4 ms·

> It's classic shoot-the-messenger. No it's not! I don't go around shooting people to advocate gun control laws. I don't go around stealing people's belongin

> It's classic shoot-the-messenger. No it's not! I don't go around shooting people to advocate gun control laws. I don't go around stealing people's belongings in cars to advocate that people shouldn't leave valuables in cars. This is vigilante behavior that should never be condoned.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
But you are defending a home raid on someone who was not brought to trial, but was making a politcal and moral point about corporate tools and corporate behaviours. When you think criticism - oblique, but clearly still harmless - is more of a problem than the behaviours, you are very much trying to shoot the messenger.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  I think, as soon as he became the actor as well, he ceased being "the messager" in the terms of solely passing on a message. Put another way, "shoot the messenger" is a phrase used when an unbiased person, merely delivering a message of bias/harm from another, is attacked for the message. You are not a messenger, when you perform the act/deed/thing yourself.
  - NotEvil 5y ago
    That is what I don't understand why he can't be a messenger and an actor at the same time. Everything doesn't have to be black and white you know
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      Then it isn’t shooting the messenger because they’re also an actor? Being a messenger doesn’t grant someone immunity from being critiqued for doing unethical things.
      - NotEvil 5y ago
        No, it don't. But being an actor doesn't mean an individual can't be an messanger doing something in good faith. "Dooing good, through bad methods"
- overboard2 5y ago
  >But you are defending a home raid on someone who was not brought to trial He should have been brought to trial
teawrecks 5y ago
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Every noteworthy push for societal change through history that ever involved breaking a law could be labeled vigilante behavior by some party. I just don't find that argument convincing. Our laws aren't there to protect themselves, they exist to create the society we want to live in. In what ways did the artist's actions harm our society? In what ways did it change how we view our society? Do we like what we see? This isn't big brother with all the power systematically spying on citizens, this is a nobody with no power showing us a picture of ourselves. Both cases are happening, both happen against the will of the people, and yet which one do we allow to continue? I'll also point out that the discussion we're having is exactly the outcome the artist intended.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

But you are defending a home raid on someone who was not brought to trial, but was making a politcal and moral point about corporate tools and corporate behaviours. When you think criticism - oblique, but clearly still harmless - is more of a problem than the behaviours, you are very much trying to shoot the messenger.

bbarnett 5y ago
I think, as soon as he became the actor as well, he ceased being "the messager" in the terms of solely passing on a message. Put another way, "shoot the messenger" is a phrase used when an unbiased person, merely delivering a message of bias/harm from another, is attacked for the message. You are not a messenger, when you perform the act/deed/thing yourself.
- NotEvil 5y ago
  That is what I don't understand why he can't be a messenger and an actor at the same time. Everything doesn't have to be black and white you know
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Then it isn’t shooting the messenger because they’re also an actor? Being a messenger doesn’t grant someone immunity from being critiqued for doing unethical things.
    - NotEvil 5y ago
      No, it don't. But being an actor doesn't mean an individual can't be an messanger doing something in good faith. "Dooing good, through bad methods"
overboard2 5y ago
>But you are defending a home raid on someone who was not brought to trial He should have been brought to trial

teawrecks 5y ago

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Every noteworthy push for societal change through history that ever involved breaking a law could be labeled vigilante behavior by some party. I just don't find that argument convincing. Our laws aren't there to protect themselves, they exist to create the society we want to live in. In what ways did the artist's actions harm our society? In what ways did it change how we view our society? Do we like what we see? This isn't big brother with all the power systematically spying on citizens, this is a nobody with no power showing us a picture of ourselves. Both cases are happening, both happen against the will of the people, and yet which one do we allow to continue? I'll also point out that the discussion we're having is exactly the outcome the artist intended.