4 ms·

> Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature o

by 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.
- Puer 8y ago
  We can't know the full details of this particular case because nothing seems to have been independently verified yet, but there's a distinction between 1) Someone finding a suspicious package and falsely thinking it's a bomb, and 2) Someone calling the police and saying, "I'm going to bomb Facebook" (when they actually aren't) All of your arguments thus far have pertained to 2. You have repeatedly cited the definition of "threat" underneath that context, and scenario 2 perfectly satisfies that definition. Furthermore, so does "terrorism", because a bomb threat, real or not, causes terror and has high potential for real physical harm. Under your definition, someone threatening to shoot you in the street wouldn't be a threat unless they actually shot you. In reality, intent is almost always impossible to discern and doesn't excuse reckless behavior. Should you not be charged if you didn't happen to kill anyone while driving home drunk? You may disagree with Facebook's influence on this world, but advocating for methods that only cause chaos, potential harm, and disinformation is not acting in the world's best interest.

by Puer 8y ago

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.

Puer 8y ago
We can't know the full details of this particular case because nothing seems to have been independently verified yet, but there's a distinction between 1) Someone finding a suspicious package and falsely thinking it's a bomb, and 2) Someone calling the police and saying, "I'm going to bomb Facebook" (when they actually aren't) All of your arguments thus far have pertained to 2. You have repeatedly cited the definition of "threat" underneath that context, and scenario 2 perfectly satisfies that definition. Furthermore, so does "terrorism", because a bomb threat, real or not, causes terror and has high potential for real physical harm. Under your definition, someone threatening to shoot you in the street wouldn't be a threat unless they actually shot you. In reality, intent is almost always impossible to discern and doesn't excuse reckless behavior. Should you not be charged if you didn't happen to kill anyone while driving home drunk? You may disagree with Facebook's influence on this world, but advocating for methods that only cause chaos, potential harm, and disinformation is not acting in the world's best interest.