pixx on Nostr: > Not sure how this is relevant Because the accusation is one of association, not of ...

> Not sure how this is relevant

Because the accusation is one of association, not of action. The accusation is that associating with ABC makes you ABC. If I say no, this person isn't ABC, _if they were then I wouldn't associate with them_, and you keep calling me ABC, that just... doesn't make sense to me, intrinsically.

> Someone says "hey block this asshole," and people send pictures of their house and "I know where you live,"

But that's not what happened; it's someone said "this person is a NAZI", and a lot of people blocked, and a few people took it seriously and went "Well, the only good nazi is a dead nazi, so let's make death threats and Do Crimes towards this person". Hell, putting aside that it's a crime, would you actually have a problem with someone making death threats to a _literal Nazi_? I wouldn't, _which is why I insist_ on not using the word for anyone who isn't _literally_ a Nazi.

> the commission of that crime is not ascribable to the orchestrator here

If somebody goes around throwing accusations that other people are nazis, and someone hears it, acts on it, and murders one of the people they've accused, they sure as hell don't get to act shocked by the result, and I'm not convinced I'd agree that they're _not_ morally responsible for the murder. (legally is a separate question, of course.)

I agree with your framing! If someone says "block this asshole", they're obviously not responsible for the literal crimes. But when you say "This person is an acceptable target" (which is what the nazi accusation _is_), that's a different question entirely.

> According to ... twitter. Not buying that, either.

Very fair. Independent estimates are lower, but still not _low_, and the underlying *point* ("people are using it because of the network effect") remains.

> You whatabouted a couple organizations in here, and that's fine in general terms, because you're addressing a broader sort of trend. but I want to be clear about something.

...I agree with your framing, though I'd have to think more before giving a solid answer on the specifics.

But especially with

> I get that the usual "I don't like the stuff people post on Twitter" objection is insufficient reason for this level of vitriol, but I regard this platform as specifically and particularly being used as a weapon of aggression against me, personally, and my civilization, generally

That's a very fair point, though I'll note that from a moral stance, "It's worse because what they're doing is aimed at _me_ [whereas e.g. facebook is accused of helping suppress democracy in _other_ countries]" is... not my favorite argument.

But as someone who also lives here, and generally would prefer that this civilization _not_ be dismantled - the distinction between "abstract moral bad" and "personal enemy" is, I think, a fair one.