1925
Dumb glasses (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
438 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 4 months ago (2 children)

A clear violation of the social contract deserves a swift response. Those glasses come off your face, and onto the pavement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -21 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Who made this social contract? I certainly didn't. You want to be able to tell everyone else what the social contract is, and assault them if they don't comply.

    Fascist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    When you say "fascist", you do realize that fascism involves crowd control and these glasses are a dream for a fascist regime? All the speech about "cameras everywhere is ok" falls right in the authoritarianism thinking, that's just a step from fascism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Control of the public sphere is not a hallmark of fascism, no. Control of the private sphere is.

    Either way though, using violence to force your political views on others is more fascist and more wrong than any amount of surveillance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Nah, I see someone wearing a nazi armband, they are getting decked. It's still assault and against the law, but still the right thing to do in regards to maintaining the social contract.

    Political violence is sometimes necessary unfortunately.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You might argue that someone wearing a Nazi armband is threatening violence due to the inherent violence of Nazi ideology.

    The same cannot be said for wearing some dorky glasses, no matter how much you hate them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    You don't believe there is a risk the people storing and using tjat footage data could use it for violence or inflicting even in it's broadest definition of violence?

    But that isn't my point. I was always concerned with the political violence is never the answer sentiments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    This account ^ is going very far out of its way to make very bad points and overlook obvious gaping privacy violations, which are things that can be both identified and stopped.

    The takeaway of massively privacy invading glasses is they can always be stopped at both the individual and the systemic level.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -31 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    No they don’t. I might actually go film on the sidewalk just outside your home, and there would be nothing at all you can do about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 11 points 4 months ago* (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -23 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I don't appreciate the threat of violence. I won't surrender my property to you, you will not destroy my property, you will not hurt me without me defending myself, and your attorney will not bend the law for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You really want these glasses, don't you? You're smart enough to debate the hypothetical, but miss the obvious point that new things will not be regulated as they should be, so the law doesn't function as it should in this situation. You cling tightly to the law as if it's doing what it's meant to do, when we both know you'd be taking advantage of the lack of laws for no clear benefit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Let's say hypothetically that he assaults you, you sue him, then he raises 200k$ for his defense through crowdfunding because I bet the majority of people don't want creeps to record them secretly. You're still confident in your odds?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    This may be perfectly legal but it is absolutely a dick move and people will HATE you for it. The are so many scenarios where perfectly reasonable people will find this behavior extremely unsettling, at best, and possibly threatening.

    And you are incorrect in assuming that “there would be nothing [the subject] can do about it “. In the real world there are plenty of people who will risk an assault charge to deal with someone being a disrespectful dick, and many more who will act if they feel threatened.

    Now, might doesn’t make right, but are you right? Going against social norms and risking extrajudicial retaliation to fight injustice is commendable. But this isn’t sitting at a lunch counter during segregation or protesting at Stonewall. In a world where 1 in 3 women will be stalked in her lifetime ( in the US according to the Justice Department), why is this the hill you want to die upon?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent