3 ms·

I agree, to some extent. I think it was largely ineffective and poorly targeted protest. The media coverage is not really necessary as it's already highly repor

by Latty 5y ago

I agree, to some extent. I think it was largely ineffective and poorly targeted protest. The media coverage is not really necessary as it's already highly reported on, and the people harmed have no control over it. With that said, disruptive protest can be (and often is) illegal. I may think it's justified in some cases, but also if I do something illegal I expect to face legal punishment for it. Some people lay down their lives to protest: to some people committing a crime is a cost worth paying. Again, my point isn't that I agree with the action, just that the idea that protest should disrupt no one is counter to the whole point of protest.

shkkmo 5y ago
I think that blocking your software from running on some computers would be very disruptive but should be legal. (Edit: not endorsing this, just trying to clarify where the line lies) Actively trying to harm those computers is simply not OK and goes beyond "disruptive" protest into harmful. To analogize, if your protest blocks traffic, it is disruptive. If you protest goes looking for property owned by Russian speakers to burn down...you have moved beyond disruptive protest an into being a harmful attack. I do not think the latter is anywhere even close to justifiable.
- Latty 5y ago
  I don't think the line is so simple. I agree that the "any Russian person" aspect of this makes it unjustified, in my eyes, but harming property more generally? Well, denying someone their property is certainly harm of a sort, and if I were asked if it was justified to seize or destroy an oligarch supporting Putin's property or yacht or whatever, then I'd say absolutely. In a similar way, there was a case in the UK recently where a statue of a man who was both a philanthropist and a slave trader was thrown into a river. This was charged as a crime, but the accused were found not guilty (commonly believed to be jury nullification). Was this right? Well, the guy had actively limited his philanthropy where anyone was anti-slavery, people had tried getting a plaque added to the statue to explain context, but this had been blocked. I think this was a reasonable act of protest, and clearly a jury of their peers agreed. More directly, what if they found their software was being used in a Russian weapons factory that was being used to produce munitions killing Ukranian people? In my mind, that would significantly raise the justification to cause damage to that property. Harm, especially when it comes to property rather than people, is tricky. I don't think it can always be ruled out when it comes to justifiable protest.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > if I were asked if it was justified to seize or destroy an oligarch supporting Putin's property or yacht or whatever, then I'd say absolutely. Those are targeted actions taken against specific individuals, not an indiscriminate attack. Causing indescriminant harm to random people as an attempt to protest is not acceptable. Targeted harm has to be assessed on a case by case basis.
    - Latty 5y ago
      I mean, as I said, I think that's a core factor in this instance, and culpability increases the justification. I don't think that means that targeting random people in protest is wrong universally. A common example might be blocking roads, which can harm random people disrupted from being able to go to work, for example. I think there are cases that can be justified. I mean, right now the sanctions put in place to try and cripple Russia's ability to wage war are hurting random Russian people. That's essentially state-level protest. It sucks for the Russian people who don't support their government, but I think it's the lesser of two evils rather than funding and enabling a regime that is invading Ukraine. It's a combination of factors, I think trying to draw hard lines universally is just the wrong way to think about it: protest should be proportional and justified, and each case has to be judged on its own merits as to whether it is, something people won't ever agree on universally.

by Latty 5y ago

shkkmo 5y ago

I think that blocking your software from running on some computers would be very disruptive but should be legal. (Edit: not endorsing this, just trying to clarify where the line lies) Actively trying to harm those computers is simply not OK and goes beyond "disruptive" protest into harmful. To analogize, if your protest blocks traffic, it is disruptive. If you protest goes looking for property owned by Russian speakers to burn down...you have moved beyond disruptive protest an into being a harmful attack. I do not think the latter is anywhere even close to justifiable.

Latty 5y ago
I don't think the line is so simple. I agree that the "any Russian person" aspect of this makes it unjustified, in my eyes, but harming property more generally? Well, denying someone their property is certainly harm of a sort, and if I were asked if it was justified to seize or destroy an oligarch supporting Putin's property or yacht or whatever, then I'd say absolutely. In a similar way, there was a case in the UK recently where a statue of a man who was both a philanthropist and a slave trader was thrown into a river. This was charged as a crime, but the accused were found not guilty (commonly believed to be jury nullification). Was this right? Well, the guy had actively limited his philanthropy where anyone was anti-slavery, people had tried getting a plaque added to the statue to explain context, but this had been blocked. I think this was a reasonable act of protest, and clearly a jury of their peers agreed. More directly, what if they found their software was being used in a Russian weapons factory that was being used to produce munitions killing Ukranian people? In my mind, that would significantly raise the justification to cause damage to that property. Harm, especially when it comes to property rather than people, is tricky. I don't think it can always be ruled out when it comes to justifiable protest.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > if I were asked if it was justified to seize or destroy an oligarch supporting Putin's property or yacht or whatever, then I'd say absolutely. Those are targeted actions taken against specific individuals, not an indiscriminate attack. Causing indescriminant harm to random people as an attempt to protest is not acceptable. Targeted harm has to be assessed on a case by case basis.
  - Latty 5y ago
    I mean, as I said, I think that's a core factor in this instance, and culpability increases the justification. I don't think that means that targeting random people in protest is wrong universally. A common example might be blocking roads, which can harm random people disrupted from being able to go to work, for example. I think there are cases that can be justified. I mean, right now the sanctions put in place to try and cripple Russia's ability to wage war are hurting random Russian people. That's essentially state-level protest. It sucks for the Russian people who don't support their government, but I think it's the lesser of two evils rather than funding and enabling a regime that is invading Ukraine. It's a combination of factors, I think trying to draw hard lines universally is just the wrong way to think about it: protest should be proportional and justified, and each case has to be judged on its own merits as to whether it is, something people won't ever agree on universally.