4 ms·

Agree, that's pretty scary to see someone go to that extent of planning. This is our peers that are being targeted for violence over the general state of the te

Agree, that's pretty scary to see someone go to that extent of planning. This is our peers that are being targeted for violence over the general state of the technology industry.

acct1771 8y ago
If you work for Facebook, at this point, you're not my peer.
- dymk 8y ago
  This type of comment (and how divorced from reality it is) is an example of the problem.
  - sneak 8y ago
    People continuing to work for Facebook after they have demonstrated the harm that they cause is also an example of “the problem”, if you insist on there being only one.
sneak 8y ago
Fake bomb threats, regardless of how you feel about them, are not violence unless they are accompanied by a demand or seek to compel in some way. TBH as long as there are no real bombs and no one is physically harmed or coerced, I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus.
- dymk 8y ago
  Why are you trying to diminish how serious this is? Bomb threats are terrorism. > I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus The way you think actively harms people.
  - sneak 8y ago
    Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. Perhaps you could explain to me how my thoughts are harming other people.
    - Puer 8y ago
      > Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. > I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. This is one of the most disgusting and disturbing comments I've read in 10 years on Hacker News, sneak. Calling in fake bomb threats isn't harmless or nonviolent and it increases the deadliness of real threats by diminishing their seriousness. I suggest you read the folktale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Furthermore, people have died as a result of false swatting and I don't doubt people have also died as a result of fake bomb threats. Calling it a nonviolent form of protest is disturbing. I strongly suggest you find more productive ways to voice your opinions.
      - sneak 8y ago
        Consider the case in which an employee sees what they think is an explosive device and alerts authorities and the building is evacuated, but it turns out that they are mistaken. Is that a violent act? The presence or absence of malicious intent cannot turn a nonviolent act into a violent one, or vice versa. I did not call it a protest or a form of protest. I contend that the things that Facebook does as a matter of course (enabling racial discrimination, connecting hate groups, simplifying election interference, easing human trafficking, et c), which make the entire human society worse, are no more or less violent than someone making a fake bomb threat, which makes the facebook campus worse. In both cases the action can be reduced to “sending some IP packets out of the building”. If one is violent, then the other is as well.
- sfilargi 8y ago
  Under law or according to your opinion?
  - sneak 8y ago
    Neither; by definition. Violence must involve physical force or action, or threat. Sometimes it can be extended to the realm of coercion without use of actual force, through threat of same. A fake bomb threat where there is no real physical danger, and that threat is not being used to coerce or compel someone, simply isn’t a violent act. You could make the argument that they are being coerced into leaving the building/stopping work, which would be a valid criticism of my viewpoint, but that is a stretch itself, on top of the already stretched definition of the term.
- dang 8y ago
  Would you please stop posting trollish comments to HN? It just leads to boring flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - sneak 8y ago
    I did not intend to troll anyone; my comment was sincere. I am well aware of the rules and refuse, now as ever, to participate in pointless flaming on HN. I don’t think anyone wants that. I will err on the side of not commenting in the future if I am unable to estimate people’s potential upset responses. (I hope you can understand the potential error bars around such an undertaking; one person’s sincere opinion is another person’s “trollish”.) (Note that I think moderating such on-topic discussion harms the overall range of thought on HN, but it’s your site and your rules and I endeavor to obey them. I am sorry for taking up your time.)
    - dang 8y ago
      I appreciate the comment and believe you about your intent. I use the word "trollish" in a context like this because the effects are unfortunately much the same even if you didn't intend them, and thus weren't strictly trolling.

Agree, that's pretty scary to see someone go to that extent of planning. This is our peers that are being targeted for violence over the general state of the technology industry.

acct1771 8y ago

If you work for Facebook, at this point, you're not my peer.

dymk 8y ago
This type of comment (and how divorced from reality it is) is an example of the problem.
- sneak 8y ago
  People continuing to work for Facebook after they have demonstrated the harm that they cause is also an example of “the problem”, if you insist on there being only one.

sneak 8y ago

Fake bomb threats, regardless of how you feel about them, are not violence unless they are accompanied by a demand or seek to compel in some way. TBH as long as there are no real bombs and no one is physically harmed or coerced, I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus.

dymk 8y ago
Why are you trying to diminish how serious this is? Bomb threats are terrorism. > I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus The way you think actively harms people.
- sneak 8y ago
  Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. Perhaps you could explain to me how my thoughts are harming other people.
  - Puer 8y ago
    > Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. > I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. This is one of the most disgusting and disturbing comments I've read in 10 years on Hacker News, sneak. Calling in fake bomb threats isn't harmless or nonviolent and it increases the deadliness of real threats by diminishing their seriousness. I suggest you read the folktale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Furthermore, people have died as a result of false swatting and I don't doubt people have also died as a result of fake bomb threats. Calling it a nonviolent form of protest is disturbing. I strongly suggest you find more productive ways to voice your opinions.
    - sneak 8y ago
      Consider the case in which an employee sees what they think is an explosive device and alerts authorities and the building is evacuated, but it turns out that they are mistaken. Is that a violent act? The presence or absence of malicious intent cannot turn a nonviolent act into a violent one, or vice versa. I did not call it a protest or a form of protest. I contend that the things that Facebook does as a matter of course (enabling racial discrimination, connecting hate groups, simplifying election interference, easing human trafficking, et c), which make the entire human society worse, are no more or less violent than someone making a fake bomb threat, which makes the facebook campus worse. In both cases the action can be reduced to “sending some IP packets out of the building”. If one is violent, then the other is as well.
sfilargi 8y ago
Under law or according to your opinion?
- sneak 8y ago
  Neither; by definition. Violence must involve physical force or action, or threat. Sometimes it can be extended to the realm of coercion without use of actual force, through threat of same. A fake bomb threat where there is no real physical danger, and that threat is not being used to coerce or compel someone, simply isn’t a violent act. You could make the argument that they are being coerced into leaving the building/stopping work, which would be a valid criticism of my viewpoint, but that is a stretch itself, on top of the already stretched definition of the term.
dang 8y ago
Would you please stop posting trollish comments to HN? It just leads to boring flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sneak 8y ago
  I did not intend to troll anyone; my comment was sincere. I am well aware of the rules and refuse, now as ever, to participate in pointless flaming on HN. I don’t think anyone wants that. I will err on the side of not commenting in the future if I am unable to estimate people’s potential upset responses. (I hope you can understand the potential error bars around such an undertaking; one person’s sincere opinion is another person’s “trollish”.) (Note that I think moderating such on-topic discussion harms the overall range of thought on HN, but it’s your site and your rules and I endeavor to obey them. I am sorry for taking up your time.)
  - dang 8y ago
    I appreciate the comment and believe you about your intent. I use the word "trollish" in a context like this because the effects are unfortunately much the same even if you didn't intend them, and thus weren't strictly trolling.