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.
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.
If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime.
Indeed I would. But that’s because it would be someone trying to silence a group and promote intolerance. The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.
I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can’t put them on a spectrum.
Sure
ere 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.
And therin lies the problem. The democrats may indeed investigate and prosecute their own, see Al Franken……but the other side has no intention of doing the same. So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.
The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.
That’s not the same and it’s not even the argument lol. My argument was that you’re tying whether a crime was committed based on who it was against rather than what was done and your response was if what was done is different then it isn’t a crime.
So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.
Except that the flaw is in the law itself. Enforcement of the law in this case is not properly established to prevent the faithless action, but the conclusion of your argument is that because the law isn’t working we should abandon those laws.
I’ll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions. Whether you do so within your own country or if it spreads into nation state conflicts, if you fail to tolerate intolerance you inherently move toward the assumption of violence.
I’ll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions
That is exactly what is necessary, to snuff out intolerant voices as the one thing the tolerant must do. Opposing opinions is what they claim to be, but the intolerant hate spewers isn’t about opposing opinions at all, it’s rather “you are not entitled to your opinion”. It’s a false equivalency that allows intolerant to gain an advantage because they do not play by the same rules or definitions. The whole moving goalposts strategy for instance.
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.
Indeed I would. But that’s because it would be someone trying to silence a group and promote intolerance. The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.
Sure
And therin lies the problem. The democrats may indeed investigate and prosecute their own, see Al Franken……but the other side has no intention of doing the same. So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.
That’s not the same and it’s not even the argument lol. My argument was that you’re tying whether a crime was committed based on who it was against rather than what was done and your response was if what was done is different then it isn’t a crime.
Except that the flaw is in the law itself. Enforcement of the law in this case is not properly established to prevent the faithless action, but the conclusion of your argument is that because the law isn’t working we should abandon those laws.
I’ll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions. Whether you do so within your own country or if it spreads into nation state conflicts, if you fail to tolerate intolerance you inherently move toward the assumption of violence.
That is exactly what is necessary, to snuff out intolerant voices as the one thing the tolerant must do. Opposing opinions is what they claim to be, but the intolerant hate spewers isn’t about opposing opinions at all, it’s rather “you are not entitled to your opinion”. It’s a false equivalency that allows intolerant to gain an advantage because they do not play by the same rules or definitions. The whole moving goalposts strategy for instance.
Then the outcome of that decision is inevitably war, except all of the worlds largest militaries are controlled by the intolerant countries.