3 ms·
i've never found this type of "humans were left with no alternative" argument in defense of destruction of property convincing, some of the things that separate
by dirasieb 8mo ago
i've never found this type of "humans were left with no alternative" argument in defense of destruction of property convincing, some of the things that separates humans from other animals is the concept of private/public property, rule of law, etc, you know? there are alternatives, contrary to the alarmism found online the US is very far from actual dictatorships where people have close to 0 way of achieving change through the legal system, immediately jumping to violence without an imminent threat is something i'd expect from lower primates, not from homo sapiens.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoYou're free to your opinion. Property is just property, it is nothing special. Rule of law is highly dynamic and a shared delusion. Damaging or destruction of property is not violence, it is a property crime at best. In the scope of Flock, it is well documented as having been misused, illegally in many cases, by law enforcement and those with access to its systems [1] [2] [3]. > there are alternatives This does not consistently appear to be the case in the US unfortunately. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/effs-investigations-expose-flock-safetys-surveillance-abuses-2025-review https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/effs-investigations-ex... [2] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=flock+misuse https://www.google.com/search?q=flock+misuse
- dirasieb 8mo ago> Damaging or destruction of property is not violence. you wouldn't consider someone vandalizing your home or the infrastructure in your neighborhood to be violence? of course it is violence, an attack on the place i live (whether that's limited to just my home or to the larger community i live in) is an attack on me is it not violence to, for example, burn down a business where people work in if you do it at a time where no one is around to get immediately hurt as a consequence? can i not call the financial damage caused both to the workers and the owners of that place violence?
- jacquesm 8mo agoI fail to see the equivalence between taking out a surveillance camera that is violating people's privacy with the other things that you list. Arguing like that is simply not going to work.
- dirasieb 8mo agothe person i replied to made a broad "destroying property is not violence" claim, the scope of the conversation is more than just that also, i consider a security camera in a place i live to be security infrastructure, you should not be able to come into a place and do act like a vigilante imposing your view on what should and should not be recorded through force, if you have a problem with the way things work you should try to work within the law again, this is what separates civilization from chaos
- toomuchtodo 8mo ago> you wouldn't consider someone vandalizing your home or the infrastructure in your neighborhood to be violence? of course it is violence, an attack on the place i live (whether that's limited to just my home or to the larger community i live in) is an attack on me No, I file an insurance claim and move on with my life. It is just property, and almost all property can be trivially replaced. Your property is not you. It is just property. We simply see the world differently, that's all. Good luck to you.
- anigbrowl 8mo agoHow are they 'immediately jumping to violence'? This surveillance debate has been going on for years.