3 ms·

> If phone calls at inconvenient-to-them times end up bothering their family as well, it's because they didn't do the work to separate their family from their u

> If phone calls at inconvenient-to-them times end up bothering their family as well, it's because they didn't do the work to separate their family from their ugly business. Real ‘nice family you have there, shame if someone would scare them with a few calls at 2am’ vibe there, and you know it.

mindslight 5y ago
It's more like don't harass people and then expect having a family will shield you from the repercussions. These nastygram shakedowns deliberately cause personal stress to their victims (there is little other reason to send baseless legal demands), and so escalating the situation to be personally stressful for the attackers seems like an appropriate response. As far as I can tell you're arguing that it's one thing to harass people during "business hours", but there is some greater principle whereby harassing them back at off hours is wrong because it might bother their personal associates. If you don't want to get phone calls at inconvenient times either don't be a shithead in the first place (so that people calling you respect your schedule), or figure out how to silence your phones.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > escalating the situation to be personally stressful for the attackers seems like an appropriate response I'd morally disagree with that. Shouldn't deliberately cause someone personal stress, no matter what they've done to you.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    > I'd morally disagree with that. Shouldn't deliberately cause someone personal stress, no matter what they've done to you So if someone robs you, then you shouldn't call the police on them? That's a direct implication of your statement here. This whole "conversation" has been you quibbling using half-baked one-liners while avoiding any substance. I'm done.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > So if someone robs you, then you shouldn't call the police on them? That's a direct implication of your statement here. No the opposite. You should call the police on them and let them deal with it. You shouldn't attempt to put any pressure on them yourself. > avoiding any substance Don't harass people. Use proper procedure to resolve disputes instead of calling them at their home.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        > Use proper procedure to resolve disputes That's really the depth of your thinking here? Sheesh, why did I bother?
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Here's a practical reason if moral reasons don't work for you. If calling them at 2 am for some reason doesn't get the business result you want, and you have to go to court, the court'll ask you what reasonable steps you've already tried to resolve amicably, and the judge will think you're in the wrong when your opponent brings out a log of your 2 am calls to their residential address. Suddenly it'll look like they were just doing legitimate business and you were threatening and harassing. Even if you aren't a moral person, it pays to do things properly.
        mindslight 5y ago
        From my very first comment: > Two wrongs don't make a right, and it certainly may be imprudent to escalate The root of the hacker mindset is looking at alternative solutions that go against the common narrative. It sounds like this method worked out for OP, so it is worth considering. I don't think I personally would go down this path due to possible complications, its utter pettiness, and the fact it is very easy to silence phones at off hours. But depending on the situation, maybe it would make sense. I am a very moral person, hence having thought these things through. You're the one taking the shortcut of assuming anything done through "proper procedure" is moral. In my book, calling the cops on someone is most certainly escalating the situation and causing them personal stress. Deferring to the system is not an absolution from moral reasoning.

mindslight 5y ago

It's more like don't harass people and then expect having a family will shield you from the repercussions. These nastygram shakedowns deliberately cause personal stress to their victims (there is little other reason to send baseless legal demands), and so escalating the situation to be personally stressful for the attackers seems like an appropriate response. As far as I can tell you're arguing that it's one thing to harass people during "business hours", but there is some greater principle whereby harassing them back at off hours is wrong because it might bother their personal associates. If you don't want to get phone calls at inconvenient times either don't be a shithead in the first place (so that people calling you respect your schedule), or figure out how to silence your phones.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> escalating the situation to be personally stressful for the attackers seems like an appropriate response I'd morally disagree with that. Shouldn't deliberately cause someone personal stress, no matter what they've done to you.
- mindslight 5y ago
  > I'd morally disagree with that. Shouldn't deliberately cause someone personal stress, no matter what they've done to you So if someone robs you, then you shouldn't call the police on them? That's a direct implication of your statement here. This whole "conversation" has been you quibbling using half-baked one-liners while avoiding any substance. I'm done.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > So if someone robs you, then you shouldn't call the police on them? That's a direct implication of your statement here. No the opposite. You should call the police on them and let them deal with it. You shouldn't attempt to put any pressure on them yourself. > avoiding any substance Don't harass people. Use proper procedure to resolve disputes instead of calling them at their home.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      > Use proper procedure to resolve disputes That's really the depth of your thinking here? Sheesh, why did I bother?
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Here's a practical reason if moral reasons don't work for you. If calling them at 2 am for some reason doesn't get the business result you want, and you have to go to court, the court'll ask you what reasonable steps you've already tried to resolve amicably, and the judge will think you're in the wrong when your opponent brings out a log of your 2 am calls to their residential address. Suddenly it'll look like they were just doing legitimate business and you were threatening and harassing. Even if you aren't a moral person, it pays to do things properly.
        mindslight 5y ago
        From my very first comment: > Two wrongs don't make a right, and it certainly may be imprudent to escalate The root of the hacker mindset is looking at alternative solutions that go against the common narrative. It sounds like this method worked out for OP, so it is worth considering. I don't think I personally would go down this path due to possible complications, its utter pettiness, and the fact it is very easy to silence phones at off hours. But depending on the situation, maybe it would make sense. I am a very moral person, hence having thought these things through. You're the one taking the shortcut of assuming anything done through "proper procedure" is moral. In my book, calling the cops on someone is most certainly escalating the situation and causing them personal stress. Deferring to the system is not an absolution from moral reasoning.