Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference

• Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can’t in good conscious call it something it isn’t. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it’s ok despite it being bad. It’s justice vs righteousness, it’s lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it’s against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that’s dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.

  At it’s core this person probably committed a crime, but people don’t care because it’s against a bad ideologue. It’s like if we said it’s ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it’s against.

  source

  • Soup@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    At some point the scales will not balance well and you need to be ok with that. There is no paradox of intolerance, for example, because tolerance is itself part of a social contract that bigots broke all on their own and once that’s out the window they do not get to reap the benefits of it. Social contracts aren’t easy math but they do make sense.

    This isn’t blowing up a furry website because someone thinks that’s weird. White supremacy is an incredibly dangerous ideology that has no place in whatever better society we claim to be aiming for. No one killed them for it, either. White supremacy built a website and a better person removed that website the same way one might paint over a swastika but leave the nice mural.

    source

    • Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can’t agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can’t bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

      This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. German has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.

      It’s a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.

      source

      • Soup@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Look, I am aware of the dangers of vigilantism but I’m struggling to see why you’re so dead-set on this. There is basically no movement from those in power to actually curb these people and that’s where I start to care a whole lot less. Yes it’s still important to consider somewhere in there but hey, if the German government wasn’t doing anything about it then I guess that means they’ve passed on the opportunity.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        It’s a slippery slope

        Slippery slope is literally a logical fallacy

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I can easily call it self defence. These people preach hate and would gladly see us dead if they were the majority. Ensuring they lack the ability to do so is defence.

    source

    • Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I don’t care about legal frameworks, I’m a human not a nationstate.

        We live in a society where rules 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 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • edible_funk@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        This argument does not apply to anti-social ideologies such as white supremacy that are incompatible with society.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • edible_funk@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Paradox of tolerance. It’s absolutely self defense at the society level.

    source