24 ms·

Pissing off people in high places cuts both ways -- for people lacking morals not yet convicted, convicted criminals, AND for people pushing unpopular beliefs w

Pissing off people in high places cuts both ways -- for people lacking morals not yet convicted, convicted criminals, AND for people pushing unpopular beliefs way before they're universally accepted as truths (e.g. current climate change debates, the US civil rights movement), and even more so for people whose professional lives advance societies but their private lives are an embarrassment to said people of authority (e.g. Alan Turing, Bill Clinton, and Eliot Spitzer as mentioned in another comment) His high-flying antics, in my opinion, seem to have accelerated a 2012 case (as pionar mentioned) that appeared to be slow moving, until now. I don't particularly like Martin, but I also don't like that his behavior was ignored until his public presence made some authority figures uneasy that their morals were being challenged, especially since his actions w.r.t. pricing were legally allowed. (The "Do we have anything against him?" scenario) You're indirectly advocating a position where everyone should stay in line and never go against the grain, because if you piss off the wrong people of authority, you deserve the negative actions that happen to you over time.

jacquesm 11y ago
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either some of his stuff is prosecutable and then the timing hardly matters as long as it happens within the statue of limitations it's all the same to me. Or, none of it should be prosecuted because someone will always say: "oh, this is because of 'x' that he also did but is not prosecuted for". You can't win like that. If he did something that is illegal then fine, go after him. Clearly being a douchebag and an immoral asshole is not illegal so I don't see any link with this particular case there, other than maybe that being of such a character caused him to do this in the first place.
- 15thandwhatever 11y ago
  @jacquesm, Or for a counterpoint: maybe it all comes down to an intentional strategy of timing? And our debate of morality vs. objectivity is late to the game. As in, people of authority are already aware of his actions (versus my original depiction of them as "sleeping giants"), but don't have enough strength (quality evidence, clear-cut violations, etc) to convict so the case proceeds at a glacial pace. i.e. If they were to present the case at that point in time, they'd encounter too many people in the objective camp (me) vs. the moral camp (you), who'd issue a jury verdict of not guilty. But with the very negative, public antics that Martin undertakes, he changes public opinion which directly impacts the makeup of his jurors and additional evidence where if the case was presented at the current time, it'd come out with a guilty verdict. EDIT: left out "and additional evidence" in reply.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Or because of limited resources they go after the most visible violators as a signal to the rest. Take your pick. But without evidence that this is the case it could also simply be coincidence or slow moving wheels of justice.

jacquesm 11y ago

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either some of his stuff is prosecutable and then the timing hardly matters as long as it happens within the statue of limitations it's all the same to me. Or, none of it should be prosecuted because someone will always say: "oh, this is because of 'x' that he also did but is not prosecuted for". You can't win like that. If he did something that is illegal then fine, go after him. Clearly being a douchebag and an immoral asshole is not illegal so I don't see any link with this particular case there, other than maybe that being of such a character caused him to do this in the first place.

15thandwhatever 11y ago
@jacquesm, Or for a counterpoint: maybe it all comes down to an intentional strategy of timing? And our debate of morality vs. objectivity is late to the game. As in, people of authority are already aware of his actions (versus my original depiction of them as "sleeping giants"), but don't have enough strength (quality evidence, clear-cut violations, etc) to convict so the case proceeds at a glacial pace. i.e. If they were to present the case at that point in time, they'd encounter too many people in the objective camp (me) vs. the moral camp (you), who'd issue a jury verdict of not guilty. But with the very negative, public antics that Martin undertakes, he changes public opinion which directly impacts the makeup of his jurors and additional evidence where if the case was presented at the current time, it'd come out with a guilty verdict. EDIT: left out "and additional evidence" in reply.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Or because of limited resources they go after the most visible violators as a signal to the rest. Take your pick. But without evidence that this is the case it could also simply be coincidence or slow moving wheels of justice.