A hacker known as Martha Root broke in and deleted three white supremacist websites at the end of a talk during the annual hacker conference Chaos Communication Congress in Germany.
Nothing you are saying makes sense in the framework of legal functionality. You’re basically advocating for non-gun castle doctrine in which you have the right to do whatever you want against people who you disagree with and who have the potential to do something against you. We live in a society where rules apply, when you say these things you should take a second to think how these decisions would apply if they were turned against you.
I don’t care about legal frameworks, I’m a human not a nationstate.
We live in a society where laws are made without our input or consent and are enforced on us by those who gave themselves a monopoly on violence.
Those same rules are frequently used against us to oppress us, historically taking loss of lives and illegal action to see any change in them. I do not value or respect such a system and I advocate for its destruction so that we can build better human systems based on consent and mutualism.
Yet you live in a world where laws and nation states exist. Just because you divorce yourself from these rules or think they do not apply to your beliefs does not make it so. You’re commenting like a Sovereign Citizen in the US, but the laws and legal frameworks exist whether you believe in them. To a point you must frame your discussion in their context and if you do not then your opinion doesn’t matter until you change that very framework.
If your argument hinges on ignoring the legal framework then you have to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber, anything less is meaningless.
And I have no problem breaking them when I see fit. I’m also commenting like an Anarchist, not a SovShit. You are commenting like a Liberal, blindly following the letter of the law as the planet is legally killed for a profit.
They can exist all they want, I do not respect them and I do not adhere to them. I live parallel to them. One does not need to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber to have meaning, that is an extremist understanding of change. One simply needs to live the life they believe to be ethical.
I’m also commenting like an Anarchist, not a SovShit.
Functionally there is no difference
They can exist all they want, I do not respect them and I do not adhere to them. I live parallel to them. One does not need to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber to have meaning, that is an extremist understanding of change. One simply needs to live the life they believe to be ethical.
So, as long as you believe it’s ethical then it’s okay regardless of law and order. I hope the winds of change never turn against you such that you find the precedent reversed against you.
There is so much difference. You are clearly ignorant on the subject matter if you’re making such a claim. The most striking difference is that SovCits are individualists.
So, as long as you believe it’s ethical then it’s okay regardless of law and order. I hope the winds of change never turn against you such that you find the precedent reversed against you.
That’s literally the risk we all face.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Ideologically there is a lot of difference between sovereign citizens and anarchists, but functionally there is not. One is delusional in their disbelief of a state while the other believes that a state shouldn’t exist. At the end of the day both are opposed to the proper function of government.
That’s literally the risk we all face.
No it’s not, the vast majority of law abiding citizens are not at risk in any legal based county. Even if the laws of the country change, so long as you follow the laws you are at little risk. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of people do not face that risk.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Look, I’m against putting people in concentration camps but this isn’t the argument we were having. If you want to use that example then immigrants who aren’t committing crimes but are not in the US under legal methods are still technically criminals. I will happily agree with you that their treatment isn’t right, but their status as illegal immigrants is still true. If you want to talk about legal immigrants and US citizens who have been detained or deported then that also has happened, but that is more a function of US officials breaking the law. You don’t go to Russia with a vape pen and expect not to be arrested because you’re an American or famous. Likewise you don’t go to China and call Xi Weenie the Pooh and expect to not get fucked with.
If your argument is that a government in the world is breaking the law then it’s ok for a private citizen in another country to break the law then you’re truly delusional. Hey, North Korea starved a bunch of people, and Iran killed a bunch of women who didn’t want to wear veils, so it’s ok for a guy in my country to hack a hate group in China.
I think this is an extension of the paradox of intolerance. Laws are never absolute, and when one side has no respect for laws and enforces only what is advantageous for them this kind of action absolutely should count as self defence. We should fully support taking away the anonymity and feeling of immunity from those who abuse the law.
It’s kinda hard to claim self defense when you are launching the attack to someone in another country. If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime. The only difference is ideological and who controls the power to determine which ideology is correct.
I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can’t put them on a spectrum. Here is another example; when Democrats were found to have potentially taken top secret files, by accident or not, the party had to investigate them with the same level of conviction as they had with Trump because failing to do so undermined their own argument.
You talk like a chat bot. Stop defending nazis. You’re not defending the rule of law or any of that, you’re just defending nazis. Don’t do that. Supremacist ideology is incompatible with society as they expressly intend to destroy that society. It is always correct and right morally and ethically to remove anti-social ideologies. Legality is irrelevant.
Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don’t drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can’t fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren’t entitled to those same rights.
Refusing to allow ideologies inherently harmful to society doesn’t have anything to do with what you just said. We’re having two different conversations. Also ideologies aren’t intrinsic characteristics and thus can’t have or be denied rights, so it’s weird to make that connotation unless you just don’t understand what I’m saying.
I feel like you are not understanding that the determination of which ideologies are harmful and aren’t is ultimately a matter of opinion and you only support it so long as you agree with the outcome. Iran, China, North Korea, and many other countries are examples of the other side of your argument.
I’m not saying that ideologies are intrinsic characteristics, I’m saying that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe and that right to believe, regardless of what it is, is an intrinsic characteristic. Some countries might not have freedom to express those beliefs but that’s literally denying rights.
It isn’t a matter of opinion though. Hateful ideologies promote anti-social behavior, in the actively harmful to social order context, not the I don’t like being around people context. They promote social discord which is objectively bad for social order and society at large. There are objective measures here. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the whole idea that they are is one of the less valid ones. You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
And I disagree that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want. Nobody has the right to believe the earth is flat. Nobody has the right to believe in chemtrails, or any other objectively false thing. You’re entitled to an informed educated opinion, not to reject objective reality and replace it with your own.
You’re talking about measured health impacts on an overall population not about ideologies. The idea that other ideologies are anti-social or harmful precludes the idea that your view of society is the correct one. That works out fine so long as you maintain the majority, but if the tides of time change against you then the very opposite would be true.
A rural community of racist white people in the US aren’t anti-social or harmed by their view until that dynamic changes, such as a person of color entering the community. Objectively that community lacks diversity of experience which promotes growth and development in the community (this is referencing your discussion about objective measures), but the desire to not change is part of why we these people are called conservatives and isn’t fundamentally wrong. The thing you are repeatedly missing is that calling these ideologies anti-social or undesirable and not deserving of protection under the law only is your express opinion, not an objective truth, and you only support this opinion so long as you remain part of the in crowd. If the situation were reversed your opinion on whether all ideologies deserve the protection of law would reverse as well.
You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
It’s quite the opposite, I’m declaring that legislation is not equal to ethics. Ethics function purely on an implied social contract whereas laws function on explicit statements. Laws allow people of opposing opinions to coexist and instead of relying on implied incompatible social contracts they all have equal protection under the law. This by nature is the difference between Just and Fair or Equality and Equitable.
Nothing you are saying makes sense in the framework of legal functionality. You’re basically advocating for non-gun castle doctrine in which you have the right to do whatever you want against people who you disagree with and who have the potential to do something against you. We live in a society where rules apply, when you say these things you should take a second to think how these decisions would apply if they were turned against you.
I don’t care about legal frameworks, I’m a human not a nationstate.
We live in a society where laws are made without our input or consent and are enforced on us by those who gave themselves a monopoly on violence.
Those same rules are frequently used against us to oppress us, historically taking loss of lives and illegal action to see any change in them. I do not value or respect such a system and I advocate for its destruction so that we can build better human systems based on consent and mutualism.
Yet you live in a world where laws and nation states exist. Just because you divorce yourself from these rules or think they do not apply to your beliefs does not make it so. You’re commenting like a Sovereign Citizen in the US, but the laws and legal frameworks exist whether you believe in them. To a point you must frame your discussion in their context and if you do not then your opinion doesn’t matter until you change that very framework.
If your argument hinges on ignoring the legal framework then you have to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber, anything less is meaningless.
And I have no problem breaking them when I see fit. I’m also commenting like an Anarchist, not a SovShit. You are commenting like a Liberal, blindly following the letter of the law as the planet is legally killed for a profit.
They can exist all they want, I do not respect them and I do not adhere to them. I live parallel to them. One does not need to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber to have meaning, that is an extremist understanding of change. One simply needs to live the life they believe to be ethical.
Functionally there is no difference
So, as long as you believe it’s ethical then it’s okay regardless of law and order. I hope the winds of change never turn against you such that you find the precedent reversed against you.
There is so much difference. You are clearly ignorant on the subject matter if you’re making such a claim. The most striking difference is that SovCits are individualists.
That’s literally the risk we all face.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Ideologically there is a lot of difference between sovereign citizens and anarchists, but functionally there is not. One is delusional in their disbelief of a state while the other believes that a state shouldn’t exist. At the end of the day both are opposed to the proper function of government.
No it’s not, the vast majority of law abiding citizens are not at risk in any legal based county. Even if the laws of the country change, so long as you follow the laws you are at little risk. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of people do not face that risk.
Look, I’m against putting people in concentration camps but this isn’t the argument we were having. If you want to use that example then immigrants who aren’t committing crimes but are not in the US under legal methods are still technically criminals. I will happily agree with you that their treatment isn’t right, but their status as illegal immigrants is still true. If you want to talk about legal immigrants and US citizens who have been detained or deported then that also has happened, but that is more a function of US officials breaking the law. You don’t go to Russia with a vape pen and expect not to be arrested because you’re an American or famous. Likewise you don’t go to China and call Xi Weenie the Pooh and expect to not get fucked with.
If your argument is that a government in the world is breaking the law then it’s ok for a private citizen in another country to break the law then you’re truly delusional. Hey, North Korea starved a bunch of people, and Iran killed a bunch of women who didn’t want to wear veils, so it’s ok for a guy in my country to hack a hate group in China.
That argument is ridiculous as well.
I think this is an extension of the paradox of intolerance. Laws are never absolute, and when one side has no respect for laws and enforces only what is advantageous for them this kind of action absolutely should count as self defence. We should fully support taking away the anonymity and feeling of immunity from those who abuse the law.
It’s kinda hard to claim self defense when you are launching the attack to someone in another country. If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime. The only difference is ideological and who controls the power to determine which ideology is correct.
I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can’t put them on a spectrum. Here is another example; when Democrats were found to have potentially taken top secret files, by accident or not, the party had to investigate them with the same level of conviction as they had with Trump because failing to do so undermined their own argument.
You talk like a chat bot. Stop defending nazis. You’re not defending the rule of law or any of that, you’re just defending nazis. Don’t do that. Supremacist ideology is incompatible with society as they expressly intend to destroy that society. It is always correct and right morally and ethically to remove anti-social ideologies. Legality is irrelevant.
This argument does not apply to anti-social ideologies such as white supremacy that are incompatible with society.
Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don’t drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can’t fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren’t entitled to those same rights.
Refusing to allow ideologies inherently harmful to society doesn’t have anything to do with what you just said. We’re having two different conversations. Also ideologies aren’t intrinsic characteristics and thus can’t have or be denied rights, so it’s weird to make that connotation unless you just don’t understand what I’m saying.
I feel like you are not understanding that the determination of which ideologies are harmful and aren’t is ultimately a matter of opinion and you only support it so long as you agree with the outcome. Iran, China, North Korea, and many other countries are examples of the other side of your argument.
I’m not saying that ideologies are intrinsic characteristics, I’m saying that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe and that right to believe, regardless of what it is, is an intrinsic characteristic. Some countries might not have freedom to express those beliefs but that’s literally denying rights.
It isn’t a matter of opinion though. Hateful ideologies promote anti-social behavior, in the actively harmful to social order context, not the I don’t like being around people context. They promote social discord which is objectively bad for social order and society at large. There are objective measures here. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the whole idea that they are is one of the less valid ones. You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
And I disagree that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want. Nobody has the right to believe the earth is flat. Nobody has the right to believe in chemtrails, or any other objectively false thing. You’re entitled to an informed educated opinion, not to reject objective reality and replace it with your own.
You’re still not getting it.
You’re talking about measured health impacts on an overall population not about ideologies. The idea that other ideologies are anti-social or harmful precludes the idea that your view of society is the correct one. That works out fine so long as you maintain the majority, but if the tides of time change against you then the very opposite would be true.
A rural community of racist white people in the US aren’t anti-social or harmed by their view until that dynamic changes, such as a person of color entering the community. Objectively that community lacks diversity of experience which promotes growth and development in the community (this is referencing your discussion about objective measures), but the desire to not change is part of why we these people are called conservatives and isn’t fundamentally wrong. The thing you are repeatedly missing is that calling these ideologies anti-social or undesirable and not deserving of protection under the law only is your express opinion, not an objective truth, and you only support this opinion so long as you remain part of the in crowd. If the situation were reversed your opinion on whether all ideologies deserve the protection of law would reverse as well.
It’s quite the opposite, I’m declaring that legislation is not equal to ethics. Ethics function purely on an implied social contract whereas laws function on explicit statements. Laws allow people of opposing opinions to coexist and instead of relying on implied incompatible social contracts they all have equal protection under the law. This by nature is the difference between Just and Fair or Equality and Equitable.