LogFAQs > #972943260

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The point is nobody should be targeted and have themselves shared online without their consent. Ever. It's not about teaching lessons when it's irreversible once it's online. Even if a lesson is "learned," the repercussions never cease to exist.

I also didn't say in all cases drug abuse is directly correlated to SES, but I'm saying in cases where it is. It's similar to the joke "i'M noT LibErAl, I'M LefTisTs" make about "liberals" being classist towards poor people in rural areas. It's very, very similar and not shows their lack of self awareness.

I also am not comparing anyone to toddlers. I don't think anybody should be targeted with digital vigilantism - drug dependent, drug free, mentally stable or unstable. Everybody should be given fair ground to defend themselves and ample space to better themselves and learn -- but people who are under the influence of a mind altering substance or can't think clearly at the moment should not be treated as though they're in complete control of themselves. That's not offensive or treating anybody like a toddler. You sound like some crazy ass libertarian conservative right now with some personal responsibility bullshit. If somebody's mind is literally altered at the moment that's not fair grounds. The dementia example is a great example of that.