4 ms·

Is the argument you're making "if you see someone doing something bad, you should not only call it out as such, but also be willing to do something bad to stop

Is the argument you're making "if you see someone doing something bad, you should not only call it out as such, but also be willing to do something bad to stop it"? That doesn't make sense to me unless there's really no other option to prevent a much greater evil. I think we're still at the point in this story where normal consumer and media pressure can be effective.

zepto 6y ago
I don’t know why you would think it’s my argument. It seems a lot closer to the argument DoingIsLearning is making about why “Apple employees” have blood on their hands.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You said the "logical conclusion" is "doxxing" them. You haven't explained why, and it's not at all obvious why you would say that. So yes people think that's your argument. If you are arguing something different, you need to explain better.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I actually did explain: Here’s a real quote from my comment, rather than a few words out of context in quote marks: “That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands.” It’s obvious that I am not saying they should be doxed. But sure - if people are just reacting to a few words without reading the whole comment or what is a reply to, then they won’t understand.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      No, that doesn't explain. Why does blood on their hands make doxxing mandatory for everyone that believes that? Nobody has said anything like that except you.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I never said doxing was mandatory for everyone that believes that. Misquoting me and exaggerating what I said isn’t going to lead to a better understanding. However if you believe that doxing of individual law enforcement officers is justified because of their support for the regime, and you accuse Apple’s team of having blood on their hands for ‘enabling’ the regime, it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees. But your comment didn't just say such a person would conclude it's justified. You said the logical conclusion would be them participating in the doxxing. Those are very different things. The list of actions that I think are justified but don't participate in is enormous. (And by "mandatory for everyone that believes that" I meant that logic would mandate it, which is the same as it being the logical conclusion.) But even with your new version, just talking about it being justified, well that's not necessarily the logical conclusion. One reason is that their participation is at a different level, so the justification might not extend to them. And if you go by the motive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738218 then identifying the police is being done for a very direct purpose to level the playing field on the ground. Someone might reasonably feel that this reason doesn't apply to Apple employees, even while saying that Apple employees have blood on their hands.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 6y ago
        You have introduced some abstraction and hypotheticals about how people might reason about this that the original commenter was not expressing. I agree these are interesting points. It is true that some person might have the nuanced sentiments and tactical analysis you hypothesize, but the actual person who I was responding to didn’t seem to be expressing such a complex view in their comment, and my original reply still stands as a reasonable challenge to the implications were of what they wrote, given the sentiment with which they expressed it.
threatofrain 6y ago
Normal consumer pressure can get out of the way of a nations internal affairs and nothing much else. The number one remedy people are asking of Apple is to back off and be more laissez faire. I, too, can cheer on HK, whatever that means...
- zepto 6y ago
  Back off from what? Nobody has said they have even threatened anything.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
zepto 6y ago
You edited this a lot since my previous comment, but it still doesn’t seem obvious this it’s relevant.
- croissants 6y ago
  Is "this" my parent comment ("Is the argument you're making...")? I edited that immediately after you added more text to your parent comment ("Are you planning to dox Apple employees?"), but not after your other comment ("I don’t know why you would think it’s my argument."). Anyway, if I understand correctly your position is that if people here believe that Apple's action is wrong, then they must believe that protestors doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is justified. Therefore people here should also believe that doxxing Apple employees is justified. My response is that any question of "relative badness" changes drastically in the immediate presence of real physical violence. If Belarusian law enforcement is out on the streets cracking demonstrators' skulls, it's more plausible that doxxing is a lesser evil (though of course, I have no idea how credible this doxxing is) -- direct physical violence just makes every response more acceptable. Apple's response may have the downstream effect of increasing physical violence, but only through a more diffuse chain of events, so it's possible to think that Apple's action is bad but, unlike direct physical violence, not bad enough to warrant doxxing its employees (which, anyway, doesn't seem anywhere near as effective as doxxing Belarusian law enforcement -- how many Apple employees have the power to affect this policy?).
  - zepto 6y ago
    Helpful explanation. I agree there can be a scale of culpability. Two points I question: You assume that doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is effective. You also imply that Belarusian law enforcement have the power to affect Belarusian policy. These seem like very much unjustified assertions. You also seem to ignore the possibility that doxing Apple employees could affect Apple’s policy which is what people want when they criticize Apple. I am not arguing for doxxing. I’m against it. However if one believes it would be effective at changing Belarusian policy, it raises the question as to why it would not be effective in changing Apple’s policy? There is also the point made by the parent that Apple’s people have “blood on their hands”, and are “enablers of violence”. From your statement about the relative badness, I presume you don’t agree with the parent comment about this. So it doesn’t seem like your view is representative of the one I was replying to. I stand by my original comment. If someone thinks Apple’s employees have “blood on their hands”, then it is logical to assume that by the same reasoning they support doxxing of police, they would support doxxing of Apple employees because they equate what Apple employees are doing with violence. That’s what it means to say that someone has blood on their hands. The fact that you don’t actually think that what Apple is doing is so bad, changes nothing about the original comment. I was replying to a comment that was far less moderate than the opinion you have just expressed. You just don’t share the views of the person I was replying to.

zepto 6y ago

I don’t know why you would think it’s my argument. It seems a lot closer to the argument DoingIsLearning is making about why “Apple employees” have blood on their hands.

Dylan16807 6y ago
You said the "logical conclusion" is "doxxing" them. You haven't explained why, and it's not at all obvious why you would say that. So yes people think that's your argument. If you are arguing something different, you need to explain better.
- zepto 6y ago
  I actually did explain: Here’s a real quote from my comment, rather than a few words out of context in quote marks: “That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands.” It’s obvious that I am not saying they should be doxed. But sure - if people are just reacting to a few words without reading the whole comment or what is a reply to, then they won’t understand.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    No, that doesn't explain. Why does blood on their hands make doxxing mandatory for everyone that believes that? Nobody has said anything like that except you.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I never said doxing was mandatory for everyone that believes that. Misquoting me and exaggerating what I said isn’t going to lead to a better understanding. However if you believe that doxing of individual law enforcement officers is justified because of their support for the regime, and you accuse Apple’s team of having blood on their hands for ‘enabling’ the regime, it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees. But your comment didn't just say such a person would conclude it's justified. You said the logical conclusion would be them participating in the doxxing. Those are very different things. The list of actions that I think are justified but don't participate in is enormous. (And by "mandatory for everyone that believes that" I meant that logic would mandate it, which is the same as it being the logical conclusion.) But even with your new version, just talking about it being justified, well that's not necessarily the logical conclusion. One reason is that their participation is at a different level, so the justification might not extend to them. And if you go by the motive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738218 then identifying the police is being done for a very direct purpose to level the playing field on the ground. Someone might reasonably feel that this reason doesn't apply to Apple employees, even while saying that Apple employees have blood on their hands.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 6y ago
        You have introduced some abstraction and hypotheticals about how people might reason about this that the original commenter was not expressing. I agree these are interesting points. It is true that some person might have the nuanced sentiments and tactical analysis you hypothesize, but the actual person who I was responding to didn’t seem to be expressing such a complex view in their comment, and my original reply still stands as a reasonable challenge to the implications were of what they wrote, given the sentiment with which they expressed it.

threatofrain 6y ago

Normal consumer pressure can get out of the way of a nations internal affairs and nothing much else. The number one remedy people are asking of Apple is to back off and be more laissez faire. I, too, can cheer on HK, whatever that means...

zepto 6y ago
Back off from what? Nobody has said they have even threatened anything.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

zepto 6y ago

You edited this a lot since my previous comment, but it still doesn’t seem obvious this it’s relevant.

croissants 6y ago
Is "this" my parent comment ("Is the argument you're making...")? I edited that immediately after you added more text to your parent comment ("Are you planning to dox Apple employees?"), but not after your other comment ("I don’t know why you would think it’s my argument."). Anyway, if I understand correctly your position is that if people here believe that Apple's action is wrong, then they must believe that protestors doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is justified. Therefore people here should also believe that doxxing Apple employees is justified. My response is that any question of "relative badness" changes drastically in the immediate presence of real physical violence. If Belarusian law enforcement is out on the streets cracking demonstrators' skulls, it's more plausible that doxxing is a lesser evil (though of course, I have no idea how credible this doxxing is) -- direct physical violence just makes every response more acceptable. Apple's response may have the downstream effect of increasing physical violence, but only through a more diffuse chain of events, so it's possible to think that Apple's action is bad but, unlike direct physical violence, not bad enough to warrant doxxing its employees (which, anyway, doesn't seem anywhere near as effective as doxxing Belarusian law enforcement -- how many Apple employees have the power to affect this policy?).
- zepto 6y ago
  Helpful explanation. I agree there can be a scale of culpability. Two points I question: You assume that doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is effective. You also imply that Belarusian law enforcement have the power to affect Belarusian policy. These seem like very much unjustified assertions. You also seem to ignore the possibility that doxing Apple employees could affect Apple’s policy which is what people want when they criticize Apple. I am not arguing for doxxing. I’m against it. However if one believes it would be effective at changing Belarusian policy, it raises the question as to why it would not be effective in changing Apple’s policy? There is also the point made by the parent that Apple’s people have “blood on their hands”, and are “enablers of violence”. From your statement about the relative badness, I presume you don’t agree with the parent comment about this. So it doesn’t seem like your view is representative of the one I was replying to. I stand by my original comment. If someone thinks Apple’s employees have “blood on their hands”, then it is logical to assume that by the same reasoning they support doxxing of police, they would support doxxing of Apple employees because they equate what Apple employees are doing with violence. That’s what it means to say that someone has blood on their hands. The fact that you don’t actually think that what Apple is doing is so bad, changes nothing about the original comment. I was replying to a comment that was far less moderate than the opinion you have just expressed. You just don’t share the views of the person I was replying to.