softcactus

9 ms·

31.
by softcactus 4y ago
Retaliation by the government. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private citizens censoring each other. Very telling that you find more value in the hate speech than in the value of the victims ability to protect themselves. Especial
32.
by softcactus 4y ago
Let me know when it crosses that line then.
33.
by softcactus 4y ago
There are plenty of primary sources linked from that page. > slamming anyone down as ignorant is not constructive. It is when they are reducing it to a he said/she said instead of, I don't know, providing evidence? Begging the
34.
by softcactus 4y ago
It's not based on partisan affiliation, I never said anything of the sort. I said bad actions/bad actors. The fact that you assumed I was talking about targeting conservatives just goes to show that they happen to be the ones rock
35.
by softcactus 4y ago
> Yes, if we're talking about actual physical assault and not mere criticism. Are you actually arguing that Lorenz prevented imminent acts of physical violence through her doxxing? Yes. > vague "stocastic terrorism" arg
36.
by softcactus 4y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms The article I linked has as many citations of primary sources as you could ever want. The parent comment seeks to poison the well by casting doubt on the claims that KF is a hat
37.
by softcactus 4y ago
Unless people decide to pressure the third party into de-platforming someone, which is their freedom of expression. I don't understand why the free speech absolutists on HN are incapable of understanding that private citizens pressurin
38.
by softcactus 4y ago
>If you want to make progress dealing with horrible people, stop trying to turn me/everyone else against them, and deal with them. Like an adult. Either avoid, or work with authorities, within the rails of due process, to resolve th
39.
by softcactus 4y ago
It's ok to arrest someone in the act of attacking another person. It's not ok to arrest someone standing on the side of the street looking at their phone. If you can understand the distinction above, you should be able to understa
40.
by softcactus 4y ago
Context and intent matter. Pretending like all cases are equal only enables bullies. Doxxing an innocent person minding their own business because you don't like their race, gender orientation, or sexuality, is entirely different from
41.
by softcactus 4y ago
The person she doxxed was a doxxer themselves. They gave up their privilege of anonymity when they started directing harassment to other people as a hobby. Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
42.
by softcactus 4y ago
If you don't know anything about KF, maybe don't post? This is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the site.
43.
by softcactus 4y ago
Exactly. Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech. How do people not understand that?
44.
by softcactus 4y ago
Lots of people in here are saying things like: "Kiwifarms was taken down by the Twitter mob" or "Kiwifarms was just freedom of speech" Those people either have clearly never visited the site, or are operating in bad fait
45.
by softcactus 4y ago
[flagged]
46.
by softcactus 4y ago
I understand where you're coming from, however this exact type of logic of separation of powers has only ever been invoked when trying to protect inhumane policies in the US. For example, Colorado and other states have legalized weed.
47.
by softcactus 4y ago
See my reply to the other person who made this argument. You ignore my second half of the comment where I debunk the argument with "logic". > The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "em
48.
by softcactus 4y ago
> As for the people not in South Carolina, they should work to pass an amendment or secede from the union, those are the only legal options if you believe in how the federal government is supposed to work It's not legal to secede fr
49.
by softcactus 4y ago
I never said laws should be based on empathy. I just said that OP had no empathy in order to make the point that taking an aloof legalist stance is stupid when it has actual real world negative impacts on others that they were incapable of
50.
by softcactus 4y ago
I just knew someone was going to comment this. You have my blessing to change "Linux kernel" to "any open source package" no matter how trivial.
51.
by softcactus 4y ago
Yep. It's frustrating to see the threads on HN of people talking about this as if it's only hypothetical. Like it's a change to the Linux kernel and not something that impacts thousands of people every day. I don't care
52.
by softcactus 4y ago
Economically we should think of it like this: Our early industrialization contributed massively to global warming. It allowed us to become extremely wealthy, but also we incurred a "carbon debt" to the rest of the planet, since ou
53.
by softcactus 4y ago
> If the act was effective we could argue systemic racism has been overcome. We could declare victory. It's a game of cat and mouse. Like in the Lee Atwater video I linked, the arguments for racism have become so abstract that it re
54.
by softcactus 4y ago
> It’s also an extremely bias and dangerous narrative being spun. Today, states like California claim to be a “sanctuary state”, which lets them capture extra electoral votes. Or Colorado ignoring drug laws. I see no issue with states ha
55.
by softcactus 4y ago
> Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Not a personal attack, it was just an observation. > You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were
56.
by softcactus 4y ago
Our Federal system (each state having some autonomy) started because charters were given to English nobility to establish colonies. By the time of the revolutionary war the states needed a central authority to unify them, but also ensure th
57.
by softcactus 4y ago
> Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injus
58.
by softcactus 4y ago
I understand why the mechanisms are the way they are, I'm saying that the intellectualization of criminalizing abortion in the US under libertarian theory is a lazy argument. "People shouldn't interfere with others" is
59.
by softcactus 4y ago
I don't really care about ideologies or hypotheticals. I understand the libertarian worldview but I'm more concerned about the real-world effects of policy than their theoretical underpinnings. The outcome of criminalizing abortio
60.
by softcactus 4y ago
This question is unanswerable because nobody can define what is human and what is life. It's a spectrum. For any rule you can give that separates humanity from other animals, I can give an exception to that rule. Which is why intellect

More ›