Thank you
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago I suggest we not allow it, and I think the proposed Rule 5 covers that case. Seeking vigilante justice on the internet is a dangerous game. It is much too easy to misidentify someone, or to act on inaccurate information. There are plenty of documented cases out there of innocent people coming to harm. Two high-profile examples come to mind:
A university professor wrongly identified as a participant at a white supremacist rally (the article includes other examples, too): www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40935419
The Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, where a bunch of innocent people were wrongly accused and faced harassment: scu.edu/…/social-media-and-the-boston-marathon-bo…
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
I agree when it’s at the level of internet gossip, but if a reputable news source picks it up or it’s something the business itself is verifiably bragging about it should be fair game. Last month a bakery had a sign in their window and were doing a “nuclear family” discount and the local subreddit was calling to boycott the homophobic place. And yeah they were bragging about their bigotry on Facebook and local news picked up the story. At some point I think it’s valid to allow metaphorical pitchforks.
BassetHound@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
No? How is a nuclear family discount inherently offensive enough to be worth getting out pitchforks out over? I don’t agree that being bigots is enough either. They are backwards, lots of people are backwards, and harassing them probably won’t yield any constructive outcomes. So if they aren’t actively harming others, then what are you going to achieve here.
As a broader question, who gets to be the arbiter of acceptable harassment?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Since the other comment got deleted — For anybody else confused, this was a US-specific bullshit where ‘nuclear family’ got used as a dogwhistle for homophobia.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Is it vigilante justice if there is no question of misidentification? What about a shop that has a homophobic sign in the window?