Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 09:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ok I have to admit I'm getting confused and lose my verve to argue a point I don't even feel like argueing. In my definition, harassment is not a violation of a basic human/democratic right. Maybe we just disagree what a basic human right constitutes.
But I'm afraid I'm walking right into a pro harassment or pro harassment tolerance position and kinda lose the common theme. Screw harassers, I want them prosecuted anyway.

Hollo, you and I are much in agreement on "harassment" and many of the other things you discussed on this thread. And I doubt there is a single person on this thread who thinks you are moving to a "pro-harassment" position here. 

Someone responds to every one of your posts calling you an "idiot" and says bad things about your mother, that IS surely harassment, but probably not a violation of your basic human rights. We're on the same page there. You and I and the rest of the gang will just ignore those posts and go on with our discussion.

I'm saying that if there eventually IS some definition of harassment as restriction of human rights, it will only be in the wake of demonstrated harm. When that happens, you'll likely might buy it, just as you now likely buy the Brown vs Board ruling. 

But there is not going to be some Czar who says "harassing ME is the definition of 'harassment'" or some such--and suddenly it's law and 1984. And SSF has to arrest some guy for calling some gal a "bee-otch" in Jungle Noise. 

One caveat, though--the danger of moral panic gripping the U.S., dropping our usual process and safeguards, like after 9/11 when "torture" became  legal as "enhanced interrogation," and 8 years later red states were still passing anti-Sharia laws. That risk is real, and not to be sneezed at, and it's not ok to assume balance will somehow just return later.  And education regarding the history of such is really our only firewall there. 

I think we're both clear enough on all this, so let's move on to something else.