Gregory's Server@fluffy @ariadne @eff I don't think that is a good analogy. But if we use it: Once you have the checkpoints, you can also check for black drivers, for union drivers, for communist drivers, and so on. It is a slippery slope. On the other hand, the parking lot attendant (i.e. the local hosting company) can stop just the drunk drivers from getting into the car in the first place.
|
7 comments
 @StephanSchulz @ariadne @eff ah yes, the “rationality” argument. Which makes it easy to claim that people who don’t agree with you are “irrational.” @StephanSchulz @ariadne @eff To paraphrase someone else’s much better post than I could have come up with on my own: everyone always frets about the “slippery slope” towards censorship, but nobody frets about the slippery slope towards stalking, harassment, doxing, and acts of violence. It’s hard for me to be “rational” about protecting the first amendment rights of the people who have directly affected me and my friends in violent ways. @StephanSchulz @ariadne @eff I have been doxed and endured protracted harassment campaigns as a result. What I experienced is *nothing* compared to what a lot of people I know have gone through. The actual people who did the doxing were “just” doing free speech, and were being “rational” and used the emotional responses of their victims to say “Look how irrational these people are, don’t they deserve what happened to them?” @StephanSchulz @ariadne @eff Anyway. My rational argument is: We should reduce harm. Especially to marginalized people. But reducing harm in general is a good thing. If your house is on fire, it is harm reduction to put the fire out, even though that uses water that might be used to fill a swimming pool. |
@StephanSchulz @ariadne @eff what’s it like being this tedious?