4 ms·

This is getting downvotes, but it is true Shkreli got his bail revoked for offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC.

by nprz 5y ago

happytoexplain 5y ago
You use the word "but", which implies some kind of inverse relationship between your clauses, but I don't see anything to indicate that.
gota 5y ago
If putting a bounty to harass a person is not a crime it absolutely should be IMHO The day he started that he should be put in jail regardless of being on bail
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC" Am I alone in seeing this as an act of a sophomoric troll rather than an actual bounty put on someone?
  - Joeboy 5y ago
    I wouldn't disagree with the former interpretation, but publicly offering thousands of dollars for something carries a real risk somebody will take you up on the offer.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      It's strange because I think if the same $5000/hair offering were made for an average person it would be much more serious. But in my mind someone who is so prominent and guarded by the Secret Service is in virtually no danger from such an outlandish thing. But I do understand how someone would see it the other way and not be comfortable with the risk at all.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    First, I think it can be both, and second, it's important to be careful around the common fallacious defense for shitty people where the implication is that they should not be judged or experience certain ramifications (legal or social) because "it's all just trolling", "for the luls", "you can't take what he/she says seriously", "it's your fault for getting offended", etc. There are certainly arguments to be made one way or the other in these cases, but one standout damning feature that's common to a lot of them (including this one) is that of public reception. If you encourage something, all that matters is how likely and severe the consequences of that are, regardless of whether you were "just trolling". If you're a famous and wealthy person with a cult of personality and a politically divided following (or even if you just hit a couple of those notes), it's your responsibility to not offer people thousands of dollars to get hair from your enemies, even under the (conveniently subjective) guise of sarcasm/joking.
- hereforphone 5y ago
  For how many years?
  - gota 5y ago
    Certainly less than thirty billion I think there are people whose jobs are to determine the appropriate punishment for criminal actions. They might be able to give you a tighter upper bound
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

This is getting downvotes, but it is true Shkreli got his bail revoked for offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC.

by nprz 5y ago

This is getting downvotes, but it is true Shkreli got his bail revoked for offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC.

happytoexplain 5y ago

You use the word "but", which implies some kind of inverse relationship between your clauses, but I don't see anything to indicate that.

gota 5y ago

If putting a bounty to harass a person is not a crime it absolutely should be IMHO The day he started that he should be put in jail regardless of being on bail

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC" Am I alone in seeing this as an act of a sophomoric troll rather than an actual bounty put on someone?
- Joeboy 5y ago
  I wouldn't disagree with the former interpretation, but publicly offering thousands of dollars for something carries a real risk somebody will take you up on the offer.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    It's strange because I think if the same $5000/hair offering were made for an average person it would be much more serious. But in my mind someone who is so prominent and guarded by the Secret Service is in virtually no danger from such an outlandish thing. But I do understand how someone would see it the other way and not be comfortable with the risk at all.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  First, I think it can be both, and second, it's important to be careful around the common fallacious defense for shitty people where the implication is that they should not be judged or experience certain ramifications (legal or social) because "it's all just trolling", "for the luls", "you can't take what he/she says seriously", "it's your fault for getting offended", etc. There are certainly arguments to be made one way or the other in these cases, but one standout damning feature that's common to a lot of them (including this one) is that of public reception. If you encourage something, all that matters is how likely and severe the consequences of that are, regardless of whether you were "just trolling". If you're a famous and wealthy person with a cult of personality and a politically divided following (or even if you just hit a couple of those notes), it's your responsibility to not offer people thousands of dollars to get hair from your enemies, even under the (conveniently subjective) guise of sarcasm/joking.
hereforphone 5y ago
For how many years?
- gota 5y ago
  Certainly less than thirty billion I think there are people whose jobs are to determine the appropriate punishment for criminal actions. They might be able to give you a tighter upper bound
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]