4 ms·

>Should he Okamoto have been more careful? That depends on whether you think criticism of an internet troll ever merits a death sentence. This is a weird false

>Should he Okamoto have been more careful? That depends on whether you think criticism of an internet troll ever merits a death sentence. This is a weird false dichotomy. Its possible to think someone should be more careful and still not think they deserve to die. If I saw someone texting while driving I'd tell them to be more careful but not think they deserved to die.

weberc2 8y ago
Yeah, this sort of thing is commonplace. Suggesting caution is often called out as “blaming the victim”. EDIT: as always, I’d love to hear from the downvoters. This seems like a pretty uncontroversial observation.
- Ensorceled 8y ago
  The flip side is also true, many people believe incautious victims of crime got what the deserved. I don’t believe they are the same people but don’t have data to back that up.
- watwut 8y ago
  Isn't suggesting caution here just polite version of "be silent ot else"?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    No. Suggesting caution is not any version of a threat.
- JTbane 8y ago
  It is pretty ridiculous to suggest caution after the fact, in this case. "Be more careful if you decide to text and drive" makes sense "Be more careful in getting this notorious troll off a blog site" really doesn't
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It is blaming the victim - it comes with the logical conclusion of "if you'd been more careful this might not have happened". In some scenarios, it's also effectively saying "make sure someone else is the one that gets raped/attacked/whatever tonight".
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Suggesting caution is not automatically saying everyone who didn't take that advice derserves what happened to them. Saying "you should wear your seatbelt" is not the same as "you deserve to get maimed or killed if you don't wear your seatbelt". Similarly, saying "don't put identifiable info on forums" is not the same as saying "if you put PII on a public forum you deserve to get stalked".
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      IMO, you're making the mistake of thinking fault and "deserve" are the same thing. A smoker who gets lung cancer doesn't deserve the pain and suffering, but you can make a good argument they're at least partially at fault for it. "People should dress conservatively so they don't get raped" doesn't say they deserved to get raped, but it does blame them to some extent for what happened by implying some of it is their fault.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        This line of thinking doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. If I say "wear a helmet when you ride a bike" it is entirely possible that an ensuing accident is entirely the fault of another party (e.g. getting cut off by a car). Nonetheless, the rider's injuries will depend greatly on whether or not the advice was followed. But the fault in either case is entirely that of the driver that caused the accident.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        I think it's a mistake to compare an accident and an intentional criminal act like that. If you get run down intentionally by someone in a car while biking, and the first thing I say is "well, you should've worn a helmet", you're going to correctly call me a douchebag.
watwut 8y ago
I would see killing someone for criticism as large threat to free speech, way bigger then protests or account deletion. I don't think criticising someone is comparable to texting and driving.
- smt88 8y ago
  How are protests or account deletion a threat to free speech at all? Neither is government-sponsored. In fact, you could argue that the former is the healthy exercise of the protestors' freedom of speech, and the latter is the exercise of a corporation's freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" != other people helping you broadcast your message or letting it go unchallenged
  - snerbles 8y ago
    While some may agree with your defense of the heckler's veto [0], constraining the discussion of freedom of expression to government-conducted censorship is disingenuous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto
    - smt88 8y ago
      Again, that only applies to public spaces. Not all protesters are at public universities. There is no (and never has been) an unequivocal right to free speech in a private space. Also, constraining the discussion of freedom of expression to government-conducted censorship is not disingenuous. It's the only context in which freedom of expression is guaranteed in the US.
      - snerbles 8y ago
        You are conflating implementation with philosophy. While the First Amendment is one such implementation of the notion of free speech, it is not the philosophy of freedom of expression itself.
        8y ago
hudibras 8y ago
At the risk of sounding like a troll myself, Jake Adelstein is notorious for injecting weird sentiments like this into his stories, or playing up the more sordid aspects of incidents in order to get pageviews. His shtick is "Here's something that will blow your mind and destroy all your misconceptions about Japan!," and then proceeds to write about a crime (murder, cybercrime, prostitution, organized crime, whatever) that is commonplace everywhere in the world. This would normally be okay, if he was a blogger or opinion writer, but Adelstein portrays himself as an independent journalist.

weberc2 8y ago

Yeah, this sort of thing is commonplace. Suggesting caution is often called out as “blaming the victim”. EDIT: as always, I’d love to hear from the downvoters. This seems like a pretty uncontroversial observation.

Ensorceled 8y ago
The flip side is also true, many people believe incautious victims of crime got what the deserved. I don’t believe they are the same people but don’t have data to back that up.
watwut 8y ago
Isn't suggesting caution here just polite version of "be silent ot else"?
- weberc2 8y ago
  No. Suggesting caution is not any version of a threat.
JTbane 8y ago
It is pretty ridiculous to suggest caution after the fact, in this case. "Be more careful if you decide to text and drive" makes sense "Be more careful in getting this notorious troll off a blog site" really doesn't
ceejayoz 8y ago
It is blaming the victim - it comes with the logical conclusion of "if you'd been more careful this might not have happened". In some scenarios, it's also effectively saying "make sure someone else is the one that gets raped/attacked/whatever tonight".
- manfredo 8y ago
  Suggesting caution is not automatically saying everyone who didn't take that advice derserves what happened to them. Saying "you should wear your seatbelt" is not the same as "you deserve to get maimed or killed if you don't wear your seatbelt". Similarly, saying "don't put identifiable info on forums" is not the same as saying "if you put PII on a public forum you deserve to get stalked".
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    IMO, you're making the mistake of thinking fault and "deserve" are the same thing. A smoker who gets lung cancer doesn't deserve the pain and suffering, but you can make a good argument they're at least partially at fault for it. "People should dress conservatively so they don't get raped" doesn't say they deserved to get raped, but it does blame them to some extent for what happened by implying some of it is their fault.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      This line of thinking doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. If I say "wear a helmet when you ride a bike" it is entirely possible that an ensuing accident is entirely the fault of another party (e.g. getting cut off by a car). Nonetheless, the rider's injuries will depend greatly on whether or not the advice was followed. But the fault in either case is entirely that of the driver that caused the accident.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        I think it's a mistake to compare an accident and an intentional criminal act like that. If you get run down intentionally by someone in a car while biking, and the first thing I say is "well, you should've worn a helmet", you're going to correctly call me a douchebag.

watwut 8y ago

I would see killing someone for criticism as large threat to free speech, way bigger then protests or account deletion. I don't think criticising someone is comparable to texting and driving.

smt88 8y ago
How are protests or account deletion a threat to free speech at all? Neither is government-sponsored. In fact, you could argue that the former is the healthy exercise of the protestors' freedom of speech, and the latter is the exercise of a corporation's freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" != other people helping you broadcast your message or letting it go unchallenged
- snerbles 8y ago
  While some may agree with your defense of the heckler's veto [0], constraining the discussion of freedom of expression to government-conducted censorship is disingenuous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto
  - smt88 8y ago
    Again, that only applies to public spaces. Not all protesters are at public universities. There is no (and never has been) an unequivocal right to free speech in a private space. Also, constraining the discussion of freedom of expression to government-conducted censorship is not disingenuous. It's the only context in which freedom of expression is guaranteed in the US.
    - snerbles 8y ago
      You are conflating implementation with philosophy. While the First Amendment is one such implementation of the notion of free speech, it is not the philosophy of freedom of expression itself.
      - 8y ago

hudibras 8y ago

At the risk of sounding like a troll myself, Jake Adelstein is notorious for injecting weird sentiments like this into his stories, or playing up the more sordid aspects of incidents in order to get pageviews. His shtick is "Here's something that will blow your mind and destroy all your misconceptions about Japan!," and then proceeds to write about a crime (murder, cybercrime, prostitution, organized crime, whatever) that is commonplace everywhere in the world. This would normally be okay, if he was a blogger or opinion writer, but Adelstein portrays himself as an independent journalist.