Though the exact details of the situation have not been confirmed, community infighting seems to have spilled out in a breach of the notorious image board.
Good. Privacy is a fundamental right, but since that platform is regularly used to doxx people who are simply trying to exist, in addition to platforming and incubating some of the most harmful ideologies, they’ve relinquished any claims to those rights to privacy, as far as I’m concerned.
They’re regularly revoked in all developed countries, mainly as the result of criminal proceedings. Unless you think that prisoners are afforded the same rights as the rest of us?
And the Enlightenment notion that there are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator is about as quaint as the idea that there’s a Creator. Rights are ideals that must be continually fought for and expanded, not the gift of a beneficent Alpha Male in the Sky
“Live and let live” obviously doesn’t work. 4chan has done so much damage to the world that I wouldn’t mind seeing their big players in gallows in the town square.
All rights are privileges, if we’re going to be pedantic. This is evidenced by the fact that they can be taken away. Society tends to operate on an unspoken, collective agreement that certain rights should never be violated, but if they were actually intrinsic, we wouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail for them.
I’m a moral relativist, so if someone is happy to abuse their right to privacy to harm others or otherwise take their rights away, especially the right to privacy, I don’t feel any compunction to draw a hard line and say that the harmful person deserves to keep those rights in spite of their actions.
People call him a comedian, and if you define comedy as “something you find funny”, then yeah. By that definition, he’s a comedian.
But really he’s just a philosopher who points out lifes absurdities, and it’s the contrast between the truth, and what people feel permitted by society to say outloud that’s the basis of his comedy.
He makes you get feelings such as “What? You can’t say that!” And then he does a routine, and you think “Actually, he has a point, it feels wrong to say that, but he has a point”
And here’s the biggest thing about him that people don’t understand. He died in 2008. So people always like to say “Oh, I wonder what he’d say about politics and society today! He’d probably have a whole thing on trump!”
To which I say he already did that. His material holds up because society doesn’t change. The same shit that was true in 1844 is the same shit we’re dealing with today. Race, power, money, status, war. It’s a tale older than recorded history. We don’t learn. We keep repeating the same paterns as our fathers generation, just as he did for his fathers generation, just as he did for his fathers generation. And so on and so on and so on. Small details change, but the landscape of human behavior is unaffected. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Do you believe liberty is a right? It’s one of the first laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and yet I don’t think a single signatory nation doesn’t incarcerate people guilty of crime. By your logic, I don’t think there are any true “rights” in existence, because there are circumstance in which any of them can be taken away.
You’ve made a sweeping generalization in implying that since 4chan “as a platform” has caused harm, then all of its users are guilty/complicit and must relinquish their right to privacy. That and you’re still misunderstanding the meaning of “fundamental” in this case, since that adjective would suggest that the right in question is not counted among those that would be taken away from you in case of moral/legal transgressions.
No, I understand just fine. You’re ignoring the part where I said rights aren’t actually fundamental or intrinsic. They’re privileges society treats that way, and like other privileges, they can be taken away.
In any case, if you go to a well-known Nazi bar on purpose, what does that make you? People who go to 4chan on purpose aren’t innocent victims, and their potential loss of privacy is justifiable considering how much harm has come just from there.
If you use your rights (i.e. social privileges) to purposely cause harm, or to support platforms or causes that are well-known to cause harm, there should be consequences.
Good. Privacy is a fundamental right, but since that platform is regularly used to doxx people who are simply trying to exist, in addition to platforming and incubating some of the most harmful ideologies, they’ve relinquished any claims to those rights to privacy, as far as I’m concerned.
The way you’re describing it, it sounds more like you believe privacy is a privilege, not a right.
You mean, people who operate a platform where people’s privacy constantly gets violated should have a right to their own privacy?
I dunno. I understand your point, but @[email protected] is also kind of right.
Rights are unchangeable based on circumstances. They can never be revoked.
Privlivges can be.
Absolutely false.
They’re regularly revoked in all developed countries, mainly as the result of criminal proceedings. Unless you think that prisoners are afforded the same rights as the rest of us?
And the Enlightenment notion that there are inalienable rights endowed by the Creator is about as quaint as the idea that there’s a Creator. Rights are ideals that must be continually fought for and expanded, not the gift of a beneficent Alpha Male in the Sky
lots of rights get modified, curtailed, or eliminated by the larger society based on misuse or misbehavior or other transgressions.
(or positions of power, etc…)
“Live and let live” obviously doesn’t work. 4chan has done so much damage to the world that I wouldn’t mind seeing their big players in gallows in the town square.
I just want to know who provided them with funding and other support.
All rights are privileges, if we’re going to be pedantic. This is evidenced by the fact that they can be taken away. Society tends to operate on an unspoken, collective agreement that certain rights should never be violated, but if they were actually intrinsic, we wouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail for them.
I’m a moral relativist, so if someone is happy to abuse their right to privacy to harm others or otherwise take their rights away, especially the right to privacy, I don’t feel any compunction to draw a hard line and say that the harmful person deserves to keep those rights in spite of their actions.
Those collective agreements include stipulations for what happens to someone who violates other’s rights. They lose some rights themselves.
I know you don’t intend for me to hear this, but I heard George Carlin as you typed that. He has a whole bit on rights vs privileges.
Oh? I’m not that familiar with his comedy, but I probably should get to know it. What little I know I like!
People call him a comedian, and if you define comedy as “something you find funny”, then yeah. By that definition, he’s a comedian.
But really he’s just a philosopher who points out lifes absurdities, and it’s the contrast between the truth, and what people feel permitted by society to say outloud that’s the basis of his comedy.
He makes you get feelings such as “What? You can’t say that!” And then he does a routine, and you think “Actually, he has a point, it feels wrong to say that, but he has a point”
And here’s the biggest thing about him that people don’t understand. He died in 2008. So people always like to say “Oh, I wonder what he’d say about politics and society today! He’d probably have a whole thing on trump!”
To which I say he already did that. His material holds up because society doesn’t change. The same shit that was true in 1844 is the same shit we’re dealing with today. Race, power, money, status, war. It’s a tale older than recorded history. We don’t learn. We keep repeating the same paterns as our fathers generation, just as he did for his fathers generation, just as he did for his fathers generation. And so on and so on and so on. Small details change, but the landscape of human behavior is unaffected. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Anyways, here’s a bit from him. I didn’t watch it but based on the title, I’m fairly sure it’s the clip you reminded me of
aka the golden rule
I prefer the platinum rule of humanism, but essentially, yes.
I’d say it’s more like a right that’s been taken away and they’re okay with that.
Do you believe liberty is a right? It’s one of the first laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and yet I don’t think a single signatory nation doesn’t incarcerate people guilty of crime. By your logic, I don’t think there are any true “rights” in existence, because there are circumstance in which any of them can be taken away.
If you’re breaking the law then you forfeit your rights in favor of some much more restrictive ones.
did the moderators violate the law though?
So privacy is a “fundamental” right, except if /u/[email protected] thinks you’re a distasteful individual.
Nope. If you intentionally cause harm to others with said rights. See my reply to someone else who made a similar assumption.
https://reddthat.com/comment/18075681
You’ve made a sweeping generalization in implying that since 4chan “as a platform” has caused harm, then all of its users are guilty/complicit and must relinquish their right to privacy. That and you’re still misunderstanding the meaning of “fundamental” in this case, since that adjective would suggest that the right in question is not counted among those that would be taken away from you in case of moral/legal transgressions.
No, I understand just fine. You’re ignoring the part where I said rights aren’t actually fundamental or intrinsic. They’re privileges society treats that way, and like other privileges, they can be taken away.
In any case, if you go to a well-known Nazi bar on purpose, what does that make you? People who go to 4chan on purpose aren’t innocent victims, and their potential loss of privacy is justifiable considering how much harm has come just from there.
If you use your rights (i.e. social privileges) to purposely cause harm, or to support platforms or causes that are well-known to cause harm, there should be consequences.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod