3 ms·

To be fair, getting punished to be unable to take trains for misbehaving on trains. If the seats are packed in a car and some douche is sitting in your seat an

by PakG1 8y ago

To be fair, getting punished to be unable to take trains for misbehaving on trains. If the seats are packed in a car and some douche is sitting in your seat and won't get up, and you're stuck standing for a few hours, I think you'd want some justice. That being said, a fine is probably a punishment that would make much more sense. More revenue for the government too.

devoply 8y ago
Yes a no-fly list that you can't do anything about is fascist and totalitarian. We in the free countries, ah never mind.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Ah, but we can do something about it. We have something in America called "due process" so gather enough people around and force the FBI to fix their woefully inadequate form. The ACLU is doing just that in the mean time. "But why was it instituted in the first place?" Good question. People do things they aren't suppose to do in the first place all the time! But we can do something about it.
- dTal 8y ago
  You're right, the no-fly list is extra-judicial and a violation of civil liberties, unconstitutional even. But let's not engage in a false equivalence here - the no-fly list has maybe 100,000 people on it[1], of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens, added over the course of nearly two decades. The Chinese list has 23 million of their own citizens, added over the course of a single year. [1] recent sources are hard to find, and the list apparently grows rather fast - I'm going off https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-list-revealed-81k-names-fewer-1k-us/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-...
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    Even one person on the list that hasn't been found guilty of a crime is too many.
  - martin_a 8y ago
    > has maybe 100,000 people on it, of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens Your mindset is part of the problem. It's not about "them" or "us", about "American" or "Chinese", it's about the list itself and using systems like that. China just seems to be more ruthless about using things like this, but in the end, there are enough more or less totalitarian systems which would love to have lists and procedures like this.
    - arcturus17 8y ago
      The poster you’re replying to is saying that the no-fly list is bad, but that there are degrees of bad - the scales he exposes speak for themselves. It’s almost like you didn’t answer to their point at all.
      - majewsky 8y ago
        Grandparent's argument is that scales are irrelevant when talking about human rights. Similar positions have in the past been held e.g. by the German supreme court: In a landmark ruling, it barred authorities from shooting down planes with terrorists. The department of defense argued that shooting down a plane that is headed e.g. towards a stadium would save many more people compared to the number of civilians killed. The court dismissed that opinion, arguging that killing civilians is just something you ought not do. I think it's the same here: When you deny even just one person a fair trail, you're setting a dangerous precedent that can and will be expanded upon.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Fighting whataboutism with whataboutism, interesting approach.
- simonh 8y ago
  We have to look at the system as a whole. US No Fly lists have been repeatedly challenged successfully in court, so at least people have a remedy. This is 23 million people who have no legal recourse.
  - devoply 8y ago
    Being challenged in court which literally costs thousands of dollars, takes a significant amount of time and only in a small number of cases effects a single individual, is not a real remedy.
    - simonh 8y ago
      The criteria and methodologies used have been litigated and also been changed due to political pressure, public pressure and in response to criticisms from within government such as the Government Accountability Office. The Chinese system has already applied draconian restrictions to about 2% of the Chinese population. The no fly lists affect roughly four ten thousandths of a percent of the US citizenry. These are not equivalent.
dTal 8y ago
When this has happened to me, I've never had anyone outright refuse to move. I have also found myself accidentally in other people's reserved seats, and have moved when politely asked. I imagine that in the event of a refusal to move, you'd take it to the conductor, who I assume has the power to fine, forcibly move, or eject people (backed by the power of the police). You certainly wouldn't suck it up and stand for hours. Just seems like something a civil society can deal with quite easily without resorting to black marks on people's "permanent record" (which in this case seems to be functioning as a kind of parallel judicial system).
- johnisgood 8y ago
  > Just seems like something a civil society can deal with quite easily without resorting to black marks on people's "permanent record" (which in this case seems to be functioning as a kind of parallel judicial system). Exactly. I never had issues that could not have been easily resolved. Most people where I live is very careful about not being a douche, despite not having to fear that the Government will punish them.
  - echaozh 8y ago
    First, refusing to leave the reserved seat has happened, and more than once in China. Secondly, the punishment is not by the government, but by the train company. When videos of people refusing to leave reserved seats went viral on the web, most people wanted them to be punished by not being able to take trains, at least for some period of time. So the punishment is actually a populist opinion, rather than designated by the government. The government didn't want to step in before the people's outcry. So it's not a conspiracy of the government to "tame" the people. Perhaps you can say the people were "silly" to summon such rules unto themselves. Just like how the American people voted Trump onto the throne.
    - johnisgood 8y ago
      > First, refusing to leave the reserved seat has happened, and more than once in China I am not saying it did not happen in China. I was talking about my country. I cannot remember anyone not giving me my reserved seat, nor have I ever heard of such a thing happening here to anyone, where "here" is not China. This is my experience, and I believe we are sharing experiences. > Secondly, the punishment is not by the government, but by the train company. Train companies are owned by the state, but private businesses also have to have a CCP committee and respond to the instructions of the party, so either directly or indirectly, yes, it is coming from the Government, the government that developed the Social Credit System. > When videos of people refusing to leave reserved seats went viral on the web, most people wanted them to be punished by not being able to take trains, at least for some period of time. So the punishment is actually a populist opinion, rather than designated by the government. The government didn't want to step in before the people's outcry. Are you talking about Chinese people? Because this certainly does not hold true for the people in my country. Even if it does, it is not indicative of anything. People say all sorts of crap over the Internet that they do not mean, do not do or say in real life. Take a look at the comment section of videos where someone is handling an animal improperly due to sheer ignorance. Most of the commentators will say they want to kill that person in the video and so on and so on. Anyway, the point is that my country has very different values or culture. China goes so much further with the human search engine, where they will post images of people publicly and people will go out of their way to identify them, hunt them down, etc. It is not about public shaming anymore like it is the case here. https://youtu.be/hWwehE88XjI https://youtu.be/hWwehE88XjI
SimpleMinds 8y ago
I kind of agree with a harsh, strict punishment for the "crime" like this in country where train travel is abundant and often very crowded. There are many people who would be willing to pay the fine on top of the price of the standing ticket (the sitting ones are sometimes very very, very hard to get), while not being able to use trains again would definitely stop people from having an attitude of "I have money and you cannot do anything to me"
- levosmetalo 8y ago
  In Germany this is solved in a different way. Many punishment don't have a fixed price, but use Tagessatz as a base which is an equivalent of the daily income for the person. In the end, everyone is hurt the same, regardless of the income. There was a famous case few years ago that one famous football player paid half a million euro fee for driving without a license. I guess introducing similar system would be more fair than going to this drastic measure like not allowing to ride a train forever and ever more.
  - SimpleMinds 8y ago
    I agree but for that to work you would have to first ensure that everyone is reporting their income accurately. I believe that right now there is still a lot of grey zone and until that phase is sorted, the Tagessatz wouldn't work. That's why the temporary solution of banning people makes sense to me.
    - Faark 8y ago
      Isn't a mayor part of not reporting income to make sure officials don't take a closer look into your case? Having a judge see you don't have income while living a lavish live is probably the last they want...
- maxhedrome 8y ago
  Found the Chinese government poster.
johnisgood 8y ago
> To be fair, getting punished to be unable to take trains for misbehaving on trains. If the seats are packed in a car and some douche is sitting in your seat and won't get up, and you're stuck standing for a few hours, I think you'd want some justice. Yes, but it would be up to him for that to decide (to have that person punished), not someone else on his behalf. Which I believe is very important.
NicoJuicy 8y ago
In Belgium, People who can't sit may go sit in first class. ( Train)
entity345 8y ago
They don't necessarily ban you from trains outright but ban you from the comfortable trains (the article mentions high-speed trains). A lot of these punishments seem targeted at the middle class and business people by forcing them to go down a peg or two if they don't abide by the rules. It's making them lose face, which is something very important in China.
- echaozh 8y ago
  Not high-speed trains, more like first class seats in the trains. Most of the people in the list refused to pay back debts, even though they got enough assets. If the people are actually too poor to pay, they should not be able to afford the first class seats anyway. That's the logic behind the rules.

by PakG1 8y ago

devoply 8y ago

Yes a no-fly list that you can't do anything about is fascist and totalitarian. We in the free countries, ah never mind.

jimmy1 8y ago
Ah, but we can do something about it. We have something in America called "due process" so gather enough people around and force the FBI to fix their woefully inadequate form. The ACLU is doing just that in the mean time. "But why was it instituted in the first place?" Good question. People do things they aren't suppose to do in the first place all the time! But we can do something about it.
dTal 8y ago
You're right, the no-fly list is extra-judicial and a violation of civil liberties, unconstitutional even. But let's not engage in a false equivalence here - the no-fly list has maybe 100,000 people on it[1], of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens, added over the course of nearly two decades. The Chinese list has 23 million of their own citizens, added over the course of a single year. [1] recent sources are hard to find, and the list apparently grows rather fast - I'm going off https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-list-revealed-81k-names-fewer-1k-us/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-...
- linuxftw 8y ago
  Even one person on the list that hasn't been found guilty of a crime is too many.
- martin_a 8y ago
  > has maybe 100,000 people on it, of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens Your mindset is part of the problem. It's not about "them" or "us", about "American" or "Chinese", it's about the list itself and using systems like that. China just seems to be more ruthless about using things like this, but in the end, there are enough more or less totalitarian systems which would love to have lists and procedures like this.
  - arcturus17 8y ago
    The poster you’re replying to is saying that the no-fly list is bad, but that there are degrees of bad - the scales he exposes speak for themselves. It’s almost like you didn’t answer to their point at all.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      Grandparent's argument is that scales are irrelevant when talking about human rights. Similar positions have in the past been held e.g. by the German supreme court: In a landmark ruling, it barred authorities from shooting down planes with terrorists. The department of defense argued that shooting down a plane that is headed e.g. towards a stadium would save many more people compared to the number of civilians killed. The court dismissed that opinion, arguging that killing civilians is just something you ought not do. I think it's the same here: When you deny even just one person a fair trail, you're setting a dangerous precedent that can and will be expanded upon.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Fighting whataboutism with whataboutism, interesting approach.
simonh 8y ago
We have to look at the system as a whole. US No Fly lists have been repeatedly challenged successfully in court, so at least people have a remedy. This is 23 million people who have no legal recourse.
- devoply 8y ago
  Being challenged in court which literally costs thousands of dollars, takes a significant amount of time and only in a small number of cases effects a single individual, is not a real remedy.
  - simonh 8y ago
    The criteria and methodologies used have been litigated and also been changed due to political pressure, public pressure and in response to criticisms from within government such as the Government Accountability Office. The Chinese system has already applied draconian restrictions to about 2% of the Chinese population. The no fly lists affect roughly four ten thousandths of a percent of the US citizenry. These are not equivalent.

dTal 8y ago

When this has happened to me, I've never had anyone outright refuse to move. I have also found myself accidentally in other people's reserved seats, and have moved when politely asked. I imagine that in the event of a refusal to move, you'd take it to the conductor, who I assume has the power to fine, forcibly move, or eject people (backed by the power of the police). You certainly wouldn't suck it up and stand for hours. Just seems like something a civil society can deal with quite easily without resorting to black marks on people's "permanent record" (which in this case seems to be functioning as a kind of parallel judicial system).

johnisgood 8y ago
> Just seems like something a civil society can deal with quite easily without resorting to black marks on people's "permanent record" (which in this case seems to be functioning as a kind of parallel judicial system). Exactly. I never had issues that could not have been easily resolved. Most people where I live is very careful about not being a douche, despite not having to fear that the Government will punish them.
- echaozh 8y ago
  First, refusing to leave the reserved seat has happened, and more than once in China. Secondly, the punishment is not by the government, but by the train company. When videos of people refusing to leave reserved seats went viral on the web, most people wanted them to be punished by not being able to take trains, at least for some period of time. So the punishment is actually a populist opinion, rather than designated by the government. The government didn't want to step in before the people's outcry. So it's not a conspiracy of the government to "tame" the people. Perhaps you can say the people were "silly" to summon such rules unto themselves. Just like how the American people voted Trump onto the throne.
  - johnisgood 8y ago
    > First, refusing to leave the reserved seat has happened, and more than once in China I am not saying it did not happen in China. I was talking about my country. I cannot remember anyone not giving me my reserved seat, nor have I ever heard of such a thing happening here to anyone, where "here" is not China. This is my experience, and I believe we are sharing experiences. > Secondly, the punishment is not by the government, but by the train company. Train companies are owned by the state, but private businesses also have to have a CCP committee and respond to the instructions of the party, so either directly or indirectly, yes, it is coming from the Government, the government that developed the Social Credit System. > When videos of people refusing to leave reserved seats went viral on the web, most people wanted them to be punished by not being able to take trains, at least for some period of time. So the punishment is actually a populist opinion, rather than designated by the government. The government didn't want to step in before the people's outcry. Are you talking about Chinese people? Because this certainly does not hold true for the people in my country. Even if it does, it is not indicative of anything. People say all sorts of crap over the Internet that they do not mean, do not do or say in real life. Take a look at the comment section of videos where someone is handling an animal improperly due to sheer ignorance. Most of the commentators will say they want to kill that person in the video and so on and so on. Anyway, the point is that my country has very different values or culture. China goes so much further with the human search engine, where they will post images of people publicly and people will go out of their way to identify them, hunt them down, etc. It is not about public shaming anymore like it is the case here. https://youtu.be/hWwehE88XjI https://youtu.be/hWwehE88XjI

SimpleMinds 8y ago

I kind of agree with a harsh, strict punishment for the "crime" like this in country where train travel is abundant and often very crowded. There are many people who would be willing to pay the fine on top of the price of the standing ticket (the sitting ones are sometimes very very, very hard to get), while not being able to use trains again would definitely stop people from having an attitude of "I have money and you cannot do anything to me"

levosmetalo 8y ago
In Germany this is solved in a different way. Many punishment don't have a fixed price, but use Tagessatz as a base which is an equivalent of the daily income for the person. In the end, everyone is hurt the same, regardless of the income. There was a famous case few years ago that one famous football player paid half a million euro fee for driving without a license. I guess introducing similar system would be more fair than going to this drastic measure like not allowing to ride a train forever and ever more.
- SimpleMinds 8y ago
  I agree but for that to work you would have to first ensure that everyone is reporting their income accurately. I believe that right now there is still a lot of grey zone and until that phase is sorted, the Tagessatz wouldn't work. That's why the temporary solution of banning people makes sense to me.
  - Faark 8y ago
    Isn't a mayor part of not reporting income to make sure officials don't take a closer look into your case? Having a judge see you don't have income while living a lavish live is probably the last they want...
maxhedrome 8y ago
Found the Chinese government poster.

johnisgood 8y ago

> To be fair, getting punished to be unable to take trains for misbehaving on trains. If the seats are packed in a car and some douche is sitting in your seat and won't get up, and you're stuck standing for a few hours, I think you'd want some justice. Yes, but it would be up to him for that to decide (to have that person punished), not someone else on his behalf. Which I believe is very important.

NicoJuicy 8y ago

In Belgium, People who can't sit may go sit in first class. ( Train)

entity345 8y ago

They don't necessarily ban you from trains outright but ban you from the comfortable trains (the article mentions high-speed trains). A lot of these punishments seem targeted at the middle class and business people by forcing them to go down a peg or two if they don't abide by the rules. It's making them lose face, which is something very important in China.

echaozh 8y ago
Not high-speed trains, more like first class seats in the trains. Most of the people in the list refused to pay back debts, even though they got enough assets. If the people are actually too poor to pay, they should not be able to afford the first class seats anyway. That's the logic behind the rules.