No, Vee used to have a strict moral compass

He always said this:

"it's bad if it happens, and I will speak up about it, but that doesn't mean I won't laugh"

THAT was his position

I don't think Vee has changed at all.

That he can laugh about it

Vee has always been a stealing gypsy.

He ONLY refered to his personal amusement

His MORALS were consistent

If you continue to play by your "morals" the only outcome is being seen as weak and exploitable. In this game there is always a point where you stop and realize that having higher morals than your opponents is actually counterproductive when you're constantly playing by your opponents rules and are losing every fight.
And here's the thing about doxing, when a leftist dox someone this is applauded by the left, everyone cheers and laughs at the victim, even if doxing has very negative outcomes, when this happens on the right suddenly everyone needs to disavow the doxing and reiterate that it was a very bad thing to do. This results is one side being constantly armed and not having any warfare restrictions, while other is trying to play the pacifist route.

randall

ur a faggot

and can't see past short-sighted tunnel vision

by not playing by the correct morals

you admit that you think morals are weak and inferior

morals are useful when majority agrees on them

no

you dont understand what "morals" are then

they are applied universally, and without subjective bias

that's literally *the point* of morals

well, in that case doxing would universally a bad thing

that depends on your definition of "doxxing"

but usually, yes

so is doxing universally a bad thing or not?

as usually means "it depends"

again, depends on your definition

I could more broadly define it as the releasing of personal information about a person

in which case the answer is "no"

see, the reason why we don't hold *specific* actions strictly to simplistic rules is because life isn't so simple

that's why we have *morals*

that exist in a more abstract sense

and require individual judgement to apply to real life

that being said

do not confuse the requiring of individual judgement as explicitly allowing subjective bias into the equation

the purpose of morals is to hold people to standards greater than the individual

the issue is that other than some actions that are punished by law there is more and more division regarding what morality is

and morals start to be defined by groups rather than society as a whole

another word that seems to lose its value is ethics, especially journalistic ethics

except, you are dealing with the problem by literally making it worse

"they make problem, we make problem!"

that is not how you address the issue