No, I'm just against you.

Swatting for some is a threat to life, to others a mere prank. There seems to be no objective border between the two, and you accept that risk when doxxing someone.

Is it fair to commit physical violence against people who have horrid opinions, but no history of horrid actions?

No it isn't.

(Unless it's journalists badmouthing Trump, I assume.)

I'm not sure what part of "I really can't think of a defense of doxxing" you aren't getting...

My stance should be pretty clear.

Then it makes more sense to argue from this standpoint. If a person does horrible things, they likely don't need doxxing for horrible to be done in return. We don't consider releasing information to police agencies, and police agencies exclusively, doxxing. If the law disagrees with what you find horrible, is it not wiser to focus on changing the law, or is it appropriate to take the law into your own hands?

Don't get me wrong, i have my own answers to these questions, but I ask them to not bother with potentially pointless justifications. There's no point to even frame discussion on doxing as appropriate or not in the context of what's acceptable justification or not if what is reasonably appropriate is already available. If that makes sense.

EDIT: To clarify, the conversation is basically about whether or not doxxing is an appropriate response to a person's opinions, when doxxing inherently comes with the necessary risk of escalation beyond words, where as opinions don't.

I am arguing from that stance.

I'm not giving any justifications for doxxing.
Also to clarify, in the example I gave the pedophile (the real one that was the original intended target) was an actual one that had... 'solidified'... the title if you get my meaning and not someone with a disgusting opinion.

The point being, even when the target is 'justified' the doxxing is a form of vigilantism that can backfire... and it did... horribly. An innocent person was horribly scarred over doxxing and the harassment that followed.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID. You seem to think that I'm suggesting doxxing is sometimes a good thing... I'm not saying that.

The previous question wasn't about doxxing. It's about physical violence in retribution for words. Something currently encouraged by the US administration against journalists.

Everybody (good or evil) has hypocritical positions on that. The whole refuge of "words are not acts" is a hypocrisy, illustrated by the double standards of whoever waves it. All our legal systems aknowledge the consequences of words, and punish people accordingly. Just as rightly and wrongly as they punish physical acts, no more no less.

Broad arguments like "it's just words" are fallacies, just like broad arguments about freedom of speech, or broad arguments in general. And they divert from the real issues.

First, that's incorrect.

Second, why are you bringing politics into this?

Feel free to point out my hypocrisy in that case instead of just wanting to argue for the sake of it.

Could you maybe take this discussion to another thread and leave this one to support Linko90?

It's not and you know it.

You answered your own question here.

But beyond your personal case, it's to show the emptiness of such general statements or oppositions between physical and symbolic violences. The issue is never on some difference of impermeable realms on which they'd be operating. They are linked by nature, in a continuum of effect and a continuum of processes. And everyone, at some point or the other (in legitimate or illegitimate contexts), justifies physical responses to "mere words". I wish people would face it, and shift the discussions to the more valid and tricky question of when physical responses are legitimate answers to words and why. Instead of avoiding it.

Ok.

Still off-topic, still wrong.

I didn't bring politics into this. I said doxxing is most commonely used for political or idealogical reasons.

Because the vast majority of the time... it IS. The very topic we're discussing now, for example would be a case of doxxing being used for an ideological reason.

What does ANY of this have to do with the topic at hand?

I'm against doxxing... period.

Are you suggesting Linko 'had it coming'?

I don't post on the forum that much, i only read it from time to time, so i can't say anything about Linko.
But being fired for a simple tweet is something that surprises me.

Should all of this be true, it is something that will make me consider if i should continue to support gog in the future.