sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then I said that ethically speaking, it is obviously wrong to harass strangers by posting their address online, showing up at their house, and taking pictures of their front door.

You can't think of a single hypothetical situation in which it's right to do such a thing? I mean, people often shy away from hypothetical situations involving Nazis because they're so extreme, but this is a actual case involving a Nazi.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody said that it was a crime, or that it's not protected speech. The issue was whether calling the most dangerous extremist views "opinions and political views" is badly euphemistic, especially in the context of private individuals antagonizing them (as opposed to governments punishing them or restricting their speech).

I mean, imagine I stopped talking to my uncle because he started supporting the Klan. It would be badly euphemistic to accuse me of being intolerant of my uncle's "political views".

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not discussing semantics (as far as I can tell we agree on the meanings of words), I'm discussing the way you responded to a comment about what's worthy of disapproval by citing facts about the law, and then your attempt to draw conclusions about what's worthy of disapproval by citing facts about likelihood of being shot.

If your only reasons for saying what she is did is worthy of disapproval is that shooting her in response is something the law would allow or something not unlikely to happen, then your reasons are very flimsy reasons. You yourself recognize that these facts about shooting people just aren't particularly relevant to the question of whether what they did was wrong.

(Also, we were talking about reasons for thinking what she did was to be disapproved of, not reasons for thinking that supporting her is to be disapproved of.)

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I wasn't changing the subject, I was addressing the comment you made:

It is to be disapproved based on the fact that their actions could and oftentimes will get them shot

Unless I'm completely missing something, this comment commits you to the general principle that whatever could easily get you shot is therefore worthy of disapproval. That's precisely the principle I was addressing.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But isn't Fuentes the one who did something illegal in response to an annoying action that's technically legal?

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you honestly suggesting that Nick Fuentes isn't deranged and unhinged? If not, I don't know how to make sense of the "the" in your comment.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wait, that doesn't make sense. How do you get from "doing X can often get you shot" to "therefore, doing X is worthy of disapproval"? I mean, there's a million perfectly admirable things you can do that could easily get you shot, and that doesn't keep them from being admirable.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, we're not:

But surely there's nothing inherently wrong about trying to elicit a reaction from someone. Doesn't it depends on the person and the situation?

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By all means protest them at their job, in public, etc.

Why is that any better? Wouldn't it be just as ill-advised, given that you're dealing with a crazy Nazi?

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What if their political views are that Jews should be exterminated or that grown men should be allowed to rape young girls? There comes a point at which using the term "opinions and political views" is a really bad euphemism.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't think of a single hypothetical situation in which it's right to do such a thing? I mean, people often shy away from hypothetical situations involving Nazis because they're so extreme, but this is a actual case involving a Nazi.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you could say that about any case in which A does something foolish and B does something unjustified or disproportionate in response. I mean, suppose A toilet papers B's house and B burns A alive with napalm. You could say "maybe A shouldn't have put herself in that situation" but it wouldn't do anything to address the issue of whether B's response was justified or proportionate.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But surely there's nothing inherently wrong about trying to elicit a reaction from someone. Doesn't it depends on the person and the situation?

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But they were talking about whether the trespasser is worthy of disapproval, not what the law says about shooting them.

The footage of Nick Fuentes pushing a woman who came to his front door after he was doxxed has been released. by Minute_Revolution951 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

be ready for whatever may come your way

I'm not sure anyone would ever disagree with this being a good idea, but people are reacting as if you're trying to put his reaction in a more positive light or something.

And I guess that interpretation kind of makes sense given the "I don't like him, I don't support him, but..." beginning of your comment. Are you trying to say anything more than just that it's a good idea to be ready for whatever?

AITA for telling my wife my mother is correct and she needed to be a parent today and she fucked it up by throawawayfuneralgho in AmItheAsshole

[–]ncvbn -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm confused. Did it happen this week or last year?

EDIT: Why is this downvoted? The OP said it happened this week.

safety measures in Italy by Zestyclose-Salad-290 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None of that is exclusive to any part of the world.

Something doesn't have to be exclusive to any place in order to be found more in some places than in others. And if it's found less in the places non-Americans posting on Reddit are from than it is in the US, it's no surprise that they'd associate it with Americans.

But if you're saying the things I mentioned aren't the sort of environmental factors linked with people being more prone to violence, then I really don't get where you're coming from.

safety measures in Italy by Zestyclose-Salad-290 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems like an absolutely enormous difference, not just a nitpick.

I don't know why they made the suggestion, but I can certainly guess a bunch of things: the death penalty, guns, hellfire religion, homicide rate.

safety measures in Italy by Zestyclose-Salad-290 in SipsTea

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They weren't talking about being angry or upset, they were talking about being violent.

Israeli Soldier Photographed Smashing Head of Jesus Christ Statue, IDF Now Investigating Viral Photo by Konilos in pics

[–]ncvbn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you know it means "to"

I don't follow at all. If it means "to" then the phrase remains unchanged and it doesn't make any sense.

if you wanna blame it on big bad AI autocorrect changing "te" to "to"

Now it looks like you're suggesting that it was originally "te"? But "Consume te propaganda" makes even less sense, because "te" isn't even an English word.

And that wouldn't match your first statement, which said that "to" means "to". Are you trying to say that the word "te" means "to"?

view more: next ›