4 ms·

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 a

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.

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.