6 ms·

So when injustice is banal, we should just ignore it?

tptacek 4y ago
No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it.
- OnlineGladiator 4y ago
  It's not about making a point. It's about equality. And I disagree directly with what you're saying anyway, because by lowering the standards for the rich we might actually see a push by influential people to raise the standards for everyone.
  - gameman144 4y ago
    But if you're pushing to lower standards for the rich for the sole purpose of then raising the standards for everyone else... why not just skip the first step and go straight to raising the standards for everyone else?
    - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
      I never said or implied otherwise.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Then what are you talking about? We all agree: every nonviolent offender should be treated at least as well as SBF is. Treating SBF worse doesn't make anything better or more just. Which was the point I just made upthread.
        OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        There's how everybody should be treated and there's how everybody is treated. I was pointing out why lowering the standards for the rich would likely lead to better standards for everyone because we live in a bifurcated society. It would be nice if we didn't, but we do. I disagree that the rich should be treated better than the poor and advocate for helping the masses, not the elite. If making the elite suffer helps the masses then I'm all for it.
        tptacek 4y ago
        You just one comment ago said "I never said or implied otherwise" when it was suggested that deliberately mistreating people wasn't a fix for the injustice here, but apparently you just forgot the word "yet".
        OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        > why not just skip the first step and go straight to raising the standards for everyone else? I was responding to this part of that comment, meaning I agree it would be better to have the same high standards for everyone. But that's ideally, the question is how do we get there? If we can get there without lowering standards for the rich I'm all for it. I'm not advocating for the correct solution to this because I don't know what it is. I was only responding to what you said: > No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it. By pointing out that I disagree, I think it would actually make the system better overall when you consider compounding effects.
        yterdy 4y ago
        But you're likely wrong, per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34812910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34812910 and the way that systemic change is often achieved after a prominent and influential figure is treated badly by a dysfunctional system or status quo. Or are you saying that that never happens? An answer, rather than just a bad-faith downvote, please.
- yterdy 4y ago
  On the contrary, I imagine that it would have been extremely effective to have SBF rot in prison for a little while. Things get fixed when rich people suffer. Strings get pulled; favors are called in; the person (or family of the deceased), eyes newly opened to the troubles of the world, advocate for better conditions/treatment; and before you know it, laws have changed and norms have been updated. Magic Johnson and HIV; Caitlyn Jenner and trans rights; any number of organizations and foundations aimed at ending [disease someone wealthy was affected by]; uh, Stanford.
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    Exactly. At least they could've played dumb with his extradition for a few months, let him get accustomed to Fox Hill while they prepare the case against him ... but the jet was waiting for him the very next day. No shame.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      You think it would have been a better play for the DOJ to leave SBF out of their jurisdiction for months, so that he could avoid making bail?
      - moralestapia 4y ago
        Maybe, yes, I don't think it would make a big difference if he is in the states or not. Actually, I'm sure back there in the Bahamas they wouldn't allow him to have internet access and he wouldn't have tried to coerce some of the witnesses as he did now.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    >I imagine that it would have been extremely effective to have SBF rot in prison for a little while So you want to hurt people not yet convicted because why? That is the most American thing I've read today.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  Advocating for equal treatment is hardly advocating for "deliberate abuse".
giraffe_lady 4y ago
you kinda hit the unofficial motto of hn tbh

No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it.

OnlineGladiator 4y ago
It's not about making a point. It's about equality. And I disagree directly with what you're saying anyway, because by lowering the standards for the rich we might actually see a push by influential people to raise the standards for everyone.
- gameman144 4y ago
  But if you're pushing to lower standards for the rich for the sole purpose of then raising the standards for everyone else... why not just skip the first step and go straight to raising the standards for everyone else?
  - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
    I never said or implied otherwise.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Then what are you talking about? We all agree: every nonviolent offender should be treated at least as well as SBF is. Treating SBF worse doesn't make anything better or more just. Which was the point I just made upthread.
      - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        There's how everybody should be treated and there's how everybody is treated. I was pointing out why lowering the standards for the rich would likely lead to better standards for everyone because we live in a bifurcated society. It would be nice if we didn't, but we do. I disagree that the rich should be treated better than the poor and advocate for helping the masses, not the elite. If making the elite suffer helps the masses then I'm all for it.
        tptacek 4y ago
        You just one comment ago said "I never said or implied otherwise" when it was suggested that deliberately mistreating people wasn't a fix for the injustice here, but apparently you just forgot the word "yet".
        OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        > why not just skip the first step and go straight to raising the standards for everyone else? I was responding to this part of that comment, meaning I agree it would be better to have the same high standards for everyone. But that's ideally, the question is how do we get there? If we can get there without lowering standards for the rich I'm all for it. I'm not advocating for the correct solution to this because I don't know what it is. I was only responding to what you said: > No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it. By pointing out that I disagree, I think it would actually make the system better overall when you consider compounding effects.
      - yterdy 4y ago
        But you're likely wrong, per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34812910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34812910 and the way that systemic change is often achieved after a prominent and influential figure is treated badly by a dysfunctional system or status quo. Or are you saying that that never happens? An answer, rather than just a bad-faith downvote, please.
yterdy 4y ago
On the contrary, I imagine that it would have been extremely effective to have SBF rot in prison for a little while. Things get fixed when rich people suffer. Strings get pulled; favors are called in; the person (or family of the deceased), eyes newly opened to the troubles of the world, advocate for better conditions/treatment; and before you know it, laws have changed and norms have been updated. Magic Johnson and HIV; Caitlyn Jenner and trans rights; any number of organizations and foundations aimed at ending [disease someone wealthy was affected by]; uh, Stanford.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  Exactly. At least they could've played dumb with his extradition for a few months, let him get accustomed to Fox Hill while they prepare the case against him ... but the jet was waiting for him the very next day. No shame.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You think it would have been a better play for the DOJ to leave SBF out of their jurisdiction for months, so that he could avoid making bail?
    - moralestapia 4y ago
      Maybe, yes, I don't think it would make a big difference if he is in the states or not. Actually, I'm sure back there in the Bahamas they wouldn't allow him to have internet access and he wouldn't have tried to coerce some of the witnesses as he did now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- SideQuark 4y ago
  >I imagine that it would have been extremely effective to have SBF rot in prison for a little while So you want to hurt people not yet convicted because why? That is the most American thing I've read today.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
Advocating for equal treatment is hardly advocating for "deliberate abuse".

giraffe_lady 4y ago

you kinda hit the unofficial motto of hn tbh