3 ms·
The existence of a gray area in between "obviously fine" and "obviously wrong" doesn't mean that there is nothing in those outer categories. It is, at least hy
by danaris 2y ago
The existence of a gray area in between "obviously fine" and "obviously wrong" doesn't mean that there is nothing in those outer categories.
It is, at least hypothetically, possible to define "scammer" clearly enough that the more egregious and clear-cut types are taken care of more expeditiously.
Not sure if there's a way to actually enforce that better, but "it is possible to disagree over whether some things are scams" is not the same as "there's no way to agree on whether anything is a scam".
- ben_w 2y agoIn principle, when the legal system handles the cases, I agree: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In this specific case, when it comes to vigilantes in particular? Then no. I think that a society which allows it will end up somewhere between lynching and anarchy. Better law enforcement, which does not even have to mean "more laws"? Good. Batman wannabes? Bad.