6 ms·

I partially agree with you. The level of harassment I deal with is obscene and the never ending nature is very stressful. However, I use the word cowardly beca

by ioerror 15y ago

I partially agree with you. The level of harassment I deal with is obscene and the never ending nature is very stressful. However, I use the word cowardly because the results you outlined are not certain. It's not even likely. When fear rules you and limits otherwise desirable actions, you're acting as a coward without a doubt.

redthrowaway 15y ago
I'm not convinced. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I don't think that there is a moral imperative to risk life and liberty to extinguish injustice. We can certainly applaud those who do, without condemning those who don't. Not everyone has the moral fortitude and strength of character to be an Oskar Schindler. We could wish the world were otherwise, but I don't think recognizing the virtue of those such as Schindler necessitates condemning his neighbour who only wanted to protect and provide for his family.
- ioerror 15y ago
  I think sage_jock said it best here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567
  - fjarlq 15y ago
    I agree. Sorry that you're being harrassed like this. We have got to stick together and stand up to this. Need any help?
jedsmith 15y ago
I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. However, the folks that distance themselves from you undoubtedly have things to lose, and can't afford to share your fight. You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous. As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it. It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.
- ioerror 15y ago
  Your first premise is flawed: I have not determined that I have nothing else to lose.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jedsmith 15y ago
    Fair enough. Perhaps I'd rephrase as: you've weighed the risks against what you have to lose, and determined that it's a risk that you're willing to take in light of the consequences. Others can't make that call, but it isn't out of fear, it's about minimizing risk.
- mquander 15y ago
  I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. What? That sounds insane. In what sense does he have nothing to lose? Bowing to bullies is cowardice, no matter how rational it is. The reason "cowardice" is a perjorative word is that usually seeking your own rational self-interest by accommodating thugs ends up hurting other people, and I believe that's true in this case, as well. If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.
  - jedsmith 15y ago
    > In what sense does he have nothing to lose? Based upon my quick reading, it sounds like he has nobody that depends on him. All of us have to consider that if we were to suddenly disappear from the face of the planet, who would suffer as a direct result? > If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack. Yeah, I detained him at the border. Good one. You give the government a lot of credit for being extraordinarily clever. I have serious, serious doubts that people distancing themselves from inviting similar harassment (which means aiding Jacob, not necessarily knowing him -- I never committed on that point) is something that the government would consider a win. "We have succeeded by limiting new acquaintances!" That's hysterical. This is the government we're talking about here, the world's legendary bureaucracy, the same government that can't even find bin Laden after how many years. They want Julian Assange, and they'll procedurally harass anybody they can to get to him until they get him. Assuming there's a shadowy evil plot to decrease Jacob's LinkedIn connection count is patently silly, and accusing me of furthering the government's attack because I don't want to risk my family for a cause is a pile of disrespectful and stupid.

by ioerror 15y ago

redthrowaway 15y ago

I'm not convinced. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I don't think that there is a moral imperative to risk life and liberty to extinguish injustice. We can certainly applaud those who do, without condemning those who don't. Not everyone has the moral fortitude and strength of character to be an Oskar Schindler. We could wish the world were otherwise, but I don't think recognizing the virtue of those such as Schindler necessitates condemning his neighbour who only wanted to protect and provide for his family.

ioerror 15y ago
I think sage_jock said it best here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567
- fjarlq 15y ago
  I agree. Sorry that you're being harrassed like this. We have got to stick together and stand up to this. Need any help?

jedsmith 15y ago

I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. However, the folks that distance themselves from you undoubtedly have things to lose, and can't afford to share your fight. You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous. As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it. It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.

ioerror 15y ago
Your first premise is flawed: I have not determined that I have nothing else to lose.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jedsmith 15y ago
  Fair enough. Perhaps I'd rephrase as: you've weighed the risks against what you have to lose, and determined that it's a risk that you're willing to take in light of the consequences. Others can't make that call, but it isn't out of fear, it's about minimizing risk.
mquander 15y ago
I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. What? That sounds insane. In what sense does he have nothing to lose? Bowing to bullies is cowardice, no matter how rational it is. The reason "cowardice" is a perjorative word is that usually seeking your own rational self-interest by accommodating thugs ends up hurting other people, and I believe that's true in this case, as well. If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.
- jedsmith 15y ago
  > In what sense does he have nothing to lose? Based upon my quick reading, it sounds like he has nobody that depends on him. All of us have to consider that if we were to suddenly disappear from the face of the planet, who would suffer as a direct result? > If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack. Yeah, I detained him at the border. Good one. You give the government a lot of credit for being extraordinarily clever. I have serious, serious doubts that people distancing themselves from inviting similar harassment (which means aiding Jacob, not necessarily knowing him -- I never committed on that point) is something that the government would consider a win. "We have succeeded by limiting new acquaintances!" That's hysterical. This is the government we're talking about here, the world's legendary bureaucracy, the same government that can't even find bin Laden after how many years. They want Julian Assange, and they'll procedurally harass anybody they can to get to him until they get him. Assuming there's a shadowy evil plot to decrease Jacob's LinkedIn connection count is patently silly, and accusing me of furthering the government's attack because I don't want to risk my family for a cause is a pile of disrespectful and stupid.