3 ms·

Well I mean that pretty sincerely. I think people find it fun to be outraged. I don't think people genuinely care enough to learn who the involved parties are,

Well I mean that pretty sincerely. I think people find it fun to be outraged. I don't think people genuinely care enough to learn who the involved parties are, and make a sincere proposal on what went wrong.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Honestly, I have no idea why you would think that, or why you would expect "why don't you come up with a proposal?" to be met with anything other than incredulous fury. People come up with proposals on how to fix the system all of the time. If you haven't heard of them, that's due to a gap in your reading, not because proposals don't exist. The issue comes down to actually getting people in power who want to make these kinds of changes, something that doesn't happen very often.
- zug_zug 6y ago
  So then do you have the name of who in particular should be jailed for this opioid epidemic?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Richard Sackler, for starters. He's the former chairman of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, and investigative journalists have uncovered a boat load of paperwork showing that he personally pushed for marketing tactics that would result in addiction and death. The sudden exit of the entire Sackler family from the board and executive positions in 2018 reeks of wrongdoing too, especially since reports indicate that Richard continued to call the shots after resigning. Given that Purdue Pharma recently pleaded guilty to criminal charges, I suspect that various proprietorial offices should have enough evidence to get a subpoena of his personal records. But again, tons of people have researched this stuff. The problem is that I cannot personally bring a criminal charge against Richard Sackler. Which is why your "people just want to be mad on the internet" attitude is extremely obnoxious. The problem isn't that what needs to be done in these cases isn't known, the problem is that the people who have the power continue to do what we don't want them to do.
    - zug_zug 6y ago
      Well personally I've never heard of Richard Sackler before, but that's exactly what I was asking for. >> the problem is that the people who have the power continue to do what we don't want them to do. If an outraged public has clear alignment on what needs to happen, a lot of times this can force the hand of government. On the other hand, being unspecifically frustrated isn't enough. A lot of issues are very complex (e.g. bailout), and culpability is spread thin, and laws are limiting. If there isn't alignment on the facts, then some irrelevant figure will be scapegoated to sate the public anger.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        And here’s the crux of the problem; plenty of people have done the research on this stuff. You just never bothered to read any of it, and instead you had the gall to imply that the real problem is that a bunch of people on HN were too lazy to put together a proposal on what to do. A tad bit ironic, since you apparently don’t even know the names of the core actors in this problem, don’t you think? Yes, people are angry. Yes, people often scapegoat on complex issues. No, the actual problem is not that we just want to get angry without actually doing any of the work to propose a solution.
        zug_zug 6y ago
        >>> And here’s the crux of the problem; plenty of people have done the research on this stuff. You just never bothered to read any of it Exactly, thank you for proving my point. I, like 90% of Americans, do not care enough about the opioid epidemic to do any research. We care so little, that we don't even know Richard Sackler's name. I have a million things to care about in my personal life, and a million other pieces of news I could worry about instead. It's not a personal attack, I'm not sure why you're getting so offended about it, it's simply human nature. The other thing you seem not to grok is that if 90% of Americans said Richard Sackler needs to be prosecuted it would happen. However, maybe 10% of the population knows that name. So, in conclusion, back to my original point -- If you ever want more than 10% of the population to know the name, you have to bring him up in your discussions, because 90% of us don't care enough.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Honestly, I have no idea why you would think that, or why you would expect "why don't you come up with a proposal?" to be met with anything other than incredulous fury. People come up with proposals on how to fix the system all of the time. If you haven't heard of them, that's due to a gap in your reading, not because proposals don't exist. The issue comes down to actually getting people in power who want to make these kinds of changes, something that doesn't happen very often.

zug_zug 6y ago
So then do you have the name of who in particular should be jailed for this opioid epidemic?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Richard Sackler, for starters. He's the former chairman of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, and investigative journalists have uncovered a boat load of paperwork showing that he personally pushed for marketing tactics that would result in addiction and death. The sudden exit of the entire Sackler family from the board and executive positions in 2018 reeks of wrongdoing too, especially since reports indicate that Richard continued to call the shots after resigning. Given that Purdue Pharma recently pleaded guilty to criminal charges, I suspect that various proprietorial offices should have enough evidence to get a subpoena of his personal records. But again, tons of people have researched this stuff. The problem is that I cannot personally bring a criminal charge against Richard Sackler. Which is why your "people just want to be mad on the internet" attitude is extremely obnoxious. The problem isn't that what needs to be done in these cases isn't known, the problem is that the people who have the power continue to do what we don't want them to do.
  - zug_zug 6y ago
    Well personally I've never heard of Richard Sackler before, but that's exactly what I was asking for. >> the problem is that the people who have the power continue to do what we don't want them to do. If an outraged public has clear alignment on what needs to happen, a lot of times this can force the hand of government. On the other hand, being unspecifically frustrated isn't enough. A lot of issues are very complex (e.g. bailout), and culpability is spread thin, and laws are limiting. If there isn't alignment on the facts, then some irrelevant figure will be scapegoated to sate the public anger.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      And here’s the crux of the problem; plenty of people have done the research on this stuff. You just never bothered to read any of it, and instead you had the gall to imply that the real problem is that a bunch of people on HN were too lazy to put together a proposal on what to do. A tad bit ironic, since you apparently don’t even know the names of the core actors in this problem, don’t you think? Yes, people are angry. Yes, people often scapegoat on complex issues. No, the actual problem is not that we just want to get angry without actually doing any of the work to propose a solution.
      - zug_zug 6y ago
        >>> And here’s the crux of the problem; plenty of people have done the research on this stuff. You just never bothered to read any of it Exactly, thank you for proving my point. I, like 90% of Americans, do not care enough about the opioid epidemic to do any research. We care so little, that we don't even know Richard Sackler's name. I have a million things to care about in my personal life, and a million other pieces of news I could worry about instead. It's not a personal attack, I'm not sure why you're getting so offended about it, it's simply human nature. The other thing you seem not to grok is that if 90% of Americans said Richard Sackler needs to be prosecuted it would happen. However, maybe 10% of the population knows that name. So, in conclusion, back to my original point -- If you ever want more than 10% of the population to know the name, you have to bring him up in your discussions, because 90% of us don't care enough.