6 ms·

> examples? Person A is accused of criminal act X. Person B: "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." Person C: "X-apologist!"

by johnr2 7y ago

matheusmoreira 7y ago
Stallman's resignation in a nutshell.
luckylion 7y ago
Are with hunts/trials really a new thing though? "She's a witch!" "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." "He defends the witch, he is with the devil!" (an old-timey "witch-apologist!")
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I don't know about others, but at least myself I felt there was a kind of "zeitgeist" of the 1990s/2000s-era Internet, that we're supposed to be above witch hunts and other similar stupidity. It feels as if new levels of idiocy were inserted into the Internet over the last decade.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    My guess is that that's just normality setting in. Back then, the internet wasn't for everybody, you didn't do "normal stuff" on it, it was a very separate domain. Today, the internet is about as special as a side walk, everybody is on it, you can do anything on it and all the normal people and all the normal problems have come along with the change. In society, witch hunts have been a thing for quite a while, I think the web mostly just didn't have the opportunities to show its witch hunting abilities in the early, pre-mainstream years.
bsanr2 7y ago
That's an unintentional effect of the fact that prosecutors only tend to charge people they believe are likely to have committed a crime. Therefore, merely charging someone is to some extent prejudicial. That's partly why burden of proof standards exist. To reassure someone of the efficacy of due process after a charge has been leveled is tantamount to announcing your personal view of guilt, given the nature of the system. It's like looking at a football game between evenly-matched Teams A and B (52-7, 4th quarter, 5 minutes left) and stating that the rules allow for Team B to come back. Well, yes, but my friend would be forgiven for expressing discontent at your implicit assertion that the refereeing has been fair that game.

> examples? Person A is accused of criminal act X. Person B: "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." Person C: "X-apologist!"

by johnr2 7y ago

> examples? Person A is accused of criminal act X. Person B: "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." Person C: "X-apologist!"

matheusmoreira 7y ago

Stallman's resignation in a nutshell.

luckylion 7y ago

Are with hunts/trials really a new thing though? "She's a witch!" "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." "He defends the witch, he is with the devil!" (an old-timey "witch-apologist!")

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I don't know about others, but at least myself I felt there was a kind of "zeitgeist" of the 1990s/2000s-era Internet, that we're supposed to be above witch hunts and other similar stupidity. It feels as if new levels of idiocy were inserted into the Internet over the last decade.
- luckylion 7y ago
  My guess is that that's just normality setting in. Back then, the internet wasn't for everybody, you didn't do "normal stuff" on it, it was a very separate domain. Today, the internet is about as special as a side walk, everybody is on it, you can do anything on it and all the normal people and all the normal problems have come along with the change. In society, witch hunts have been a thing for quite a while, I think the web mostly just didn't have the opportunities to show its witch hunting abilities in the early, pre-mainstream years.

bsanr2 7y ago

That's an unintentional effect of the fact that prosecutors only tend to charge people they believe are likely to have committed a crime. Therefore, merely charging someone is to some extent prejudicial. That's partly why burden of proof standards exist. To reassure someone of the efficacy of due process after a charge has been leveled is tantamount to announcing your personal view of guilt, given the nature of the system. It's like looking at a football game between evenly-matched Teams A and B (52-7, 4th quarter, 5 minutes left) and stating that the rules allow for Team B to come back. Well, yes, but my friend would be forgiven for expressing discontent at your implicit assertion that the refereeing has been fair that game.