5 ms·

I think you are conflating two questions. 1) How do we not make things worse? 2) How do we solve the problem? My whole point has been regarding #1. There is

• tombert 3y ago
  Ok, but this is the point that I think we disagree; I would think that the "bad shuffle" is what we want? I think you would agree that grandmother spending her entire retirement on Google Play cards is a bad thing. Deliberately wasting their time guarantees that at least that scammer is not extracting money from some random person. I'm having trouble seeing how that's a bad thing; all these scambaiters are doing is kind of forcing the "bad shuffle". I think I must be misunderstanding because it genuinely seems to be that you're suggesting that the best course of action is to just let people get scammed for hundreds of thousands of dollars until there is a systemic solution. A systemic solution can take years, maybe decades.
  • bumby 3y ago
    >I think I must be misunderstanding It reads that we are speaking past each other and I think the misunderstanding comes from your consistent reframing as the choice between two bad outcomes. I've already commented that dichotomous thinking isn't helpful. So, again, I don't think there are only two options: a) let someone get scammed and b) let someone get abused. I think that kind of thinking is incompatible with finding good solutions. But...since you keep framing it that way...I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will. In a (falsely) dichotomously framed argument, there is a clear hierarchy. Physical safety trumps money. "My kingdom for a horse" and all that. I think the best option for the person in TFA is to get proactively involved in providing systemic solutions. If they aren't up for that, the next best option is to ignore the calls. I wouldn't even put the "scam the scammers" in the same discussion because, as we'd talked about ad nauseam, it's not really a solution and probably antithetical to a solution because it potentially makes things worse. Again, at the very least, we can not make things worse. You seem to be advocating for the "making things worse" choice because you've constrained yourself to only two options and you already decided that one is unacceptable.
    • tombert 3y ago
      > But...since you keep framing it that way...I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will. Ok, so there's actually a word for that, it's called "extortion". It's generally frowned upon. You have repeated that it's a "false dichotomy" like seven times now, but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem. "Get involved in providing systemic solutions" is absurd; what the hell does that even mean? I vote for politicians that might do something about it? I write a letter to the UN? Ok, so that's great, maybe I make a change.org petition while I'm at it. Maybe in twenty years something will actually get done. You also have not actually explained how things are "being made worse" by these scambaiters. I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused. It's very sad, I don't like them being abused, but what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted, and doesn't actually make any sense if taken to its logical extreme.
      • bumby 3y ago
        This will be my last reply because I've already responded to all those claims multiple times. I think the gist is we fundamentally disagree about this point: >"I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused." So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth? Okay, I guess, but I find it hard to believe. As long as you value money over physical safety, we probably will disagree. (I suspect it has more to do with psychological distance than really feeling that way. If, instead of some abstract person in a third world country, it was a loved family member at risk, would it change your response?) So, in that context, along with rehashing the points I've already addressed, your responses come across as either someone who makes sport of arguing for its own sake, or you're just incapable of accepting information when it's provided. E.g., >but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem. In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer" >what the hell does that even mean? I deliberately left it vague because it's up to you to decide what level of effort is reasonable given your value system. On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it. Even simply marking the call as spam is more reasonable IMO than actively increasing the risk of physical violence on someone being trafficked because it's of no consequence to you. There's plenty of wiggle room for each individual to figure out what works for them. Again, at the very least, I would argue they have a duty to not make things worse. Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree. There are many situations in life when doing nothing is the better option. >what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction. In the short-term, it makes them feel good because of our innate bias toward a sense of justice, but once you get past that bubble it's worse overall (my claim, which you obvious disagree with, but haven't really explained why). There is a certain arrogance in it which effectively says, "I am so very very smart, I will outwit this scammer for the lolz" while being oblivious to the larger consequences. My entire point is that people need to be aware of the larger consequences and it's pretty clear the subject of TFA is not. >if taken to its logical extreme. This is exactly what people with dichotomous thinking do. By not recognizing any grey, you are constraining yourself to only two extreme choices. I've explained why it does more harm. I've explained why it confuses what the real problem is. I've offered better options, both at the individual and nation-state level. There are some potentially reasonable philosophical reasons to disagree with those points, but you just bypass them like you never read them to begin with.