3 ms·

> In some cases you (or if not you, then at least the vast majority of society) thinks it’s appropriate. Children cannot defend themselves. Adults can. No one

> In some cases you (or if not you, then at least the vast majority of society) thinks it’s appropriate. Children cannot defend themselves. Adults can. No one is particularly interested if this fine line escapes you. The line exists, no one is interested in changing it (other than pedophiles, of course), and the proletariat would quite like it if the bourgeoisie could leave us the hell alone, thank you very much. Also, allow me to clarify one point: I don't have an argument. I have a class interest. I am not interested in convincing you one way or another. If arguments actually worked to protect our rights then we wouldn't have to go through this merry-go-round of nonsense every few years. I am stating quite simply that the proletariat has certain rights and attempting to infringe upon the same as the bourgeoisie has done for the last decade is a sure-fire way to result in the same being subject to boycott and ruin... and if you don't think that is the case then ask Budweiser how they're doing at their next quarterly earnings report. My only message is for bourgeoisie who may be reading: If you value your profits then maybe you should consider leaving your customers the hell alone, because the incident with Budweiser shows that customers incensed with your manipulations can and will stop doing business with you. No one is exempt from this fact, including ISPs, NSPs, payment processors, or other intermediaries who perhaps justifiably think that they are untouchable. Lest there be any room for doubt: KiwiFarms has been under assault for the better part of a year and change... and now we're talking about it on Hacker News. This story is being talked about here and now because some people have had enough of this nonsense. Maybe everyone should take a break... pause, reflect... and ask whether trying to manipulate their customers to their own financial ruin is really something they want to pursue to the bitter end.

vidarh 3y ago
Given your framing of this in terms of class warfare, I'd remind you that Marx described capitalism as a major positive force because it "by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation". He went on to describe specifically xenophobia ("The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate") but he went on to argue its transformation is deeper ("It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.") This is part of him exalting capitalism for laying the groundwork that he believed would make socialism possible. E.g. later: > The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking, this process is progressive. Not by intent, but firstly because bigotry and hate is bad for business, as your yourself point out when you talk of Budweiser boycott (ironically mostly benefiting a more progressive company), and so while some short term losses will be had by people pushing to hard too fast, the regressive parts of the working classes will not just be left to its own, but will be battered over and over by both the bourgeoisie and the progressive parts of the working classes, because bigotry and hate is bad not just for business but also for people.
- EarlKing 3y ago
  > Given your framing of this in terms of class warfare, I'd remind you that Marx Class warfare predates Marx by roughly two thousand years (if not longer). I am not interested in what he has to say on the matter. It was sufficiently described by greeks, along with where it ultimately leads, as the Kyklos or Anacyclosis. > So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking, Class warfare is not a left wing concept. The left and right wing are a result of class warfare, which predates Marx and the rest of his gang of thieves masquerading as revolutionaries. TL;DR I don't care about your bourgeoisie rhetoric of who said what. The proletariat has an absolute right to freely speak its mind without your interference. Deal with it.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    It's interesting that you're reacting this way to Marx being brought up when the language you're using is straight out of the Marxist school of thought. It's also fascinating that you favour the idea of cycles, as in that case trying to fight the bourgeoisie is an inherently lost cause and you'd be better off trying to become part of it. But in any case, the major point was that while you may be free to speak your mind, so are others, and they are also free to choose to not want to associate with people who want to spread hate and bigotry, and you're facing a losing battle. Doubly so if you believe in social cycles (an utterly idiotic concept to buy into today given the amount of change since it was conceived), in which case you're doomed to keeping losing this battle forever.
    - EarlKing 3y ago
      It's called the kyklos because it is a cycle of human civilization: we go forward, we go back. Over and over without end. The struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is an inevitable part of that cycle. There is no 'losing' this battle. There is nothing idiotic in pointing out that we're still facing the same struggles because human nature hasn't changed and no one learns from history. In any case: Marx is irrelevant, these people are on the wrong side of history, as is anyone who sides with them. Have fun screaming at a wall.
shadowgovt 3y ago
So your argument is that private individuals, dissatisfied with the behavior of an organization, may choose to take their business elsewhere? Because business is a two-way transaction. This sounds like an argument in favor of HE's position. If their owner finds KiwiFarms' behavior reprehensible, They're not obligated to do business with it.
- EarlKing 3y ago
  > So your argument is that private individuals, dissatisfied with the behavior of an organization, may choose to take their business elsewhere? Yes. > Because business is a two-way transaction. This sounds like an argument in favor of HE's position. Only because you are deliberately mischaracterizing it. No man has the right to void a contract without just cause, nor interfere in the contractual relations of others. When Hurricane Electric unilaterally decides that someone downstream of them has violated their terms of service that is precisely what they have done. Furthermore, someone holding themselves out as a business does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone... that much has been made abundantly clear over as many decades of the struggle for civil rights. Put simply: customers can freely choose not to do business with you. You, however, generally do not get to choose who your customers are. Green is green. This is the system you and yours have designed, and you are free to choke on it.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > someone holding themselves out as a business does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone Sorry, but with respect: you misunderstand the Civil Rights Act and its peer legislature. CRA and its peers carved out specific categories in which service, if provided at all, must be provided, more or less centered on intrinsic properties that do not impact or reflect the content of one's character. That carve-out is as exceptions to the default common law sense that any company may choose to refrain from doing business at any time. That's the bedrock and we make exceptions. A cop was recently refused service at a bakery because they have a no open weapons policy (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174109-san-francisco-restaurant-bans-armed-officers-police-union-responds/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174109-san-francis...). "No shirts, no shoes, no service" is pretty bog-standard recognized restaurant boilerplate. In most states, bartenders can kick out someone who's dressed like a Nazi. And in HE's case, their terms of service refuse use of their services for illegal activity. In their opinion (and this could, perhaps, be tested in a court of law), this includes providing service to a company that is allowing illegal activity through its network and looking the other way ("data laundring," if you will). You're right that green is green, and that generally serves as a practical counterweight for abuse of this privilege. But the privilege stands, and if a company decides the money isn't worth the loss to reputation or anything else they value, they may, with few carefully-carved exceptions, leave it on the table. It's a high hill to climb to justify why we should stud these ground rules with an additional civil rights exception for the likes of KF. What societal benefit? Because it's pretty easy to see the content of their character, and their state of being isn't intrinsic to them and inextricable from their character ("just stop being cyberbullies").

vidarh 3y ago

Given your framing of this in terms of class warfare, I'd remind you that Marx described capitalism as a major positive force because it "by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation". He went on to describe specifically xenophobia ("The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate") but he went on to argue its transformation is deeper ("It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.") This is part of him exalting capitalism for laying the groundwork that he believed would make socialism possible. E.g. later: > The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking, this process is progressive. Not by intent, but firstly because bigotry and hate is bad for business, as your yourself point out when you talk of Budweiser boycott (ironically mostly benefiting a more progressive company), and so while some short term losses will be had by people pushing to hard too fast, the regressive parts of the working classes will not just be left to its own, but will be battered over and over by both the bourgeoisie and the progressive parts of the working classes, because bigotry and hate is bad not just for business but also for people.

EarlKing 3y ago
> Given your framing of this in terms of class warfare, I'd remind you that Marx Class warfare predates Marx by roughly two thousand years (if not longer). I am not interested in what he has to say on the matter. It was sufficiently described by greeks, along with where it ultimately leads, as the Kyklos or Anacyclosis. > So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking, Class warfare is not a left wing concept. The left and right wing are a result of class warfare, which predates Marx and the rest of his gang of thieves masquerading as revolutionaries. TL;DR I don't care about your bourgeoisie rhetoric of who said what. The proletariat has an absolute right to freely speak its mind without your interference. Deal with it.
- vidarh 3y ago
  It's interesting that you're reacting this way to Marx being brought up when the language you're using is straight out of the Marxist school of thought. It's also fascinating that you favour the idea of cycles, as in that case trying to fight the bourgeoisie is an inherently lost cause and you'd be better off trying to become part of it. But in any case, the major point was that while you may be free to speak your mind, so are others, and they are also free to choose to not want to associate with people who want to spread hate and bigotry, and you're facing a losing battle. Doubly so if you believe in social cycles (an utterly idiotic concept to buy into today given the amount of change since it was conceived), in which case you're doomed to keeping losing this battle forever.
  - EarlKing 3y ago
    It's called the kyklos because it is a cycle of human civilization: we go forward, we go back. Over and over without end. The struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is an inevitable part of that cycle. There is no 'losing' this battle. There is nothing idiotic in pointing out that we're still facing the same struggles because human nature hasn't changed and no one learns from history. In any case: Marx is irrelevant, these people are on the wrong side of history, as is anyone who sides with them. Have fun screaming at a wall.

shadowgovt 3y ago

So your argument is that private individuals, dissatisfied with the behavior of an organization, may choose to take their business elsewhere? Because business is a two-way transaction. This sounds like an argument in favor of HE's position. If their owner finds KiwiFarms' behavior reprehensible, They're not obligated to do business with it.

EarlKing 3y ago
> So your argument is that private individuals, dissatisfied with the behavior of an organization, may choose to take their business elsewhere? Yes. > Because business is a two-way transaction. This sounds like an argument in favor of HE's position. Only because you are deliberately mischaracterizing it. No man has the right to void a contract without just cause, nor interfere in the contractual relations of others. When Hurricane Electric unilaterally decides that someone downstream of them has violated their terms of service that is precisely what they have done. Furthermore, someone holding themselves out as a business does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone... that much has been made abundantly clear over as many decades of the struggle for civil rights. Put simply: customers can freely choose not to do business with you. You, however, generally do not get to choose who your customers are. Green is green. This is the system you and yours have designed, and you are free to choke on it.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > someone holding themselves out as a business does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone Sorry, but with respect: you misunderstand the Civil Rights Act and its peer legislature. CRA and its peers carved out specific categories in which service, if provided at all, must be provided, more or less centered on intrinsic properties that do not impact or reflect the content of one's character. That carve-out is as exceptions to the default common law sense that any company may choose to refrain from doing business at any time. That's the bedrock and we make exceptions. A cop was recently refused service at a bakery because they have a no open weapons policy (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174109-san-francisco-restaurant-bans-armed-officers-police-union-responds/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174109-san-francis...). "No shirts, no shoes, no service" is pretty bog-standard recognized restaurant boilerplate. In most states, bartenders can kick out someone who's dressed like a Nazi. And in HE's case, their terms of service refuse use of their services for illegal activity. In their opinion (and this could, perhaps, be tested in a court of law), this includes providing service to a company that is allowing illegal activity through its network and looking the other way ("data laundring," if you will). You're right that green is green, and that generally serves as a practical counterweight for abuse of this privilege. But the privilege stands, and if a company decides the money isn't worth the loss to reputation or anything else they value, they may, with few carefully-carved exceptions, leave it on the table. It's a high hill to climb to justify why we should stud these ground rules with an additional civil rights exception for the likes of KF. What societal benefit? Because it's pretty easy to see the content of their character, and their state of being isn't intrinsic to them and inextricable from their character ("just stop being cyberbullies").