4 ms·

I don't remotely condone this but I do see how they'd want to punish someone for reneging on a social contract, thus making their efforts pointless, and since i

by Tenoke 5y ago

I don't remotely condone this but I do see how they'd want to punish someone for reneging on a social contract, thus making their efforts pointless, and since it's 4chan they went extremely disproportionate with the punishment.

toss1 5y ago
So perhaps these 4chan-ers who think disproportionate punishment appropriate should themselves experience some disproportionate punishment - e.g., handcuffs court dates, court costs, and jail time - Book 'em, and see how funny they & their parents think it is then. Just because you want to punish someone for 'breaking a social contract' does not give you free license to become judge, jury, and executioner with any penalty you feel like at the moment. The next step to that is maybe we feel like they are irredeemable sick f*ks already showing strong dark triad traits, and society is better off without them, so off with their heads. Since we can all dish out whatever penalty wwe feel like when we feel wronged, no problem, right?
- Tenoke 5y ago
  >So perhaps these 4chan-ers who think disproportionate punishment appropriate should themselves experience some disproportionate punishment - e.g., handcuffs court dates, court costs, and jail time - Book 'em, and see how funny they & their parents think it is then. That seems potentially proportionate but in general you seem to share (a lesser version of) their mindset - that disproportionate punishments are fine when it's against those who have wronged you.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    I'm not sure it is disproportionate. Death threats are felonies. You would only apply the penalties already on the books.
    - Tenoke 5y ago
      That was my (first) point, too though I am not sure if there were death threats - ctrl-f 'death' returned nothing on the issue, and surely he'd mention them while explaining the harassments.
      - jfengel 5y ago
        This case may or may not involve death threats, but a great many others do. They're very common. So common that he may not even have bothered to mention it. So I was speaking more generally. I believe that the FBI should start taking Internet death threats seriously, even though the fact is that the vast majority of them aren't. They have a serious chilling effect and are already felonies. All that would be needed would be the will to enforce existing laws. They're not prioritized because it would require a lot of work just to scare some kid (who would almost certainly be given little to no sentence). But the larger effect might be more significant.
        toss1 5y ago
        spot-on
  - toss1 5y ago
    Not so much. I'm trying to illustrate thae consequences of that view, and the results of applying standards resembling the 4chan-ers views to the 4chan-ers themselves. I.e., they see X as appropriate punishment, they should themselves be subject to X -- let them live by their own rules. Currently, they do not - they make their own rules, make all kinds of threats, and then just laugh about it on their chats in their basements. What is actually effective is highly reliable and under-proportionate penalties, but that would require massive tracking systems that almost none of us would be willing to even consider, much less implement. E.g., if every anti-social act resulted in a fine between $5-$500 (scaled for income/wealth so it wasn't just a license for rich ppl to be a*holes), it would rapidly decline. But it would require a nearly insane tracking and judicial system.

by Tenoke 5y ago

toss1 5y ago

So perhaps these 4chan-ers who think disproportionate punishment appropriate should themselves experience some disproportionate punishment - e.g., handcuffs court dates, court costs, and jail time - Book 'em, and see how funny they & their parents think it is then. Just because you want to punish someone for 'breaking a social contract' does not give you free license to become judge, jury, and executioner with any penalty you feel like at the moment. The next step to that is maybe we feel like they are irredeemable sick f*ks already showing strong dark triad traits, and society is better off without them, so off with their heads. Since we can all dish out whatever penalty wwe feel like when we feel wronged, no problem, right?

Tenoke 5y ago
>So perhaps these 4chan-ers who think disproportionate punishment appropriate should themselves experience some disproportionate punishment - e.g., handcuffs court dates, court costs, and jail time - Book 'em, and see how funny they & their parents think it is then. That seems potentially proportionate but in general you seem to share (a lesser version of) their mindset - that disproportionate punishments are fine when it's against those who have wronged you.
- jfengel 5y ago
  I'm not sure it is disproportionate. Death threats are felonies. You would only apply the penalties already on the books.
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    That was my (first) point, too though I am not sure if there were death threats - ctrl-f 'death' returned nothing on the issue, and surely he'd mention them while explaining the harassments.
    - jfengel 5y ago
      This case may or may not involve death threats, but a great many others do. They're very common. So common that he may not even have bothered to mention it. So I was speaking more generally. I believe that the FBI should start taking Internet death threats seriously, even though the fact is that the vast majority of them aren't. They have a serious chilling effect and are already felonies. All that would be needed would be the will to enforce existing laws. They're not prioritized because it would require a lot of work just to scare some kid (who would almost certainly be given little to no sentence). But the larger effect might be more significant.
      - toss1 5y ago
        spot-on
- toss1 5y ago
  Not so much. I'm trying to illustrate thae consequences of that view, and the results of applying standards resembling the 4chan-ers views to the 4chan-ers themselves. I.e., they see X as appropriate punishment, they should themselves be subject to X -- let them live by their own rules. Currently, they do not - they make their own rules, make all kinds of threats, and then just laugh about it on their chats in their basements. What is actually effective is highly reliable and under-proportionate penalties, but that would require massive tracking systems that almost none of us would be willing to even consider, much less implement. E.g., if every anti-social act resulted in a fine between $5-$500 (scaled for income/wealth so it wasn't just a license for rich ppl to be a*holes), it would rapidly decline. But it would require a nearly insane tracking and judicial system.