7 ms·

“Urban terrorism” according to the incredibly foolish judge. Considering no one ever had a finger laid on them he would have a shock if he ever found out about

by noel99 5y ago

“Urban terrorism” according to the incredibly foolish judge. Considering no one ever had a finger laid on them he would have a shock if he ever found out about the IRA

bmsleight_ 5y ago
Not sure I feel comfortable with celebrating breaking the law. No one laid a finger - ok no physical violence. However some off the tactics used against people involved in activities you disagree with were not pleasant. I not sure I agree with the narrative that it is a victimless crime. On the other hand prison works rehabilitated in to society.
- noel99 5y ago
  Prison doesn’t work. At all. My views are more radical than ever. The lesson to learn is; never try to effect serious social change via peaceful means, go directly to illegal means, bypassing legal protest will mean the police won’t know who they are looking for. I can’t say I lose a seconds sleep over the “victims”, they are weak minded crybabies
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    What do you think could the prison system have done differently to make your views less radical and extreme?
    - noel99 5y ago
      Nothing, prison is a warehouse. Remember though all that occurred was property damaged and a level of intimidation that would make a person of sturdy character laugh, on the spectrum of political action it really was not that extreme
      - causality0 5y ago
        I don't think getting fake bombs in the mail would make anybody laugh regardless of their character.
        sweetbitter 5y ago
        Only more fragile types (people who care about and/or actually believe in mortality) wouldn't, I wager.
      - bmsleight_ 5y ago
        > level of intimidation that would make a person of sturdy character laugh The intent was for the intimidation to work, so regardless of how sturdy the character. Its hardly a victimless crime. Marching and demonstrating maybe not as effective, but I find it hard to celebrating trying to harm another person, regardless of how ineffective. Non-violence is a good way to change unjust laws, intimidation is not just.
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      This question somewhat trivializes the "radicals" and their "extreme" views and denies them agency. What would it take for you to change your strongly held views, "extreme" or otherwise? Who the fuck knows, right? But probably nothing formulaic and generalizable. So it is with others.
      - danuker 5y ago
        > But probably nothing formulaic and generalizable. I found the "Seek first to understand, then to be understood" rule in the 7 Habits book illuminating. If only government, lawmakers, and the electorate in general, understood it.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      How could a prison system ever really do that? It's a punishment. You learn that what you did before has consequences, not that it was wrong. Rehabilitating someone with "radical" ideas would involve acknowledging and challenging their ideas. That's not how rehabilitation really works even in theory - most rehabilitation is taking criminals who aren't ideologically motivated and solving the much simpler problems of educating them so that they can work.
      - GoodbyeMrChips 5y ago
        > How could a prison system ever really do that? It's a punishment. Reading this, I'd bet £1000 to spat out sweet you are US-American? Because elsewhere, most of the civilised world treats prison as rehabilitation.
        fennecfoxen 5y ago
        I'm quite curious: who counts as 'civilized' these days? Clearly not the UAE (we've just seen an article on Dubai debtors prisons on these pages) but it seems we'd need to take Japan off the list, for instance (see e.g. https://www.economist.com/asia/2015/12/03/silent-screams https://www.economist.com/asia/2015/12/03/silent-screams ) and if we have to take them off the list I'm not sure where we end up stopping
        Lio 5y ago
        The Netherland seems like a good bet. I look with envy at how they do a lot of things.
        eyelidlessness 5y ago
        Apart from the pissing contest of who has a better penal system, can anyone in this discussion show that there’s a system to imprison people which parts people with their strongly held moral beliefs and should do so?
        staticassertion 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - bmsleight_ 5y ago
    I do get that prison will not change your deeply held views. I am curious if the getting a job using the A-level, reduced your likelihood of reoffending, at the risk of your current job ?
    - danuker 5y ago
      > reduced your likelihood of reoffending Dear John Doe, Please inform us when and where you plan to infringe the law again. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, your government
    - noel99 5y ago
      The a level was just for fun. I did a masters in computer science from a too 3 UK university. Not that anyone has ever asked to see my degree certificate…
  - Quekid5 5y ago
    Very interesting. As far as I understand it, lengthy sentences don't work -- the likelihood of getting caught does. (I mean in a statistical sense. But I might have read this before the replication crisis, so caveat lector.) ... but also: Do you have any evidence of your claims? Literally any evidence of being who say you are?
    - noel99 5y ago
      No ofc not. Who knows who is reading this. I fly under the radar and I like it that way
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > the likelihood of getting caught does. This. Many crimes are barely enforced; I'm thinking of some kinds of moving-traffic offences such as using a phone while driving. Because it's not enforced, people keep doing it; so the government increases the fines. But increasing the fines has zero effect, if everyone knows the law isn't enforced.
  - vkk8 5y ago
    I don't think the point of prison is to change your views (the system doesn't care what your views are). It's to make you less likely to re-offend and the vast majority of people to not offend at all. I would guess that there are lots of people with radical views who never act on them exactly because they are afraid of the legal consequences (e.g. prison). This means the system has worked on them. EDIT: Not that I'm defending any particular prison system or making a moral statement here. In many countries the prison system is horrible and probably not even very optimal at preventing offences. It's just that in my mind the prison has one main purpose; to act as a deterrent for crime, and most of the time, for most of the population, it somewhat works for that purpose.
- primax 5y ago
  The law is not perfect, and often protects the wrong people doing the wrong thing. Peaceful protest is one of the things that allows average people to put pressure on the legislative and judicial system to change.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  Disclaimer: I’m not an animal rights activist. I have some overlapping politics and some disagreements. My intent isn’t to defend any particular action by GP, but to object to this more generally. > Not sure I feel comfortable with celebrating breaking the law. I don’t know where you live, forgive me if this comes off condescending. In the US, celebrating activism with illegal techniques is part of the fabric of our culture, institutional and even foundational. Approximately everyone is taught about: - the Boston Tea Party, and the Revolutionary War which that and similar actions ultimately precipitated - the Underground Railroad and other actions to smuggle slaves to their (relative) freedom - various illegal actions in the Civil Rights movement, from sit ins at segregated businesses to Rosa Parks’ refusal to sit in the back of the bus to Freedom Riders crossing all sorts of state/county lines to help ensure others’ access to polls There are of course other illegal actions which are less taught/known but nevertheless shaped our society in ways few could disagree with. We have strikers and work saboteurs to thank for the 5-day/40-hour work week. We have the Black Panthers to thank for breakfast and child care programs in schools, as well as the proliferation of community health clinics. Some of these were not non-violent actions, some of the actions taken in these contexts and others which moved us as a society forward were morally complicated. But at least from my historical perspective, I cannot justify deference to the law as a moral imperative. Sometimes, often even, it’s the law which is morally unacceptable. And the moral imperative is to go beyond it.
  - Galanwe 5y ago
    There's a difference between celebrating illegal activism after the fact, once the activists won, and celebrating ongoing activism.
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      Yeah there is a difference. But it’s a difference of courage, not one I’d be proud of. Edit: I don’t want to trivialize that courage either. Challenging power can be an incredible risk. Most people under most circumstances will choose to limit their risk no matter what the moral question. I’m honest enough to say, even though I’m not proud to, I haven’t taken all of the risks I wish I had.

by noel99 5y ago

“Urban terrorism” according to the incredibly foolish judge. Considering no one ever had a finger laid on them he would have a shock if he ever found out about the IRA

bmsleight_ 5y ago

Not sure I feel comfortable with celebrating breaking the law. No one laid a finger - ok no physical violence. However some off the tactics used against people involved in activities you disagree with were not pleasant. I not sure I agree with the narrative that it is a victimless crime. On the other hand prison works rehabilitated in to society.

noel99 5y ago
Prison doesn’t work. At all. My views are more radical than ever. The lesson to learn is; never try to effect serious social change via peaceful means, go directly to illegal means, bypassing legal protest will mean the police won’t know who they are looking for. I can’t say I lose a seconds sleep over the “victims”, they are weak minded crybabies
- missedthecue 5y ago
  What do you think could the prison system have done differently to make your views less radical and extreme?
  - noel99 5y ago
    Nothing, prison is a warehouse. Remember though all that occurred was property damaged and a level of intimidation that would make a person of sturdy character laugh, on the spectrum of political action it really was not that extreme
    - causality0 5y ago
      I don't think getting fake bombs in the mail would make anybody laugh regardless of their character.
      - sweetbitter 5y ago
        Only more fragile types (people who care about and/or actually believe in mortality) wouldn't, I wager.
    - bmsleight_ 5y ago
      > level of intimidation that would make a person of sturdy character laugh The intent was for the intimidation to work, so regardless of how sturdy the character. Its hardly a victimless crime. Marching and demonstrating maybe not as effective, but I find it hard to celebrating trying to harm another person, regardless of how ineffective. Non-violence is a good way to change unjust laws, intimidation is not just.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    This question somewhat trivializes the "radicals" and their "extreme" views and denies them agency. What would it take for you to change your strongly held views, "extreme" or otherwise? Who the fuck knows, right? But probably nothing formulaic and generalizable. So it is with others.
    - danuker 5y ago
      > But probably nothing formulaic and generalizable. I found the "Seek first to understand, then to be understood" rule in the 7 Habits book illuminating. If only government, lawmakers, and the electorate in general, understood it.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    How could a prison system ever really do that? It's a punishment. You learn that what you did before has consequences, not that it was wrong. Rehabilitating someone with "radical" ideas would involve acknowledging and challenging their ideas. That's not how rehabilitation really works even in theory - most rehabilitation is taking criminals who aren't ideologically motivated and solving the much simpler problems of educating them so that they can work.
    - GoodbyeMrChips 5y ago
      > How could a prison system ever really do that? It's a punishment. Reading this, I'd bet £1000 to spat out sweet you are US-American? Because elsewhere, most of the civilised world treats prison as rehabilitation.
      - fennecfoxen 5y ago
        I'm quite curious: who counts as 'civilized' these days? Clearly not the UAE (we've just seen an article on Dubai debtors prisons on these pages) but it seems we'd need to take Japan off the list, for instance (see e.g. https://www.economist.com/asia/2015/12/03/silent-screams https://www.economist.com/asia/2015/12/03/silent-screams ) and if we have to take them off the list I'm not sure where we end up stopping
        Lio 5y ago
        The Netherland seems like a good bet. I look with envy at how they do a lot of things.
        eyelidlessness 5y ago
        Apart from the pissing contest of who has a better penal system, can anyone in this discussion show that there’s a system to imprison people which parts people with their strongly held moral beliefs and should do so?
      - staticassertion 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bmsleight_ 5y ago
  I do get that prison will not change your deeply held views. I am curious if the getting a job using the A-level, reduced your likelihood of reoffending, at the risk of your current job ?
  - danuker 5y ago
    > reduced your likelihood of reoffending Dear John Doe, Please inform us when and where you plan to infringe the law again. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, your government
  - noel99 5y ago
    The a level was just for fun. I did a masters in computer science from a too 3 UK university. Not that anyone has ever asked to see my degree certificate…
- Quekid5 5y ago
  Very interesting. As far as I understand it, lengthy sentences don't work -- the likelihood of getting caught does. (I mean in a statistical sense. But I might have read this before the replication crisis, so caveat lector.) ... but also: Do you have any evidence of your claims? Literally any evidence of being who say you are?
  - noel99 5y ago
    No ofc not. Who knows who is reading this. I fly under the radar and I like it that way
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > the likelihood of getting caught does. This. Many crimes are barely enforced; I'm thinking of some kinds of moving-traffic offences such as using a phone while driving. Because it's not enforced, people keep doing it; so the government increases the fines. But increasing the fines has zero effect, if everyone knows the law isn't enforced.
- vkk8 5y ago
  I don't think the point of prison is to change your views (the system doesn't care what your views are). It's to make you less likely to re-offend and the vast majority of people to not offend at all. I would guess that there are lots of people with radical views who never act on them exactly because they are afraid of the legal consequences (e.g. prison). This means the system has worked on them. EDIT: Not that I'm defending any particular prison system or making a moral statement here. In many countries the prison system is horrible and probably not even very optimal at preventing offences. It's just that in my mind the prison has one main purpose; to act as a deterrent for crime, and most of the time, for most of the population, it somewhat works for that purpose.
primax 5y ago
The law is not perfect, and often protects the wrong people doing the wrong thing. Peaceful protest is one of the things that allows average people to put pressure on the legislative and judicial system to change.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
Disclaimer: I’m not an animal rights activist. I have some overlapping politics and some disagreements. My intent isn’t to defend any particular action by GP, but to object to this more generally. > Not sure I feel comfortable with celebrating breaking the law. I don’t know where you live, forgive me if this comes off condescending. In the US, celebrating activism with illegal techniques is part of the fabric of our culture, institutional and even foundational. Approximately everyone is taught about: - the Boston Tea Party, and the Revolutionary War which that and similar actions ultimately precipitated - the Underground Railroad and other actions to smuggle slaves to their (relative) freedom - various illegal actions in the Civil Rights movement, from sit ins at segregated businesses to Rosa Parks’ refusal to sit in the back of the bus to Freedom Riders crossing all sorts of state/county lines to help ensure others’ access to polls There are of course other illegal actions which are less taught/known but nevertheless shaped our society in ways few could disagree with. We have strikers and work saboteurs to thank for the 5-day/40-hour work week. We have the Black Panthers to thank for breakfast and child care programs in schools, as well as the proliferation of community health clinics. Some of these were not non-violent actions, some of the actions taken in these contexts and others which moved us as a society forward were morally complicated. But at least from my historical perspective, I cannot justify deference to the law as a moral imperative. Sometimes, often even, it’s the law which is morally unacceptable. And the moral imperative is to go beyond it.
- Galanwe 5y ago
  There's a difference between celebrating illegal activism after the fact, once the activists won, and celebrating ongoing activism.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    Yeah there is a difference. But it’s a difference of courage, not one I’d be proud of. Edit: I don’t want to trivialize that courage either. Challenging power can be an incredible risk. Most people under most circumstances will choose to limit their risk no matter what the moral question. I’m honest enough to say, even though I’m not proud to, I haven’t taken all of the risks I wish I had.