4 ms·

Oddly, there are people out there who feel that exposing vicious government-employed predators is more important than preserving your blissful ignorance. At an

Oddly, there are people out there who feel that exposing vicious government-employed predators is more important than preserving your blissful ignorance. At any rate, one nice thing about the internet is that nobody will force you to click the links, so you can easily maintain your happy-bubble if you so choose.

imgabe 6y ago
There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations and have far more information about whatever happened who can mete out punishments if they are necessary. There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing. Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.
- bravoetch 6y ago
  I find your position disturbing. You prefer a police state over social accountability? Fuck. That.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    I have no idea how you managed to misinterpret my comment that badly. The existence of police does not imply a police state. You prefer lynch mobs over due process? Fuck that.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Nobody is forcing him to give up his rights over this incident, he isn’t going to jail, so calling it a “lynch mob” is disingenuous at best and a view-pushing exaggeration at worst. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean people have to like you for doing it, so what you say is a ‘lynch mob’ is just everyone collectively agreeing to not like someone for a few days.
      - imgabe 6y ago
        No it is not just "people being mad at you for a couple days". Even people who are famous for good reasons and generally well liked get stalkers, occasionally violent ones. Pointing the attention of a hundred million plus people at someone and telling them "this person is bad and evil" all but guarantees there will be some nonzero number of mentally unbalanced people who will take it too seriously. You might as well shove them in front of a bus. Why should you or I or anyone not directly involved need to like or dislike this person who has zero impact on our lives beyond a moment of amusement? If he committed crimes, I hope he goes to jail. But I don't have all the facts about that and I'm not on the jury so that isn't and shouldn't be up to me. And no, reading one news article does not constitute all the facts.
        judge2020 6y ago
        That's just a side effect of being in the news at all. Even before the internet was in everyone's pocket, celebrities had paparazzi and crazy stalkers. Bad people are going to do horrible things but that doesn't mean we should stop propagating all news thanks to them. You're basically advocating for a heckler's veto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto which specifically goes into violent reactions: > Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  > There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations Terrific. Let me know when the "police and the justice system and people" start investigating Rod Ponton's persistent and seemingly malevolent use of his vast prosecutorial power to destroy an innocent woman's life. > There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing. Go ahead and address your letter of complaint to reason.com. Let them know you object to their "lynching" of Rod Ponton, based on nothing more than thorough journalism and public records. > Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds. Perhaps you don't care enough to learn about the case, or even read an article about it. Maybe you relate to Rod Ponton and sympathize with him. Regardless, given your apparent inclination to defend him from scrutiny by people who do happen to care, the only sensible response I can muster is Fuck You. You're part of the problem.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Good idea. Let's get rid due process and the presumption of innocence, because you read an article about a jerk. Take a deep breath and calm yourself. Reading one news article does not make you a judge, jury, or an executioner. This isn't a comic book, you are not the Punisher who gets to make criminals pay on your own terms. It's highly disturbing that you view a desire for everyone (yes, even guilty people!) to have a fair trial before getting their life destroyed as a "problem" that I'm part of.
    - nate_meurer 6y ago
      As far as I can tell, nobody here is advocating that we "get rid of due process and the presumption of innocence". And I assure you that neither I nor the fine reporters who've covered this consider ourselves the Punisher :) What Rod Ponton did is not a matter of debate. It is in fact a matter of extensive public record. The legality of his actions on the other hand-- that is, whether they should be punishable under the law-- is a fair thing to debate, and I would certainly not wish to deprive Mr. Ponton of any of his legal rights whatsoever. Quite the contrary, I think we would all (except you apparently) like to see Rod Ponton brought to trial in a neutral venue with competent representation, an impartial judge, and a jury of his peers. Rather than, you know, being protected by the system that he feeds, hidden from the prying eyes of the media and, when noticed in random HN threads, defended by sanctimonious sympathizers such as yourself. Again, fuck you. I'm done with this.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Wait, you swung a bit too far. The lynch mob cancels for petty reasons, when there's even a victim, it's not quite the same.
- blueline 6y ago
  Must feel amazing to have so much faith that the justice system will hold those in power accountable for anything

imgabe 6y ago

There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations and have far more information about whatever happened who can mete out punishments if they are necessary. There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing. Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.

bravoetch 6y ago
I find your position disturbing. You prefer a police state over social accountability? Fuck. That.
- imgabe 6y ago
  I have no idea how you managed to misinterpret my comment that badly. The existence of police does not imply a police state. You prefer lynch mobs over due process? Fuck that.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Nobody is forcing him to give up his rights over this incident, he isn’t going to jail, so calling it a “lynch mob” is disingenuous at best and a view-pushing exaggeration at worst. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean people have to like you for doing it, so what you say is a ‘lynch mob’ is just everyone collectively agreeing to not like someone for a few days.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      No it is not just "people being mad at you for a couple days". Even people who are famous for good reasons and generally well liked get stalkers, occasionally violent ones. Pointing the attention of a hundred million plus people at someone and telling them "this person is bad and evil" all but guarantees there will be some nonzero number of mentally unbalanced people who will take it too seriously. You might as well shove them in front of a bus. Why should you or I or anyone not directly involved need to like or dislike this person who has zero impact on our lives beyond a moment of amusement? If he committed crimes, I hope he goes to jail. But I don't have all the facts about that and I'm not on the jury so that isn't and shouldn't be up to me. And no, reading one news article does not constitute all the facts.
      - judge2020 6y ago
        That's just a side effect of being in the news at all. Even before the internet was in everyone's pocket, celebrities had paparazzi and crazy stalkers. Bad people are going to do horrible things but that doesn't mean we should stop propagating all news thanks to them. You're basically advocating for a heckler's veto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto which specifically goes into violent reactions: > Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.
nate_meurer 6y ago
> There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations Terrific. Let me know when the "police and the justice system and people" start investigating Rod Ponton's persistent and seemingly malevolent use of his vast prosecutorial power to destroy an innocent woman's life. > There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing. Go ahead and address your letter of complaint to reason.com. Let them know you object to their "lynching" of Rod Ponton, based on nothing more than thorough journalism and public records. > Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds. Perhaps you don't care enough to learn about the case, or even read an article about it. Maybe you relate to Rod Ponton and sympathize with him. Regardless, given your apparent inclination to defend him from scrutiny by people who do happen to care, the only sensible response I can muster is Fuck You. You're part of the problem.
- imgabe 6y ago
  Good idea. Let's get rid due process and the presumption of innocence, because you read an article about a jerk. Take a deep breath and calm yourself. Reading one news article does not make you a judge, jury, or an executioner. This isn't a comic book, you are not the Punisher who gets to make criminals pay on your own terms. It's highly disturbing that you view a desire for everyone (yes, even guilty people!) to have a fair trial before getting their life destroyed as a "problem" that I'm part of.
  - nate_meurer 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, nobody here is advocating that we "get rid of due process and the presumption of innocence". And I assure you that neither I nor the fine reporters who've covered this consider ourselves the Punisher :) What Rod Ponton did is not a matter of debate. It is in fact a matter of extensive public record. The legality of his actions on the other hand-- that is, whether they should be punishable under the law-- is a fair thing to debate, and I would certainly not wish to deprive Mr. Ponton of any of his legal rights whatsoever. Quite the contrary, I think we would all (except you apparently) like to see Rod Ponton brought to trial in a neutral venue with competent representation, an impartial judge, and a jury of his peers. Rather than, you know, being protected by the system that he feeds, hidden from the prying eyes of the media and, when noticed in random HN threads, defended by sanctimonious sympathizers such as yourself. Again, fuck you. I'm done with this.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Wait, you swung a bit too far. The lynch mob cancels for petty reasons, when there's even a victim, it's not quite the same.
blueline 6y ago
Must feel amazing to have so much faith that the justice system will hold those in power accountable for anything