4 ms·

Which is hateful against... buildings?

by augustt 6y ago

milkytron 6y ago
It's not that it's hateful. It's inciting and encouraging violence, which I'm pretty sure is against the ToS.
- cryptoz 6y ago
  It's generally understood that violence is something that happens to a person or living entity; buildings being burnt down is very different from a person being attacked. The word violence might be used for both, but really, it is meant in the modern day to refer to people. Violence isn't about property that can be rebuilt with mere money. It is about hurting people.
  - aifer4 6y ago
    The definition of violence: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Unless we're using words in the humpty dumpty sense of "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
  - milkytron 6y ago
    So I looked up their policy, and you seem to be correct there. Twitter defines violence as towards other individuals or groups. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules However, if users are encouraging or telling others to break the law, that is also against Twitters policies. > You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities. Encouraging or inciting others to break the law is illegal. Although it's on the illegal goods page, I think this could still be against their policy. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goods-services https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goo...
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    How does burning down someone's business cause them no harm? You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue; especially when many of the businesses called for burning were locally owned, and many minority owned. That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.
    - cryptoz 6y ago
      > You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned? Those are two very different things. I do not mean to suggest that the employee whose work is burned is not hurt, but certainly, it is not a violent act against them as the other situation with guns or stabbing is. > That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice. I really don't know about this comment. I think it is your worldview that is 'warped' but I wouldn't insult you by calling your traits 'hideous'. Please be more polite on HN.
      - Fellshard 6y ago
        You're making a distinction between the employee and the owner, which is highly revealing. You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run. That is dehumanizing them. That is hideous. I stand by my words.
        cryptoz 6y ago
        I am making no such distinction! I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You stand by your words to insult me as hideous? Please stop. > You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run. I do not think like this. At all. I am not sure where you got that idea. Obviously the owner works, supplies and has value in the business they run...? I don't understand why you would think I don't agree with that? You must please stop insulting me. I'm reporting your posts. Edit: I've been banned (temporarily? For these posts?) and cannot reply to the user below.
- augustt 6y ago
  > Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people Try again
  - liquidise 6y ago
    Burning a building to the ground is presumably an (in)direct act of violence against the inhabitants of said building. 911, the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Kyoto Animation fire all come to mind.
Minor49er 6y ago
One of the buildings was the police precinct
- rickbutton 6y ago
  and the black people killed by police are human, do you care more about humans or buildings?
  - Minor49er 6y ago
    I care about upholding the law and about holding any bad actors, cops or otherwise, accountable for their actions.

Which is hateful against... buildings?

milkytron 6y ago

It's not that it's hateful. It's inciting and encouraging violence, which I'm pretty sure is against the ToS.

cryptoz 6y ago
It's generally understood that violence is something that happens to a person or living entity; buildings being burnt down is very different from a person being attacked. The word violence might be used for both, but really, it is meant in the modern day to refer to people. Violence isn't about property that can be rebuilt with mere money. It is about hurting people.
- aifer4 6y ago
  The definition of violence: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Unless we're using words in the humpty dumpty sense of "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
- milkytron 6y ago
  So I looked up their policy, and you seem to be correct there. Twitter defines violence as towards other individuals or groups. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules However, if users are encouraging or telling others to break the law, that is also against Twitters policies. > You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities. Encouraging or inciting others to break the law is illegal. Although it's on the illegal goods page, I think this could still be against their policy. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goods-services https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goo...
- Fellshard 6y ago
  How does burning down someone's business cause them no harm? You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue; especially when many of the businesses called for burning were locally owned, and many minority owned. That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.
  - cryptoz 6y ago
    > You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned? Those are two very different things. I do not mean to suggest that the employee whose work is burned is not hurt, but certainly, it is not a violent act against them as the other situation with guns or stabbing is. > That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice. I really don't know about this comment. I think it is your worldview that is 'warped' but I wouldn't insult you by calling your traits 'hideous'. Please be more polite on HN.
    - Fellshard 6y ago
      You're making a distinction between the employee and the owner, which is highly revealing. You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run. That is dehumanizing them. That is hideous. I stand by my words.
      - cryptoz 6y ago
        I am making no such distinction! I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You stand by your words to insult me as hideous? Please stop. > You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run. I do not think like this. At all. I am not sure where you got that idea. Obviously the owner works, supplies and has value in the business they run...? I don't understand why you would think I don't agree with that? You must please stop insulting me. I'm reporting your posts. Edit: I've been banned (temporarily? For these posts?) and cannot reply to the user below.
augustt 6y ago
> Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people Try again
- liquidise 6y ago
  Burning a building to the ground is presumably an (in)direct act of violence against the inhabitants of said building. 911, the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Kyoto Animation fire all come to mind.

Minor49er 6y ago

One of the buildings was the police precinct

rickbutton 6y ago
and the black people killed by police are human, do you care more about humans or buildings?
- Minor49er 6y ago
  I care about upholding the law and about holding any bad actors, cops or otherwise, accountable for their actions.