4 ms·

It’s hard to argue against this but the reality is that you’re advocating vigilantism. That has its own downsides and the wisdom of crowds leads to witch trials

It’s hard to argue against this but the reality is that you’re advocating vigilantism. That has its own downsides and the wisdom of crowds leads to witch trials so there is a trade off to consider.

eropple 8y ago
Unequivocally no, he's not arguing for vigilantism. Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." There is a distinction and a difference and it borders on mendacious (when not outrightly malicious) to conflate them.
- Retric 8y ago
  What in your mind separates a linch mob forming when someone gets out of prison an this? As far as I can tell it's identical behavior and they both fall under vigilantism.
  - eropple 8y ago
    One of those things involves a crime and the other involves people exercising their free right of association to not associate with that dude (and, transitively, to not associate with people who think it's a good idea to continue associating with that dude). The comparison you're making isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and lawnmowers. And it is why I left an out for malice: because that disingenuous comparison is used by real bad folks for real bad things.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Ahh, ok to be clear what they are doing is not legal. Mob 'justice' is however rarely prosecuted to it might seem legal.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - eropple 8y ago
        Please cite your sources with regards to the assertion that it is "illegal" to not associate with somebody who you think does bad shit. I have a First Amendment in my back pocket--one that, if I'm being frank, I understand--that disagrees with you.
        Retric 8y ago
        The OP said "career pressure" that's more than just avoidance. There are a host of minefields, Harassment has a very low threshold. Any unwanted communication falls under that heading. The work environment is another huge issue, California has a wide range of complex laws relating to this stuff. To simplify unless their crime specifically relates to what you do it's risky to use it in decision making. Libel and Defamation are another very tricky area. And on and on. We are talking about many huge landmines, though again prosecutions are very rare.
        eropple 8y ago
        I asked for a cite, you're giving me handwaves. It is not harassment to say "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." Libel is something you gotta prove, has many facets to its proof (fair-comment-and-criticism exists regardless of whether they're a public figure or not, actual malice tests exist for public figures), and has no bearing anyway on the base claim of "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." This is not complicated. A person doesn't have to associate with people they don't want to associate with. (A business may be required to do business with people they don't want to do business with if the reason for their desire to not do business with them is because they are of a protected class--but that is, trivially and obviously, a different thing.) Prosecutions are "very rare" because it isn't illegal.
        Retric 8y ago
        "Proof" is a question for the legal system it has zero barring on if something is actually illegal. Otherwise the perfect crime would be legal. "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." is a very vague statement that covers a huge range of situations. One specific case relates to the California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) and that really may legally require someone to ignore past criminal behavior depending on specifics. EX: Lack of conviction. In that situation you could quit your job on the spot, but that's about it. A wider issue is 'tortious interference' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference If person A is employed by company B they have a contract. Trying to get someone fired is unequivocally "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm" Now, you might not like those examples, but I think I am well past the bar for on online discussion.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." They are not identical terms, but they are overlapping terms. Using career pressure to punish someone for a crime they committed can fall under the definition of "vigilante". "A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking." The distinction in my mind depends on intent. If the intent is to protect yourself and your business against fall out related to a specific person then I would say it does not qualify as vigilantism. To avoid people who have done things you don't like also doesn't really qualify. However, when you actively encourage others to use social opprobrium to punish people, then you are a vigilante. I'm not wholly opposed to vigilantism, especially given the failure of our legal system in this area, but we should be cautious because there are well documented risks to letting vigilantism run free. Ideally this sort of vigilantism should be a very temporary stop gap until we get the legal system fixed.
  - eropple 8y ago
    The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? I mean, dictionaries are useful for the elaboration of terms, but picking a dictionary reflective of the legal environment might be wiser[0]. A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. It's monopoly-of-force stuff. The definition you offered turns the word into a nearly null term. "Hey, don't hire that guy or I'm not going to do business with you" is not a third-party attempt to enforce the law. It is a declaration of, like, a transactional condition. The company receiving that message can weigh whether or not putting up with that guy (or even if they are deserving of opprobrium in the first place--after all, maybe the person talking to them is wrong!) is worth the hit to their bottom line and decide accordingly. It's a transaction, it's not a violation of the state's monopoly of force, it's not "vigilantism" in any way that makes the term meaningful and useful in a sane discussion. There are bounds we have placed on some kinds of transaction--you can't sell yourself into slavery (by some definitions at least), a business can't refuse service to a protected class (unless it can for a set of prescribed reasons)--but "hey, that guy's a jerk and I'm not gonna do business with jerks" is far afield from that. [0] - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism
- smallgovt 8y ago
  Why are you playing semantics and calling people names instead of addressing the core argument? If I'm not mistaken, the core argument being made by GP is: In the current environment, we have a lot of (truly) wronged individuals riling up public support to (reputationally) punish wrong-doers. Over all, this may have a positive effect, because many of these wrong-doers would otherwise face no punishment. However, in some cases, people who are not actual wrong-doers get caught in the cross fire.
  - eropple 8y ago
    It is not a semantic quibble to say it's not vigilantism. The core argument is that excluding people who you think do bad things is vigilantism (and, by implication, that vigilantism is bad). It is begging the question. This is the argument. It is a bad argument. It is, however, a cheap rhetorical trick to say "it's vigilantism" to conflate the right of individuals to socially exclude people who do things that they do not like with actual crimes. It is worth noting that you elide that to tut-tut at me. The argument you're making, which is not the argument that the poster to whom I replied made, is a better but not meaningful one to me. To be brief: it has not been demonstrated that the specter of false positives is anything but noise and concern trolling. Should that change, I'll reevaluate my position. I don't expect to need to.

eropple 8y ago

Unequivocally no, he's not arguing for vigilantism. Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." There is a distinction and a difference and it borders on mendacious (when not outrightly malicious) to conflate them.

Retric 8y ago
What in your mind separates a linch mob forming when someone gets out of prison an this? As far as I can tell it's identical behavior and they both fall under vigilantism.
- eropple 8y ago
  One of those things involves a crime and the other involves people exercising their free right of association to not associate with that dude (and, transitively, to not associate with people who think it's a good idea to continue associating with that dude). The comparison you're making isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and lawnmowers. And it is why I left an out for malice: because that disingenuous comparison is used by real bad folks for real bad things.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Ahh, ok to be clear what they are doing is not legal. Mob 'justice' is however rarely prosecuted to it might seem legal.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - eropple 8y ago
      Please cite your sources with regards to the assertion that it is "illegal" to not associate with somebody who you think does bad shit. I have a First Amendment in my back pocket--one that, if I'm being frank, I understand--that disagrees with you.
      - Retric 8y ago
        The OP said "career pressure" that's more than just avoidance. There are a host of minefields, Harassment has a very low threshold. Any unwanted communication falls under that heading. The work environment is another huge issue, California has a wide range of complex laws relating to this stuff. To simplify unless their crime specifically relates to what you do it's risky to use it in decision making. Libel and Defamation are another very tricky area. And on and on. We are talking about many huge landmines, though again prosecutions are very rare.
        eropple 8y ago
        I asked for a cite, you're giving me handwaves. It is not harassment to say "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." Libel is something you gotta prove, has many facets to its proof (fair-comment-and-criticism exists regardless of whether they're a public figure or not, actual malice tests exist for public figures), and has no bearing anyway on the base claim of "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." This is not complicated. A person doesn't have to associate with people they don't want to associate with. (A business may be required to do business with people they don't want to do business with if the reason for their desire to not do business with them is because they are of a protected class--but that is, trivially and obviously, a different thing.) Prosecutions are "very rare" because it isn't illegal.
        Retric 8y ago
        "Proof" is a question for the legal system it has zero barring on if something is actually illegal. Otherwise the perfect crime would be legal. "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." is a very vague statement that covers a huge range of situations. One specific case relates to the California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) and that really may legally require someone to ignore past criminal behavior depending on specifics. EX: Lack of conviction. In that situation you could quit your job on the spot, but that's about it. A wider issue is 'tortious interference' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference If person A is employed by company B they have a contract. Trying to get someone fired is unequivocally "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm" Now, you might not like those examples, but I think I am well past the bar for on online discussion.
shkkmo 8y ago
> Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." They are not identical terms, but they are overlapping terms. Using career pressure to punish someone for a crime they committed can fall under the definition of "vigilante". "A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking." The distinction in my mind depends on intent. If the intent is to protect yourself and your business against fall out related to a specific person then I would say it does not qualify as vigilantism. To avoid people who have done things you don't like also doesn't really qualify. However, when you actively encourage others to use social opprobrium to punish people, then you are a vigilante. I'm not wholly opposed to vigilantism, especially given the failure of our legal system in this area, but we should be cautious because there are well documented risks to letting vigilantism run free. Ideally this sort of vigilantism should be a very temporary stop gap until we get the legal system fixed.
- eropple 8y ago
  The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? I mean, dictionaries are useful for the elaboration of terms, but picking a dictionary reflective of the legal environment might be wiser[0]. A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. It's monopoly-of-force stuff. The definition you offered turns the word into a nearly null term. "Hey, don't hire that guy or I'm not going to do business with you" is not a third-party attempt to enforce the law. It is a declaration of, like, a transactional condition. The company receiving that message can weigh whether or not putting up with that guy (or even if they are deserving of opprobrium in the first place--after all, maybe the person talking to them is wrong!) is worth the hit to their bottom line and decide accordingly. It's a transaction, it's not a violation of the state's monopoly of force, it's not "vigilantism" in any way that makes the term meaningful and useful in a sane discussion. There are bounds we have placed on some kinds of transaction--you can't sell yourself into slavery (by some definitions at least), a business can't refuse service to a protected class (unless it can for a set of prescribed reasons)--but "hey, that guy's a jerk and I'm not gonna do business with jerks" is far afield from that. [0] - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism
smallgovt 8y ago
Why are you playing semantics and calling people names instead of addressing the core argument? If I'm not mistaken, the core argument being made by GP is: In the current environment, we have a lot of (truly) wronged individuals riling up public support to (reputationally) punish wrong-doers. Over all, this may have a positive effect, because many of these wrong-doers would otherwise face no punishment. However, in some cases, people who are not actual wrong-doers get caught in the cross fire.
- eropple 8y ago
  It is not a semantic quibble to say it's not vigilantism. The core argument is that excluding people who you think do bad things is vigilantism (and, by implication, that vigilantism is bad). It is begging the question. This is the argument. It is a bad argument. It is, however, a cheap rhetorical trick to say "it's vigilantism" to conflate the right of individuals to socially exclude people who do things that they do not like with actual crimes. It is worth noting that you elide that to tut-tut at me. The argument you're making, which is not the argument that the poster to whom I replied made, is a better but not meaningful one to me. To be brief: it has not been demonstrated that the specter of false positives is anything but noise and concern trolling. Should that change, I'll reevaluate my position. I don't expect to need to.