tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post6932347029698776620..comments2023-03-23T01:49:49.237-07:00Comments on Breaking the Glasses: Oh, the Hypocrisy! (When Gawker Became the Cyberpolice)Hannah Wallenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1058869521866854084.post-67697213727911303182012-10-17T08:15:08.919-07:002012-10-17T08:15:08.919-07:00@Sam Lunny
Your comment misrepresents the overall...@Sam Lunny<br /><br />Your comment misrepresents the overall conclusion of the post. Based on the wording, I suspect more that you didn't get it than any deliberate dishonesty, so for your benefit, I'll explain. <br /><br />This is not a post about whether or not violentacrez was an innocent man. It is not a comparison of his life and character to that of a child. It is a statement on the hypocrisy inherent in Chen's behavior in this incident; two years ago, Chen wrote about the damage which doxing did to an entire family. He demonstrated full knowledge of the potential repercussions of publishing someone's personally identifying information in a well-read forum. He provided the perfect example of the wrongness of sicking the general public on an individual like his own personal pack of attack dogs for no better reason than one's own dislike or disapproval of that person.<br /><br />It is irrelevant whether or not you approve the behavior of violentacrez. The bare-bones, stripped down reality of this story is that his "crime" was looking at people in public places, and helping others to stay within the boundaries of the law while looking at people in public places. There is no injury from his actions, only the fact that some people - and not even the ones directly involved - were offended. With all of the spin and psychobabble cut out of the discussion, the real, bottom line story is that Chen claims justification in his character-and-privacy assassination of violentacrez because <i>people were offended.</i> That's a bullshit excuse for taking out one's aggressions on a target. <br /><br />It is not the private citizen's right to arbitrarily hand out whatever punishment he feels like handing out just because he's offended by someone else's actions. The fact is that Chen did something he knew ahead of time would do terrible damage to violentacrez's life, and the lives of anyone who depended on him. He was in possession of that information - the knowledge of the potential and likely effects of his actions. <br /><br />In retaliation against an individual for nothing more than being strongly disliked, Chen knowingly and willfully set into motion the mechanics of the process to remove his target's supporting income and consign him - and anyone dependent upon him - to poverty. <br /><br />Chen knowingly and willfully inflicted poverty upon violentacrez and his wife, ostensibly as punishment for his role in facilitating the ability of people to look at other people. Chen's choice to dox violentacrez was a massive overreaction in my opinion, and one which is entirely hypocritical considering Chen's pretense of altruism in this action, and the comparison of it to his previous writing on the topic of doxing.<br />Hannah Wallenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13828044784845085808noreply@blogger.com