3 ms·

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 con

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
    > It's not a personal attack, I'm not sure why you're getting so offended about it, it's simply human nature. You directly told people here that it was their fault they’d not done the effort to do some research and propose something, and that they didn’t really care about this issue. If you don’t understand why people will respond very poorly to that, then my genuine sympathies go out to you, because that was a personal attack.
    - zug_zug 6y ago
      "I guess nobody actually cares THAT much. " You didn't get singled out, I think if you reread this thread in that context you'll see you're getting kinda emotional, but no worries bud.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

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
  > It's not a personal attack, I'm not sure why you're getting so offended about it, it's simply human nature. You directly told people here that it was their fault they’d not done the effort to do some research and propose something, and that they didn’t really care about this issue. If you don’t understand why people will respond very poorly to that, then my genuine sympathies go out to you, because that was a personal attack.
  - zug_zug 6y ago
    "I guess nobody actually cares THAT much. " You didn't get singled out, I think if you reread this thread in that context you'll see you're getting kinda emotional, but no worries bud.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]