I’m sure it’s an unpopular opinion, but what she did is really shitty and she should be charged with it. She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
It’s really no different than if she smashed someone’s phone because they were recording video in public.
She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
We don’t actually know that she didn’t, unless you’ve got another article with more detail. This article is sparse in details, but it’s only his word in it that she didn’t talk to him. That nobody was bothered by it. That it went from 0-100 in the span of a look.
And idk about you, but that doesn’t sound all that likely to me, when everyone laughs at him for the consequences (seen in video). The whole thing screams this guy is an unreliable narrator. The whole thing to me reads like he knew he was pissing people off, like a YouTube prank channel sort of bother, and expected to walk away from it consequence free.
This article has a bit more detail and it does make him sound like a shitty prank channel sort that relies on annoying other people going about their lives. But again has no info about the encounter except his own words.
Counter point: if you start filming me in public without my permission your phone is getting smashed, and I don’t care how shitty anybody thinks it is.
Yeah but there’s a difference between a security cam and someone filming me to mock me on the internet. And for the record I’m not stoked about everything else filming me either.
https://www.foia.gov/ - Entire youtube channels with millions of followers request city camera, body cams, court cams, traffic cams… everything… and mock you on the internet. I don’t disagree with your feelings just reminding you of the world we live in.
Legally there isn’t and it’s everyone’s fundamental right to criticize & ridicule you even to your face.
In a free society, we argue with words, not force or violence.
Nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with someone attempting to openly mock me and throw me on the internet without the expectation of consequences. It’s about respect.
It was a subway car, can he just grab her breasts? Ass? Where is the line on sexual assault? Let’s review Creepy McCreepface’s video and see exactly why this woman got upset.
So you’re cool with letting men video children in public parks? Because it’s technically legal?
In multiple threads you’ve been really focused on sexual assault and harassment happening but I don’t see where in the article it says he was doing that? I’m sorry if I’m completely missing something
If you’re in a public space, people may be filming you.
It’s a PUBLIC space, not yours. Your lack of self-control will rightly get you fucked up if you assault the wrong person, and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched while trying to take someone’s phone.
Something being in a public space does not give everyone there free reign to do things that are rude. And given the upvotes/downvotes it seems like most people tend to agree with me here.
When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn’t required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don’t want that, campaign for legislation to change it. “Rudeness” isn’t a legal term. If you can’t tolerate being recorded in a public space, even “rudely”, leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.
The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people’s safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.
You can’t start a fight legally, but you can finish one. “Rudeness” isn’t a good enough reason to start swinging.
Not to mention, what you’re suggesting here, is that this lady should have had her ass kicked by cops and bystanders and that would have been an acceptable outcome. I strongly disagree with that.
Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.
The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there’s recordings of him.
TLDR: The law and it’s philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn’t run on what you think, and society is better for it.
Once again, the law says you aren’t protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There’s a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can’t grab other people’s stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.
If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she’d be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of “reasonable application of force” within what’s commonly known as a “force escalation continuum”.
So, no “creeps” shouldn’t be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it’s better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.
I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about “you’re not allowed to put your hands on someone unless they put their hands on you first”, but go off, I guess.
I was not going to downvote your comment despite disagreeing with it, but since you are now citing your downvote/upvote ratio as proof that most people support your position, you now get downvotes from me.
and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched
Funny how everyone agrees with the woman’s actions and finds them satisfying instead.
Yet you are trying to use this argument to defend the asshole guy. Well, watch the video again and see how not a single person said anything, clearly they all agreed with the woman’s actions and the guy got what he deserved.
Civil justice in progress when the laws and authorities fail.
Luckily laws can be changed. If there was a trial and a jury decided she is innocent, there would be precedent for all future cases to side with the person being filmed without consent and not the assholes.
I’m not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.
The point I’m making is that people shouldn’t start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.
You can’t put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.
Here’s different optics to consider: we know for many camera-enabled devices to deliver recordings to the cloud, where the data is used by authorities, often times in a very improper way.
In US, it is coordinating ICE raids; in other countries, it’s other kinds of shady and inhumane acts.
Fighting this on the level of legislation is great…when it works. Overturning the power of a dictator authority or simply struggling against decisions that are made up above often takes illegal, brutal acts, or at least ones of misdemeanor.
It sure never hurts to ask someone to stop first, but then I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
I think the assumption people are making here with my original comment is that I wouldn’t first tell them to stop and delete whatever they had recorded. Which is my fault because I can see that from the way I said it. But if that doesn’t work? Well, they don’t just get to keep doing it.
Unpopular unpopular opinion: recording public places for yourself shouldn’t even be considered a bad tone. Distribution of those recordings should, unless they contain some illegal activity.
It is quite different, phones are useful devices that people rely on, this is not. More akin to breaking some useless annoying gadget like a toy siren or something
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they’re being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you’re arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you’re arguing against, not strawman it. If it’s truly bad, you shouldn’t need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
No worse. If they wanted to, structuring a well reasoned argument is challenging. Throwing out psyche bullshit np.
Then if ask, OK now structure an equally strong and passionate argument for an opposing view.
They’d just mentally be incapable. cuz that doesn’t fit into pattern of reactions from a rage addict.
Up to now have been strongly defending the guy. But fuck it this is a game. Now i’m her (watch as I get elected to office).
We, as a society, a long time ago have consciously chosen to put emphasis on people feelings and avoid behaviors that predictably lead to conflict, demonization, and/or demoralization of minority or disadvantaged groups. Although in other societies these behaviors are tolerated, here they are not. Outsiders projecting their ideals upon us can go fuck themselves and the application of laws that perpetuate the societies we purposefully and intentionally no longer want to be associated with as well as can ill afford. From just the evidence presented and nothing more, it’s plain to see this guy is targeting women on trains and it makes us uncomfortable and scared to ride the trains. The guy must be an out of towner cuz everyone here does not act this way. In Japan, there are separate cars for women. This change occurred from the harrassment culture that was perpetuated by manga anime and media. This change was instituted to make women in Japan feel safe again riding public transport and does not overly inconvenience men folk cuz it’s only enforced during rush hours.
Someone claiming they can do whatever they want cuz it’s a public space is not acceptable here and shouldn’t be. It breeds a confrontational society of self righteous warmongers that throws everyone but them into unsustainable unlivable lives. I’m surprised they don’t all live in tents due to unaffordable housing while we find housing from people who really no longer need it. I like a roof over my head thank you.
I get satisfaction by designing complex systems and being tortured by static type checkers. So political pr0n, video games, or 2D chart p0rn does not do it for me. Don’t expect my motivations to be the same as those listed addictions. In a world covered in smartphone addicts, it’s really hard to imagine someone completely devoid of those addictions.
A rage addict is just someone suffering from a design flaw. I recognize they exist just like trees. A tree producing imperfect fruit does not bug me. The rage addict needs to become capable of weening themselves off the juice. I’m a white hatter. Exploiting system flaws is black hatter. Hope de-assembling nonsense arguments has been helpful.
At one time, thought feeding a rage addict would burn out their rage addiction by having them exhaust themselves. All about coming to the conclusion that it’s not worth the effort. But that assumes they can learn, want to learn, or want to adapt/change permanently.
Rage addicts need to recognize they are being played. Until then it’s just a broken record on a loop.
This works on any negative emotion. It takes heightened energy to sustain. So fight a war of attrition knowing you’ll exhaust your opponent.
That isn’t what it is! That’s like pointing at a 3d printer and calling it a gun manufacturing station. Sure, it can be used for that, but you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Not sure exactly how serious you are, but you can use a 3D printer without making guns. You cannot use cameras like these in public without massively invading people’s privacy.
Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.
I’m sorry mate, I think I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying. To me, the point is what actually happened in this situation.
I see you’ve mentioned sexual assault and harassment a lot in these comments - I don’t see any reference to that in this article but it’s hardly an article really is it, is there some more context that I’m missing from somewhere else?
I’m sure it’s an unpopular opinion, but what she did is really shitty and she should be charged with it. She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
It’s really no different than if she smashed someone’s phone because they were recording video in public.
We don’t actually know that she didn’t, unless you’ve got another article with more detail. This article is sparse in details, but it’s only his word in it that she didn’t talk to him. That nobody was bothered by it. That it went from 0-100 in the span of a look.
And idk about you, but that doesn’t sound all that likely to me, when everyone laughs at him for the consequences (seen in video). The whole thing screams this guy is an unreliable narrator. The whole thing to me reads like he knew he was pissing people off, like a YouTube prank channel sort of bother, and expected to walk away from it consequence free.
This article has a bit more detail and it does make him sound like a shitty prank channel sort that relies on annoying other people going about their lives. But again has no info about the encounter except his own words.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/imagine-being-based-guy-says-143000399.html
Counter point: if you start filming me in public without my permission your phone is getting smashed, and I don’t care how shitty anybody thinks it is.
I’m glad the law disagrees with you. Someone doing something you consider disrespectful doesn’t justify assault and property damage.
It sounds like you have some anger control issues going on if that’s your go-to response.
When you wake up and walk outside to the corner store, you’ve had like 40 devices filming you… lol
Yeah but there’s a difference between a security cam and someone filming me to mock me on the internet. And for the record I’m not stoked about everything else filming me either.
https://www.foia.gov/ - Entire youtube channels with millions of followers request city camera, body cams, court cams, traffic cams… everything… and mock you on the internet. I don’t disagree with your feelings just reminding you of the world we live in.
If I could get away with it I would destroy those too.
Places where those cameras are required the most: police officers’ cabins; mayors’ and legislatives’ offices.
Legally there isn’t and it’s everyone’s fundamental right to criticize & ridicule you even to your face. In a free society, we argue with words, not force or violence.
Yeah but I can’t reach that high
Time for a new iteration of the selfie stick!
The un-selfie stick
Don’t need to with a high powered laser pointer…
deleted by creator
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I think the internet has ruined many people’s perceptions of what is socially acceptable and that there may be consequences for harassing others.
Oh you sweet summer child.
I like this comment
Aren’t these usually CCTVs?
But they don’t follow you around focused on your tits and ass.
WTF dudes, you can stay home and jerk off with girls online happy to take your money.
That’s why in video games I smash everything in order to be safe.
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I’m indifferent about this comment
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
echo…
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I hate this comment
… Are you a cop or something?
And that’s ridiculous. You have no expectation of privacy in public. I thought the hate was overblown back in the Google Glass days, too.
Nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with someone attempting to openly mock me and throw me on the internet without the expectation of consequences. It’s about respect.
What a dumb take. Go back to putting up flock cams everywhere, cop-lover
You also should have, in a well-functioning society, no expectation of violation of personal rights (or even human rights) in public. Yet here we are.
It was a subway car, can he just grab her breasts? Ass? Where is the line on sexual assault? Let’s review Creepy McCreepface’s video and see exactly why this woman got upset.
So you’re cool with letting men video children in public parks? Because it’s technically legal?
In multiple threads you’ve been really focused on sexual assault and harassment happening but I don’t see where in the article it says he was doing that? I’m sorry if I’m completely missing something
If you’re in a public space, people may be filming you.
It’s a PUBLIC space, not yours. Your lack of self-control will rightly get you fucked up if you assault the wrong person, and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched while trying to take someone’s phone.
TLDR: Control yourself, tough guy.
Something being in a public space does not give everyone there free reign to do things that are rude. And given the upvotes/downvotes it seems like most people tend to agree with me here.
Fuck internet points.
When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn’t required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don’t want that, campaign for legislation to change it. “Rudeness” isn’t a legal term. If you can’t tolerate being recorded in a public space, even “rudely”, leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.
The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people’s safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.
You can’t start a fight legally, but you can finish one. “Rudeness” isn’t a good enough reason to start swinging.
So again, control yourself.
I didn’t suggest assaulting anyone, you’re trying to paint this in a more violent light than it is.
Forcefully grabbing someone’s property to break it is assault.
Then why is Donald Trump not in jail?
Because his handler has blackmail material on the people who would be able to do something about it.
The Corporatist Oligarchy wants him in the presidency (for now).
Not to mention, what you’re suggesting here, is that this lady should have had her ass kicked by cops and bystanders and that would have been an acceptable outcome. I strongly disagree with that.
Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.
The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there’s recordings of him.
…And you think cops in this century of 21 would stop there… why?
Are we talking about the hypothetical being posed or a different one?
Because it’s a white woman
So, we are now supposed to just let creeps video record women because they paid for fancy glasses? Anyone notice this was a young, attractive woman?
TLDR: The law and it’s philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn’t run on what you think, and society is better for it.
Once again, the law says you aren’t protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There’s a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can’t grab other people’s stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.
If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she’d be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of “reasonable application of force” within what’s commonly known as a “force escalation continuum”.
So, no “creeps” shouldn’t be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it’s better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.
This is what a lawyer who specializes in getting off drunk drivers and playground perverts would argue.
This is shitty behavior.
I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about “you’re not allowed to put your hands on someone unless they put their hands on you first”, but go off, I guess.
I was not going to downvote your comment despite disagreeing with it, but since you are now citing your downvote/upvote ratio as proof that most people support your position, you now get downvotes from me.
Im totally fine with that friend.
Funny how everyone agrees with the woman’s actions and finds them satisfying instead.
Yet you are trying to use this argument to defend the asshole guy. Well, watch the video again and see how not a single person said anything, clearly they all agreed with the woman’s actions and the guy got what he deserved.
Civil justice in progress when the laws and authorities fail.
Luckily laws can be changed. If there was a trial and a jury decided she is innocent, there would be precedent for all future cases to side with the person being filmed without consent and not the assholes.
“b… b… bUt iT wAs a PuBlIc PlaCe” - the assholes
I’m not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.
The point I’m making is that people shouldn’t start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.
You can’t put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.
Those comments are from men saving up for a pair to make videos of women for “further study” later.
I wonder how they feel about doing this on playgrounds around children?
Here’s different optics to consider: we know for many camera-enabled devices to deliver recordings to the cloud, where the data is used by authorities, often times in a very improper way.
In US, it is coordinating ICE raids; in other countries, it’s other kinds of shady and inhumane acts.
Fighting this on the level of legislation is great…when it works. Overturning the power of a dictator authority or simply struggling against decisions that are made up above often takes illegal, brutal acts, or at least ones of misdemeanor.
It sure never hurts to ask someone to stop first, but then I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
Whatever “angle” you see is your mind trying to justify forcefully grabbing someone’s property to destroy it.
I don’t like surveillance either.
But you can’t go around forcefully breaking other people’s stuff unless it threatens your well being at that moment.
Which in this case it’s doing. Next.
The thing is, it may actually threaten someone’s wellbeing.
Surveillance, especially under a police state, can be a very clear and sometimes immediate threat.
You can’t legally commit violence based on a hypothetical scenario.
You can’t legally overthrow an oppressive regime, either. Legality is not the same as morality.
Exactly. The amount of people here saying “let the cops do it” or saying something about how whatever response is “illegal” is irritating.
Ok, but you can’t morally attack someone for a hypothetical scenario either.
I think the assumption people are making here with my original comment is that I wouldn’t first tell them to stop and delete whatever they had recorded. Which is my fault because I can see that from the way I said it. But if that doesn’t work? Well, they don’t just get to keep doing it.
So, creepy men are now allowed to stare and record videos of women because technology allows it?
Do you happen to work for ICE?
We don’t have ICE in my country.
This is a very unpopular opinion in my opinion
I hate everything about the dude in the video but breaking his property is a shitty response.
Exactly, thanks for saying what we’re all thinking: she absolutely should have broken his face
The problem with US society is a lack of shaming and negative enforcement.
Yeah. Should’ve broken his face too.
Unpopular unpopular opinion: recording public places for yourself shouldn’t even be considered a bad tone. Distribution of those recordings should, unless they contain some illegal activity.
These go through Facebook’s servers. This is not a private recording.
It is quite different, phones are useful devices that people rely on, this is not. More akin to breaking some useless annoying gadget like a toy siren or something
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they’re being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you’re arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you’re arguing against, not strawman it. If it’s truly bad, you shouldn’t need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
My eyes glazed over as soon as I read this much.
Nothing you say after this matters for a device purpose built for non consensual and inconspicuous invasion of privacy
So I’m guessing you missed this part, then
And this probably too…
Seems like you read two words and then just decided to guess what the rest of the comment is about.
That’s the general discourse in this community: ignoramuses flush logic down the shitter.
No worse. If they wanted to, structuring a well reasoned argument is challenging. Throwing out psyche bullshit np.
Then if ask, OK now structure an equally strong and passionate argument for an opposing view.
They’d just mentally be incapable. cuz that doesn’t fit into pattern of reactions from a rage addict.
Up to now have been strongly defending the guy. But fuck it this is a game. Now i’m her (watch as I get elected to office).
We, as a society, a long time ago have consciously chosen to put emphasis on people feelings and avoid behaviors that predictably lead to conflict, demonization, and/or demoralization of minority or disadvantaged groups. Although in other societies these behaviors are tolerated, here they are not. Outsiders projecting their ideals upon us can go fuck themselves and the application of laws that perpetuate the societies we purposefully and intentionally no longer want to be associated with as well as can ill afford. From just the evidence presented and nothing more, it’s plain to see this guy is targeting women on trains and it makes us uncomfortable and scared to ride the trains. The guy must be an out of towner cuz everyone here does not act this way. In Japan, there are separate cars for women. This change occurred from the harrassment culture that was perpetuated by manga anime and media. This change was instituted to make women in Japan feel safe again riding public transport and does not overly inconvenience men folk cuz it’s only enforced during rush hours.
Someone claiming they can do whatever they want cuz it’s a public space is not acceptable here and shouldn’t be. It breeds a confrontational society of self righteous warmongers that throws everyone but them into unsustainable unlivable lives. I’m surprised they don’t all live in tents due to unaffordable housing while we find housing from people who really no longer need it. I like a roof over my head thank you.
I get that, but don’t you get satisfaction raising inconvenient facts with rage addicts to lift their irrational outrage beyond orbit?
I get satisfaction by designing complex systems and being tortured by static type checkers. So political pr0n, video games, or 2D chart p0rn does not do it for me. Don’t expect my motivations to be the same as those listed addictions. In a world covered in smartphone addicts, it’s really hard to imagine someone completely devoid of those addictions.
A rage addict is just someone suffering from a design flaw. I recognize they exist just like trees. A tree producing imperfect fruit does not bug me. The rage addict needs to become capable of weening themselves off the juice. I’m a white hatter. Exploiting system flaws is black hatter. Hope de-assembling nonsense arguments has been helpful.
At one time, thought feeding a rage addict would burn out their rage addiction by having them exhaust themselves. All about coming to the conclusion that it’s not worth the effort. But that assumes they can learn, want to learn, or want to adapt/change permanently.
Rage addicts need to recognize they are being played. Until then it’s just a broken record on a loop.
This works on any negative emotion. It takes heightened energy to sustain. So fight a war of attrition knowing you’ll exhaust your opponent.
That isn’t what it is! That’s like pointing at a 3d printer and calling it a gun manufacturing station. Sure, it can be used for that, but you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Not sure exactly how serious you are, but you can use a 3D printer without making guns. You cannot use cameras like these in public without massively invading people’s privacy.
By that logic, its equal to a phone is an equal strawman. It is a way less vital device than a phone.
Where exactly do I claim it’s equally or that it’s equally vital/important ?
Was the initial claim
That someone else made, not me, and I did not address at all.
Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.
You literally sound like a boomer complaining about Smart phones, describing them as “useless toys”
Yeah, this just makes anyone who opposes smart glasses look like bullies that are mad they can’t get away with assaulting people.
You spy on me for meta, turn yourself into a surveillance device, I will break something on you that doesn’t heal, and I still consider that generous.
Just losing his glasses was gracious m9deration on the part of this hero.
If your property trumps all over my privacy, I am the enemy of you having property. You are why we can’t have a fucking society.
No you won’t. You’re just talking big on the Internet.
You’re right. Totally. Where do you live? Maybe it’s nearby and I can see your cool vr glasses!
Lol. Bro come upstairs. Your tendies are getting cold
That joke doesn’t even make sense! I live in California; we don’t even have basements here!
Its not a joke your mom is pissed and taking it out on me. Come the fuck upstairs and get your tendies.
It was self defense, and defense of others around her. In my book, that’s just about as much if not more than the police does these days.
A guy being annoying and recording a video in public is an immediate threat to yourself and others?
That sounds pretty fine. It’s when the video includes you and goes to a remote system that is the problem.
That still isn’t an immediate threat to you or others.
Stop what? Wouldn’t there be a video of her breaking them if they were recording?
How about recording by video up her dress? This guy wants police involved? Ok, let’s review the video and see how many women he’s ogled in public.
Was he recording up her dress? Looks like she’s wearing jeans to me, personally
Sure, let’s miss the entire point.
I’m sorry mate, I think I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying. To me, the point is what actually happened in this situation.
I see you’ve mentioned sexual assault and harassment a lot in these comments - I don’t see any reference to that in this article but it’s hardly an article really is it, is there some more context that I’m missing from somewhere else?
What if something entirely different happened though? Then the violence would be justified. Check and mate
Taking upskirt videos with your glasses is way more obvious and certainly would have been mentioned in the article.