "other side" is going to feel morally justified to escalate. And guess what? The "other side" thinks abortion is murdering babies. I don't think that is a path we want society to go down.
    - Larrikin 9y ago
      Punching a nazi is arguably self-defense for most people on the planet.
      - rhino369 9y ago
        Maybe in 1945. A nazi poses no threat, imminent or otherwise, if they are just spouting bullshit on a street.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > A nazi poses no threat, imminent or otherwise, if they are just spouting bullshit on a street. “No threat” is overstated, but certainly not the kind of imminent threat that justifies a violent response. Conversely, political violence by non-Nazis, historically, is a major factor in politically enabling Nazis.
        Larrikin 9y ago
        A nazi posed no threat when they were being accepted in Germany, until suddenly they had enough power to start killing people with no consequence. Anyone who is currently a Nazi, KKK member, etc knows that is the inevitable conclusion to following their ideas down the rabbit hole and will be complacent if they ever think they can get away with it. The murderer in Charlottesville spent the day being hyped up before plowing his car into dozens of people.
- slavik81 9y ago
  When you accept behaviour like this, you set the standard not only for your political allies, but your political opponents too. That is good for nobody.
  - programmarchy 9y ago
    Exactly. Worse, it cedes any appearance of a moral high ground, and justifies retaliatory violence as self defense.
paul7986 9y ago
Is this Fake news to make those for net neutrality look like looney tunes?
sandworm101 9y ago
Such threats have to be taken with a grain of salt. Daniel Tosh famously gets thousands of death threats, all from fans. Anyone who has run a website or had a clip go viral has received such threats. Many a cop or prosecutor has still gone to work after receiving much more personal and specific threats. I interviewed for an internship once where I was asked point blank whether I would be able to work the day after some angry person screamed such a threat at me in court. For a controversial federal official to take pathetic online threats as a real danger, absent any actual evidence, is at best a convenient reason to avoid an appearance. At worst, it's plain cowardice.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  While I understand and agree with you, I feel it's important to note that death threats are never okay, even if (and especially if) "everyone gets them"

I can't say I like Pai, but I find death threats even worse.

by MollyR 9y ago

I can't say I like Pai, but I find death threats even worse.

I don't really agree. I'm not one to readily or easily condone violence, but this falls into the grey area, like "punching nazis". If threats of violence are the only tools left to us to protect values, then it is better we use violence, then we lose the values. This sounds really terrible, and not all values are worth violence, but it's probably true - internet freedom is a lot to lose in 2018. The best sort of way to think about this is to imagine Ajit Pai as some sort of Feudal Lord appointed head of the Internet by a King. In this sort of scenario, it would be nearly a no brainer to threaten violence - who the hell cares about some Lord in some distant comfy Castle, protected by an even more distant King? But no - we live in a Democracy! One with an elected President by the popular vote, the will of the people, and ... er...wait... Violence sucks. Death threats are bad. But sometimes the other side is even worse. We need to not cache "violence is bad" and actually stop and think first. I don't actually think Ajit Pai deserves death. But he probably does deserve to feel not-safe. If he is unhappy with that, he can always quit.

hux_ 9y ago
Right. Now how do I send you a death threat?
aaron-lebo 9y ago
You only make him into a victim/martyr and delegitimize your side when you give into stuff like this. You don't like the result of the democratic process, fix it. What happens when the other side decides threatening violence is justified because they can make analogies too and worse they feel under threat? What happens when people who don't have a limit go from threat to action?
- denkmoon 9y ago
  >What happens when people who don't have a limit go from threat to action? This is already happening, just with greed instead of direct violence. They both have the effect of causing sub-par life quality for the victims.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Pica_soO 9y ago
  Wrong, if you dont like the outcome of the democratic process, you buy the system and fix it so it becomes unable to produce outcomes you dont like.
geodel 9y ago
I think the best sort of way to think is that world is interesting place where rules valley geeks like get repealed, politicians they support lose election, and the most violent thing they are able to do is probably demolishing a mission style burrito.
jshaqaw 9y ago
Net neutrality is lovely but if people think this is the biggest problem we have coming out of the Trump administration then they really need to consider their priorities.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
brandonmenc 9y ago
> The best sort of way to think about this is to imagine Ajit Pai as some sort of Feudal Lord appointed head of the Internet by a King. Except that's not at all what's happening here. You're just telling yourself this so you can rationalize punching the guy. > But no - we live in a Democracy! Exactly. The next step is for Congress to pass a bill re: net neutrality, which is quite possible, and probably the better option anyways. No punching necessary.
sheepmullet 9y ago
> I'm not one to readily or easily condone violence You just did. Over a relatively minor repeal of legislation. Because ISPs might take advantage of the repeal. > like "punching nazis" Then you just label your opponents nazis and you can feel justified assaulting everyone you disagree with.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  To add to this "punching nazis" insanity: If you start ignoring the rule of law and advocating violence then the "other side" is going to feel morally justified to escalate. And guess what? The "other side" thinks abortion is murdering babies. I don't think that is a path we want society to go down.
  - Larrikin 9y ago
    Punching a nazi is arguably self-defense for most people on the planet.
    - rhino369 9y ago
      Maybe in 1945. A nazi poses no threat, imminent or otherwise, if they are just spouting bullshit on a street.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > A nazi poses no threat, imminent or otherwise, if they are just spouting bullshit on a street. “No threat” is overstated, but certainly not the kind of imminent threat that justifies a violent response. Conversely, political violence by non-Nazis, historically, is a major factor in politically enabling Nazis.
      - Larrikin 9y ago
        A nazi posed no threat when they were being accepted in Germany, until suddenly they had enough power to start killing people with no consequence. Anyone who is currently a Nazi, KKK member, etc knows that is the inevitable conclusion to following their ideas down the rabbit hole and will be complacent if they ever think they can get away with it. The murderer in Charlottesville spent the day being hyped up before plowing his car into dozens of people.
slavik81 9y ago
When you accept behaviour like this, you set the standard not only for your political allies, but your political opponents too. That is good for nobody.
- programmarchy 9y ago
  Exactly. Worse, it cedes any appearance of a moral high ground, and justifies retaliatory violence as self defense.

paul7986 9y ago

Is this Fake news to make those for net neutrality look like looney tunes?

sandworm101 9y ago

Such threats have to be taken with a grain of salt. Daniel Tosh famously gets thousands of death threats, all from fans. Anyone who has run a website or had a clip go viral has received such threats. Many a cop or prosecutor has still gone to work after receiving much more personal and specific threats. I interviewed for an internship once where I was asked point blank whether I would be able to work the day after some angry person screamed such a threat at me in court. For a controversial federal official to take pathetic online threats as a real danger, absent any actual evidence, is at best a convenient reason to avoid an appearance. At worst, it's plain cowardice.

mrguyorama 9y ago
While I understand and agree with you, I feel it's important to note that death threats are never okay, even if (and especially if) "everyone gets them"