Comment by rrwo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rrwo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The informal lists that people share are not equivalent to angry crowds with pitchforks.

They are actually circulated among victims and their friends, with a lot of validation of repeat offenders. So there is a lot of informal collective information gathering and confirmation.

They are lists of men to avoid dating or not trust them to buy you a drink.

And the lists are a reaction to the difficulty of holding them accountable. Universities have been bad about punishing their students for criminal behaviour, because they want their tuition, don't want to offend their wealthy alumni parents, and have a misguided fear of ruining the lives of relatively young people (even if they are legally adults).

Unfortunately some of the people who get away with abusing their fellow students will go on abusing their colleagues the rest of their lives.

So if you want to keep people from being unfairly put on these anonymous lists, then you need to make these lists unnecessary.

What do you think the mob with pitchforks tells themselves? "This isn't really justified, we're just going to attack randomly and hope it helps"?

I agree with the utility, practicality and necessity of informal lists. Mocking someone who was falsely included on one of them and made to experience consequences is an ugly thing to do.

We've had centuries of experience on this topic - retaliation should follow from evidence. That evidence should be challenged and held to consistent fair standards. Laughing at people condemned by gossip is unfair.

It's not random, and no one is being persecuted. It's not retaliation or mocking.

People have a right to share information with each other about abusive people or places who should be avoided.

The lists could be campus rapists, or bad drunks, toxic places to work, or a list of towns or businesses that aren't safe for black or queer folk to visit.

Most of these informal lists have been around for decades. For some people, these lists help them to avoid some dangerous people or places.

Are there some people in these lists who don't deserve to be? Probably.

But how are you going to regulate it? It's speech after all.

> Some poor slob couldn't get a date because he was slandered ... Oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you aren't mocking someone, I would advise that you contain your enthusiasm to a single exclamation mark.

The lists themselves are not mocking people.

But anyone who is angered by the existence of these lists because someone might not deserve to be on them.... is worth mocking.

Of all the injustices committed by governments and corporations and even some wealthy people, that ranks pretty low.

That people need to share a secret list of powerful members of parliament who have a history of abusing their colleagues isn't what makes you angry?

If you are a government, corporation or wealthy person committing injustices - or a powerful MP deservedly on a sex abuse list - I unreservedly condemn you. I also encourage you not to mock people who have been included on such lists from slander.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com