http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boosting-as-doxxing/#comment-528745 … "Screen-capping someone being an ass is a violation of the NAP" I wish I could say we'd reached peak stupid, but...
but, like, the intended result of the signal boosting is person becomes unemployable > becomes unemployed > becomes homeless > dies
-
-
this is roughly as plausible as claiming that me linking that comment violated the NAP because the poster might be horribly depressed, ...
-
...see the snark and cross a tipping point inevitably leading to suicide.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
so i'm trying to make sure i know why it actually isn't a violation of the NAP in a non-UBI society that kills its poor
-
because that isn't what anyone means by the NAP and pure harm-based theories of ethics don't work with out some sort of boundary definition?
-
checks out. accurate to say then that if the implausible chain of events did come to pass, then, it is in fact only the cop violating?
-
yeah, think so
-
cool
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.