14 ms·

> Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." They are not identical terms, but they are overlapping terms. Using career press

by shkkmo 9y 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 9y 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
- shkkmo 9y ago
  > Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? Perhaps you shouldn't call out people who use a valid definition you find "not useful" for lying (mendacity)? > A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. Vigilantism is definitely not "enforcement of the law" since it is often illegal. I don't think either of us were claiming that this type of vigilante behavior should be illegal. As the legal dictionary you reference points out some types of vigilantism are illegal, others are legal. What we are pointing out is that vigilantism as a solution to this problem has significant downsides that should not be ignored. Ideally we are able to reform the justice system so that vigilante action is not required to achieve a just result again criminal offenders. EDIT: Off topic, I want to also say they I like your vocabulary, you use some good words and looking them up was educational =]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

by shkkmo 9y ago

eropple 9y 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

shkkmo 9y ago
> Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? Perhaps you shouldn't call out people who use a valid definition you find "not useful" for lying (mendacity)? > A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. Vigilantism is definitely not "enforcement of the law" since it is often illegal. I don't think either of us were claiming that this type of vigilante behavior should be illegal. As the legal dictionary you reference points out some types of vigilantism are illegal, others are legal. What we are pointing out is that vigilantism as a solution to this problem has significant downsides that should not be ignored. Ideally we are able to reform the justice system so that vigilante action is not required to achieve a just result again criminal offenders. EDIT: Off topic, I want to also say they I like your vocabulary, you use some good words and looking them up was educational =]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]