Hacker News Reader

Comment by rosser | Hacker News Reader

That used to be my main beef with Milo. Now that he's come out as effectively pro-NAMBLA, I'm seriously wondering how tasteless he's going to get before we stop giving him the attention he craves.

(And, yes, I realize that his stance regarding pedophilia is most likely a consequence of his own childhood sexual abuse, but even that still doesn't excuse the shitty things he's advocating, or saying about specific people. Attacking a specific person the way he has is necessarily an act of violence, and no matter how prettily you dress it up, or how loudly you hide behind "freedom of speech", violence is never speech.)

View on HN

>is necessarily an act of violence

No, it's not. Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies. I agree that Milo's tirade about the student was ill-advised, but it is not violence.

Also, I find it side-splittingly hilarious how people are going after his Rogan interview comments (calling him pro-NAMBLA is top-notch clickbait, where were you Monday morning when all these stories were going out?!), yet the same people didn't give a shit when Lena Dunham admitted to molesting her sister.

> No, it's not. Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies.

> Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.

I agree with the WHO here, and what Milo did definitely caused psychological harm from a position of power (being a chosen speaker in their school).

>what Milo did definitely caused psychological harm from a position of power

As far as I can tell "psychological harm" is too vague and open to interpretation. It's a very broad definition that looks like it prohibits hate speech; I believe in complete free expression by voice or text (criminal/ civil court can handle the rest).

Personally, I stay away from such people in the digital world (but, IRL I'm meaner than most and enjoy 'interacting' with these people).

> Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies.

If you engage in a course of action with an intent to harm another in any way, or behave in a manner likely to result in harm to another, you have committed violence, whatever form that action takes — words, bullets, or anything else.

If you can't accept that basic definition, "then you're already beyond help."

(See how easy it is to poison a discussion with accusations and snide remarks?)

>in a manner likely to result in harm to another

I think this is too imprecise. Would you write code in this manner?

If one can establish a cause and effect of actual harms, then criminal statutes already apply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com