3 ms·

It doesn’t seem like you actually care about this but if you do, it is important to have a sympathetic face to get public support. There is a reason Rosa Parks

It doesn’t seem like you actually care about this but if you do, it is important to have a sympathetic face to get public support. There is a reason Rosa Parks was chosen as the face of the bus boycott. SBF is never going to be the face of prison reform so acting antagonistically to people online not giving him sympathy probably won’t help prison reform.

jrflowers 3y ago
I like this article because the author chose an unpopular person. The majority of the comments are highbrow versions “ROFL eat bread bitch”, which is illustrative of a large and vocal group of people that believe that basic dignity should be punitively stripped by the state in the case of criminal behavior (of which they could never even be accused)
- labrador 3y ago
  How many chances do you think a wealthy man from an upper class family should get? He's already burned through more considerations than poor people ever get. Do you understand the concept of deterrence? He's being made an example. SBF is getting body slammed with the harsh reality of the consequences of white collar criminal behavior to serve as a lesson to all the other potential white collar criminals out there. The message is that it doesn't matter if you are wealthy and come from a connected family. The rules apply to everyone.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    > How many chances do you think a wealthy man from an upper class family should get? I have a question. Do you see any difference between the following two sentences? 1. The conditions that SBF is in could be experienced by any person accused of a crime in the US. And 2. SBF should not be in jail. I have not said anything that could possibly be construed as #2 but it seems like you are asking me why I said that? Edit: I do appreciate the honesty in stating that you believe that this sort of treatment of prisoners is a good thing. If nobody admitted that they felt that way, the mystery of why we treat people that are accused of crime terribly would forever remain a black box. It is, however, genuinely amusing that people think that he’s getting treated Extra Bad because he’s an Extra Bad Guy. Buddy, jail, not prison but jail is the place that you could find yourself tonight without a judge or jury. The only requirement for jail is probable cause or an officer having a bad day. You (the person inside the US reading this) could have your diet dictated and medication punitively taken away by the state while you are reading this sentence.
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      > Buddy, jail, not prison but jail is the place that you could find yourself tonight without a judge or jury. The only requirement for jail is probable cause or an officer having a bad day. Ignoring the snark tone - Yes, exactly! Those people exist, so shine a light on their cases to garner sympathy, support and mindshare towards reform. It would be infinitely easier to sympathize with someone who's actually being treated unfairly. I'd go further and say that writing about the "woes" of SBF is insulting to anyone's who's actually suffering from unfair treatment. Trying to use SBF as the poster child of unfair treatment is frankly delusional. If you want to come across as genuine, write about the working class people whose stories would never see the light of day without someone taking a closer look, not the "woes" of a billionaire kid who's crossed every single boundary that's ever been set for him, who's interfered with justice process, and is now complaining about having to eat peanut butter because he refuses more nutritious food.
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        The purpose of using SBF as an example is not to paint him as a victim in need of help. It is a useful exercise that invites the people that are ideologically opposed to the idea of humane treatment in prisons to pop up and voice their reasoning for force feeding vegans meat and denying people prescribed medication. > so shine a light on their cases to garner sympathy, support and mindshare towards reform. And > now complaining about having to eat peanut butter because he refuses more nutritious food. Are incompatible statements. In your final sentence you literally say that the problem is not the availability for vegans to have access to their diet. You cannot logically claim to care about jails providing reasonable diets to prisoners while simultaneously placing the blame squarely on a prisoner. You either think that the state punitively denying someone a reasonable diet and prescription medication is a good thing or a bad thing. There is no inbetween. Even if you use “deterrent” style rhetoric to lend legitimacy to your personal enjoyment of seeing somebody you dislike suffer, you are still pointing at the state punitively denying people access to reasonable diet accommodation and prescription medication and saying “This is a good thing.” Like, it’s kind of funny that you’re giving me tips on how to better illustrate this problem to people that are against inhumane treatment in jails. You’re not even the audience for such a thing because you are ideologically in favor of the phenomenon.

jrflowers 3y ago

I like this article because the author chose an unpopular person. The majority of the comments are highbrow versions “ROFL eat bread bitch”, which is illustrative of a large and vocal group of people that believe that basic dignity should be punitively stripped by the state in the case of criminal behavior (of which they could never even be accused)

labrador 3y ago
How many chances do you think a wealthy man from an upper class family should get? He's already burned through more considerations than poor people ever get. Do you understand the concept of deterrence? He's being made an example. SBF is getting body slammed with the harsh reality of the consequences of white collar criminal behavior to serve as a lesson to all the other potential white collar criminals out there. The message is that it doesn't matter if you are wealthy and come from a connected family. The rules apply to everyone.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  > How many chances do you think a wealthy man from an upper class family should get? I have a question. Do you see any difference between the following two sentences? 1. The conditions that SBF is in could be experienced by any person accused of a crime in the US. And 2. SBF should not be in jail. I have not said anything that could possibly be construed as #2 but it seems like you are asking me why I said that? Edit: I do appreciate the honesty in stating that you believe that this sort of treatment of prisoners is a good thing. If nobody admitted that they felt that way, the mystery of why we treat people that are accused of crime terribly would forever remain a black box. It is, however, genuinely amusing that people think that he’s getting treated Extra Bad because he’s an Extra Bad Guy. Buddy, jail, not prison but jail is the place that you could find yourself tonight without a judge or jury. The only requirement for jail is probable cause or an officer having a bad day. You (the person inside the US reading this) could have your diet dictated and medication punitively taken away by the state while you are reading this sentence.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    > Buddy, jail, not prison but jail is the place that you could find yourself tonight without a judge or jury. The only requirement for jail is probable cause or an officer having a bad day. Ignoring the snark tone - Yes, exactly! Those people exist, so shine a light on their cases to garner sympathy, support and mindshare towards reform. It would be infinitely easier to sympathize with someone who's actually being treated unfairly. I'd go further and say that writing about the "woes" of SBF is insulting to anyone's who's actually suffering from unfair treatment. Trying to use SBF as the poster child of unfair treatment is frankly delusional. If you want to come across as genuine, write about the working class people whose stories would never see the light of day without someone taking a closer look, not the "woes" of a billionaire kid who's crossed every single boundary that's ever been set for him, who's interfered with justice process, and is now complaining about having to eat peanut butter because he refuses more nutritious food.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      The purpose of using SBF as an example is not to paint him as a victim in need of help. It is a useful exercise that invites the people that are ideologically opposed to the idea of humane treatment in prisons to pop up and voice their reasoning for force feeding vegans meat and denying people prescribed medication. > so shine a light on their cases to garner sympathy, support and mindshare towards reform. And > now complaining about having to eat peanut butter because he refuses more nutritious food. Are incompatible statements. In your final sentence you literally say that the problem is not the availability for vegans to have access to their diet. You cannot logically claim to care about jails providing reasonable diets to prisoners while simultaneously placing the blame squarely on a prisoner. You either think that the state punitively denying someone a reasonable diet and prescription medication is a good thing or a bad thing. There is no inbetween. Even if you use “deterrent” style rhetoric to lend legitimacy to your personal enjoyment of seeing somebody you dislike suffer, you are still pointing at the state punitively denying people access to reasonable diet accommodation and prescription medication and saying “This is a good thing.” Like, it’s kind of funny that you’re giving me tips on how to better illustrate this problem to people that are against inhumane treatment in jails. You’re not even the audience for such a thing because you are ideologically in favor of the phenomenon.