5 ms·

The thing that broke the camel's back was something that should never have happened in the first place. You don't get away without having committed a crime if y

The thing that broke the camel's back was something that should never have happened in the first place. You don't get away without having committed a crime if you "prank" someone by feeding them something they're allergic to, either; mental illness is not different from physical illness.

vmception 6y ago
> You don't get away without having committed a crime if you "prank" someone by feeding them something they're allergic to, either except in this analogy, Swartz was the one accused of committing a crime and wasn't getting away it, and the state actors are immune from criminal charges. not the best analogy?
- vertex-four 6y ago
  The alleged crime should not have been a crime; hence the post we're commenting on. State actors are, indeed, immune from criminal charges by definition, but that does not mean they are not culpable in the broader ethical sense. And even then, I'd argue strongly that given the amount of mental illness in our society, the state has a duty to ensure that their process of deciding whether to commit harm to someone does not commit undue harm in itself.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Which has nothing to do with elevating him into martyrdom. Most people just do the time. He committed suicide because his mental state was not compatible with self preservation. Not He committed suicide because of an overzealous district attorney operating under misguided laws. Yes, have the EFF try to dismantle the CFAA, yes, have the ACLU try to correct injustices. And then get judges to drop cases, or reopen cases, or get people's sentences commuted, etc. My actual opinion? I honestly find it insulting to elevate his action, compared to all the people that take the plea deals, or go to trial and lose. Since everyone can so readily explain why he is dead, why is Ross Ulbricht not dead? That obvious answer [to me] is because he didn't kill himself and Swartz did! What about all the people railroaded, the disproportionately black Americans imprisoned and serving long sentences, is there a study to be had on how some segment of America has a surprisingly strong self preservation instinct? If thats something we value, then it really could be an answer to mental health for the people that have surprisingly weak self preservation instincts. Let me know if people want to actually have that discussion yet, because suicide talk is surprisingly not nuanced, seemingly out of fear of seeming insensitive.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      Would you say of someone poisoned, "their physical state was not compatible with self preservation"? What if it was just a little poison that a perfectly healthy person could manage? Yes, a lot of people are harmed by the same system. Suicide is a particularly visible and obvious case of this; people can and do regularly bat off "N% of people wound up in jail for no reason" or "there's a high incidence of people needing mental healthcare after being accused of crimes" as "the system isn't perfect" and argue over how exactly we know that this was the cause, it's a lot harder to respond the same to "the state did something that they should've never done and this resulted in death". Although tbh you're managing just fine.
      - vmception 6y ago
        > "their physical state was not compatible with self preservation" I say that regarding the action of suicide exclusively, to illuminate the choices involved. Whereas someone poisoned, or someone with a severe allergic reaction to "just a little poison" did not have that choice. The other point of pointing out the choice is that our society clearly has a negative view of suicide, but doesn't consider how random motivational anti-suicide words don't address why people want to kill themselves. As in, perhaps it is a perfectly valid option. So, I say "if we want to prioritize self preservation", because its a big if, suggesting that if we understood it maybe we would come to a different conclusion. I say "not compatible with self preservation", because they might have a perfectly valid choice, and it is accurate that choice doesn't include living or our more familiar self-preservation instinct. I see this cognitive dissonance and misunderstanding all culminated into cases like Aaron Swartz. Where all the energy is directed in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. A college student playing around and getting the attention of an overzealous district attorney? The suicide is a complete non-sequitur and red herring. As a more recent example, a daytrader misunderstanding margin requirements but mostly user experience quirks, Robinhood is a red herring. To me, it is clear that your crusade is to illuminate the equivalence of mental health and physical health. That's a nice crusade too, we are agreeing in the sense that it should be more understood. My crusade is that we may come to conclusions that create a very different view of the choice of suicide: hypothesis to conclusion. Current suicide discussion and research is based around conforming things to a conclusion of suicide avoidance.

vmception 6y ago

> You don't get away without having committed a crime if you "prank" someone by feeding them something they're allergic to, either except in this analogy, Swartz was the one accused of committing a crime and wasn't getting away it, and the state actors are immune from criminal charges. not the best analogy?

vertex-four 6y ago
The alleged crime should not have been a crime; hence the post we're commenting on. State actors are, indeed, immune from criminal charges by definition, but that does not mean they are not culpable in the broader ethical sense. And even then, I'd argue strongly that given the amount of mental illness in our society, the state has a duty to ensure that their process of deciding whether to commit harm to someone does not commit undue harm in itself.
- vmception 6y ago
  Which has nothing to do with elevating him into martyrdom. Most people just do the time. He committed suicide because his mental state was not compatible with self preservation. Not He committed suicide because of an overzealous district attorney operating under misguided laws. Yes, have the EFF try to dismantle the CFAA, yes, have the ACLU try to correct injustices. And then get judges to drop cases, or reopen cases, or get people's sentences commuted, etc. My actual opinion? I honestly find it insulting to elevate his action, compared to all the people that take the plea deals, or go to trial and lose. Since everyone can so readily explain why he is dead, why is Ross Ulbricht not dead? That obvious answer [to me] is because he didn't kill himself and Swartz did! What about all the people railroaded, the disproportionately black Americans imprisoned and serving long sentences, is there a study to be had on how some segment of America has a surprisingly strong self preservation instinct? If thats something we value, then it really could be an answer to mental health for the people that have surprisingly weak self preservation instincts. Let me know if people want to actually have that discussion yet, because suicide talk is surprisingly not nuanced, seemingly out of fear of seeming insensitive.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    Would you say of someone poisoned, "their physical state was not compatible with self preservation"? What if it was just a little poison that a perfectly healthy person could manage? Yes, a lot of people are harmed by the same system. Suicide is a particularly visible and obvious case of this; people can and do regularly bat off "N% of people wound up in jail for no reason" or "there's a high incidence of people needing mental healthcare after being accused of crimes" as "the system isn't perfect" and argue over how exactly we know that this was the cause, it's a lot harder to respond the same to "the state did something that they should've never done and this resulted in death". Although tbh you're managing just fine.
    - vmception 6y ago
      > "their physical state was not compatible with self preservation" I say that regarding the action of suicide exclusively, to illuminate the choices involved. Whereas someone poisoned, or someone with a severe allergic reaction to "just a little poison" did not have that choice. The other point of pointing out the choice is that our society clearly has a negative view of suicide, but doesn't consider how random motivational anti-suicide words don't address why people want to kill themselves. As in, perhaps it is a perfectly valid option. So, I say "if we want to prioritize self preservation", because its a big if, suggesting that if we understood it maybe we would come to a different conclusion. I say "not compatible with self preservation", because they might have a perfectly valid choice, and it is accurate that choice doesn't include living or our more familiar self-preservation instinct. I see this cognitive dissonance and misunderstanding all culminated into cases like Aaron Swartz. Where all the energy is directed in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. A college student playing around and getting the attention of an overzealous district attorney? The suicide is a complete non-sequitur and red herring. As a more recent example, a daytrader misunderstanding margin requirements but mostly user experience quirks, Robinhood is a red herring. To me, it is clear that your crusade is to illuminate the equivalence of mental health and physical health. That's a nice crusade too, we are agreeing in the sense that it should be more understood. My crusade is that we may come to conclusions that create a very different view of the choice of suicide: hypothesis to conclusion. Current suicide discussion and research is based around conforming things to a conclusion of suicide avoidance.