4 ms·

At least the attacker was willing to answer questions about how they were able to gain control.

by taborj 7y ago

moate 7y ago
That's a "yikes take" from me dawg. That's what's called "Self-justification". Helping your victim after victimizing them allows you to say "I'm not that bad, I'm helping make sure this doesn't happen again". This is a terrible person doing bad things to other people. He could donate all the money he makes selling the user name to orphans and it still doesn't really justify the behavior.
- leftyted 7y ago
  If I steal some old lady's purse, is it "self-justification" if I find some medication in it and return it to her while keeping the purse? I don't see any overt attempt at "justification" in these emails. The attacker wanted a very specific thing and, after he got it, he didn't do anything further. He even gave the victim some helpful information. That doesn't justify his actions but his behavior is clearly less reprehensible than it might have been. You seem to be saying, somewhat paradoxically, that the perpetrator wouldn't have committed the crime at all if he had been more malicious because then he would have had to truly reckon with the consequences of his actions. Maybe. Maybe theft would be less common if all thieves were compelled by some magical force to kill their victims. But that's not realistic and, besides, people commit far more malicious crimes than this without being deterred by the damage they're doing.
  - moate 7y ago
    >>If I steal some old lady's purse, is it "self-justification" if I find some medication in it and return it to her while keeping the purse? Yes. What I'm saying is trying to say "well at least he was nice enough to explain the security problems after extorting this man" isn't a helpful comment. It seems to imply that this isn't the worst thing this guy could have done. So what? Who cares? A bad thing was done and pointing out that a worse thing could have been done doesn't help anyone or anything. It's a bad take on the situation. >>You seem to be saying... No. IDK what that was, but that wasn't what I was saying at all. I don't think you really seem to be grasping the concept of what self-justification is, and how it's an enabling behavior to allow bad people to do bad things. The whole idea behind it is that the "clearly less reprehensible than it could have been" thought allows you to justify whatever bad things you do.
    - leftyted 7y ago
      > I don't think you really seem to be grasping the concept of what self-justification is I don't think you seem to be grasping your own argument very well and I'll leave it at that.
      - moate 7y ago
        Seems best
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      Um, I'm not sure people doing crimes need much additional self justification -- they are already heroes of their own stories, taking what is due to them, punishing the oppressor, harvesting from the marks, what have you. From society's point of view, allowing some leniency of judgement is probably beneficial on the net -- you don't get much more purses stolen, but you do get more pill bottles returned. (this is an empirical question actually, maybe there are social studies on the topic?) Consequences and intent matter. First because duh, second because it lets you predict (and therefore influence) the future.
      - moate 7y ago
        Would love to see some studies on this if someone can pull them on that specific style of law. >>Um, I'm not sure people doing crimes need much additional self justification... It doesn't work this way. They do need the additional self-justification. It's a constant stream of reinforcement. "Yea, I don't feel bad that I stole this rich asshole's twitter account because I used the money to feed some orphans and told him how to fix these problems in the future" is the self-justification. It's a constant establishment of why you're good in a relative fashion. It's something everyone does on all sorts of things, it's how everyone builds their worldview, and it's normal but that doesn't mean we should join in on it as outsiders and say things like "well at least he gave the guy some precautions for the future". >>From society's point of view, allowing some leniency of judgement is probably beneficial on the net... Maybe? I mean as a general statement, sure. But there are going to be specific situations where it isn't helpful. Also, there's a whole school of thought that says that it's more important that you minimize situations that would encourage criminal behavior rather than providing leniency in punishment after the fact. Better to eliminate the need to steal in order to provide for your family rather than create uneven enforcement by judges deciding where leniency should be exercised.

At least the attacker was willing to answer questions about how they were able to gain control.

by taborj 7y ago

At least the attacker was willing to answer questions about how they were able to gain control.

That's a "yikes take" from me dawg. That's what's called "Self-justification". Helping your victim after victimizing them allows you to say "I'm not that bad, I'm helping make sure this doesn't happen again". This is a terrible person doing bad things to other people. He could donate all the money he makes selling the user name to orphans and it still doesn't really justify the behavior.

leftyted 7y ago
If I steal some old lady's purse, is it "self-justification" if I find some medication in it and return it to her while keeping the purse? I don't see any overt attempt at "justification" in these emails. The attacker wanted a very specific thing and, after he got it, he didn't do anything further. He even gave the victim some helpful information. That doesn't justify his actions but his behavior is clearly less reprehensible than it might have been. You seem to be saying, somewhat paradoxically, that the perpetrator wouldn't have committed the crime at all if he had been more malicious because then he would have had to truly reckon with the consequences of his actions. Maybe. Maybe theft would be less common if all thieves were compelled by some magical force to kill their victims. But that's not realistic and, besides, people commit far more malicious crimes than this without being deterred by the damage they're doing.
- moate 7y ago
  >>If I steal some old lady's purse, is it "self-justification" if I find some medication in it and return it to her while keeping the purse? Yes. What I'm saying is trying to say "well at least he was nice enough to explain the security problems after extorting this man" isn't a helpful comment. It seems to imply that this isn't the worst thing this guy could have done. So what? Who cares? A bad thing was done and pointing out that a worse thing could have been done doesn't help anyone or anything. It's a bad take on the situation. >>You seem to be saying... No. IDK what that was, but that wasn't what I was saying at all. I don't think you really seem to be grasping the concept of what self-justification is, and how it's an enabling behavior to allow bad people to do bad things. The whole idea behind it is that the "clearly less reprehensible than it could have been" thought allows you to justify whatever bad things you do.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > I don't think you really seem to be grasping the concept of what self-justification is I don't think you seem to be grasping your own argument very well and I'll leave it at that.
    - moate 7y ago
      Seems best
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    Um, I'm not sure people doing crimes need much additional self justification -- they are already heroes of their own stories, taking what is due to them, punishing the oppressor, harvesting from the marks, what have you. From society's point of view, allowing some leniency of judgement is probably beneficial on the net -- you don't get much more purses stolen, but you do get more pill bottles returned. (this is an empirical question actually, maybe there are social studies on the topic?) Consequences and intent matter. First because duh, second because it lets you predict (and therefore influence) the future.
    - moate 7y ago
      Would love to see some studies on this if someone can pull them on that specific style of law. >>Um, I'm not sure people doing crimes need much additional self justification... It doesn't work this way. They do need the additional self-justification. It's a constant stream of reinforcement. "Yea, I don't feel bad that I stole this rich asshole's twitter account because I used the money to feed some orphans and told him how to fix these problems in the future" is the self-justification. It's a constant establishment of why you're good in a relative fashion. It's something everyone does on all sorts of things, it's how everyone builds their worldview, and it's normal but that doesn't mean we should join in on it as outsiders and say things like "well at least he gave the guy some precautions for the future". >>From society's point of view, allowing some leniency of judgement is probably beneficial on the net... Maybe? I mean as a general statement, sure. But there are going to be specific situations where it isn't helpful. Also, there's a whole school of thought that says that it's more important that you minimize situations that would encourage criminal behavior rather than providing leniency in punishment after the fact. Better to eliminate the need to steal in order to provide for your family rather than create uneven enforcement by judges deciding where leniency should be exercised.