4 ms·
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
by smallgovt 9y 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 9y agoIt 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.