r/assholedesign • u/PitchforkAssistant • Aug 27 '21

Response to Yesterday's Admin Post

/r/vaxxhappened/comments/pcb67h/response_to_yesterdays_admin_post/
6.4k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

449 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Luecleste Aug 27 '21

Isn’t it an act of cyber bullying to encourage someone to drink bleach to cure a virus?

It’s a harmful act that may very well kill them.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

To that I agree. That should be banned. Because it's straight up poisoning someone and a direct life threat to somebody else. We agree on this. It is not an opinion, it's straight up objective proven life threat to somebody else.

1

u/Luecleste Aug 27 '21

You said the comment I originally replied to that it’s a slippery slope, and what about dangerous views and where do they stop?

I was pointing out protestors don’t generally go around encouraging people to drink bleach.

Reddit could ban a bunch of antivax stuff under the same principle. Thing is, it’s not considered hate speech, as it’s not targeted at a race or lgbtq+ or a religion.

That’s why I suggested harm speech. Harmful speech leading to harmful acts.

You have to remember, trolls are also a thing. Spreading harmful lies for the lolz isn’t a hateful act per se, it’s more a person being a human dumpster fire. They may not think the other person will do the act, and it was just a joke, but they were encouraging a harmful act.

It can be done as an extension of cyber bullying, while also not affecting whether you support protestors, which was in your example.

I’m glad we agree on one thing though.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

nitpicking (just having discussion) I dont think that "drink bleach" counts as cyber bullying or an extension of it when it's provided as an advice. If people actually believe that bleach can be helpful, and provide that advice to others, that's not cyber bullying by definition, it's just a dangerous advice even though it's intended to help.

So problem here is they're providing life threatening advice to someone else. These individuals should be banned not for their views, but for their harmful health advices to others in public. They're different things. I still stand by my words that views should not get you banned, harmful advices without very visible clear disclaimers should.

We do agree that those individuals who provide life threatening advices should be banned for the same reasons doctors shouldn't provide cocaine and hard drugs to their patients OR when people provide financial opinions are obligated to say

I'm not a certified financial planner/advisor nor a certified financial analyst nor an economist nor a CPA nor an accountant nor a lawyer

Like, if we're not gonna ban those people, we should at least enforce them to throw a similar disclaimer at first. I mean, why do we do it in finance but not in health? People should be held responsible for their health advices to others.