4 ms·
It's a lot harder to write a coherent response than downvote, but given there's so much misinformation around the internet, you could do nothing but try to corr
by grayhatter 6y ago
It's a lot harder to write a coherent response than downvote, but given there's so much misinformation around the internet, you could do nothing but try to correct it by replying, 24/7 and still get nowhere. Downvoting hides bad comments, and depending on your metrics comments that are based on a flawed premise should be hidden.
Buying drugs do not meaningfully fund terrorism. So to criminally prosecute someone for buying drugs because it might stop them from giving money to the "bad guys" is an abuse of both humans and logic. The bad guys only sell drugs because they're the only ones willing to break the law. If you cared about stopping them, you legalize recreational use so non-criminals would make the money. But the whole argument for prosecuting individual users is because "drugs are bad and you're bad for using them". The whole drugs fund terrorism was it interesting lie or propaganda, (depending on your view). And lies even when repeated unintentionally or unknowingly should be downvoted.
- cheschire 6y agoOP mentioned terrorism clearly as an after thought. The bulk of their message was focused on crime. This gives your position a sort of "knee jerk" air about it. To then be given a low effort downvote option to facilitate your low effort analysis simply enables your perpetuation of a reactive culture. And you're not one person against the world. You don't need to correct every single misinformed opinion on the entire internet 24/7. Take the time to help one person who you feel is misinformed and bring them to truth.
- grayhatter 6y agoI did, I replied to you. But OP did their argument a huge disservice. Even considering I wasn't focused on that aspect given I specifically chose "bad guys" instead of terrorists. Or that their concept that drugs are necessarily connected with crime. Their argument with or without adding in terrorism is based upon a either a lie or a misunderstanding. One that would wrongly have additional credibility seeming to be true if it got up voted. But I'm curious to why you're blaming me (rhetorically) for perpetuating a reactive culture when not only am I not even sure what that means, but I didn't even downvote him.
- cheschire 6y agoAnd I appreciated your reply and considered your reasoning. It was a helpful observation that has tempered my distaste for downvoting. Being HN, this is a good place to throw up some citations and they would stand a far higher chance of being read and understood by your target audience even if they disagree with you. And I don't feel I'm "blaming" you per se, but your response gives the impression that even if you didn't downvote this specific referenced post, you've done it before for the reasons you gave. In any case, I must have heard the same lies or misunderstandings because I thought the connection between drugs and crime was fairly obvious. I would absolutely appreciate some citations.
- BTCOG 6y agoSpeaking to this point exactly; drugs do not meaningfully fund terrorism. In a person's locality, one can readily learn what their supply chains consist of, and who is the chemist/grower producing it. For one to assume flat out that all drugs somehow for some reason pass through a cartel shows lack of knowledge, or bad faith. Especially today in the booming drug market, one can very easily buy right from cannabis growers and right from chemists, or nearly directly. Cartel drugs are frankly poor quality absolute garbage.