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...
-
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata
it seems dumb on the face of it, but in the intended chain of events is only the cop who kills the guy for being homeless violating the NAP?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @puellavulnerata
doesn't seem like "it's okay to murder people as long as they die at the end of a sufficiently unreliable Rube Goldberg machine" will work
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
uh, I'm not sure at all what this has to do with the SSC comment I linked
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @puellavulnerata
the comment is saying the signal-boosting is a clear violation of the NAP, which is certainly hilarious for the "clear" part
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @puellavulnerata
but, like, the intended result of the signal boosting is person becomes unemployable > becomes unemployed > becomes homeless > dies
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @puellavulnerata
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @puellavulnerata
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.