3 ms·

This depends on the kid, doesn’t it? > I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17.

This depends on the kid, doesn’t it? > I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17. For example, being forced to confront the consequences of their actions at 17 when the punishment is lesser and likely to include diversion or similar might have prevented them from committing a similar crime when older and receiving a harsher penalty — which in your empathy, you ensured would happen by refusing to punish them. Their practice and willingness to use force, as described in your referenced comment, indicates this isn’t their first time committing such a crime. By normalizing that crime wouldn’t be punished, you created a worse situation. You can see similar unfolding at scale in major US cities, where crime (particularly theft) skyrocketed — and intensified, eg the recent subway burnings in NYC. Without enforcing norms, they break down. A good heuristic for me is “what happens when everybody behaves that way?” In this case, it leads to society degrading.

tombert 2y ago
Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that this would go to grownup court and they’d be given the full consequences. “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison. I think it is extremely naive to think that sending someone to an American prison will create anything but a worse felon. This isn’t Norway, American prisons are purely punitive. I don’t know which stats you’re referring to, but I highly doubt that “yuppies not pressing charges against children stealing two year old iPhones” is a significant cause of a crime uptake.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  > “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. People call it “toxic empathy” not because empathy is inherently wrong, but because it leads to people such as yourself minimizing the use of force in a crime (which you admit this was) while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. > Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”. > I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison. These both sounds like you’re rationalizing an emotive decision, post hoc. > I think it is extremely naive to think that sending someone to an American prison will create anything but a worse felon. This isn’t Norway, American prisons are purely punitive. They likely would’ve negotiated a plea for a misdemeanor and treatment on a first offense, in the US. Even first time lower felonies result in supervised probation and mandatory treatment, eg, the recommended outcome for drug felonies. Again, you seem to be focusing entirely on your feelings — without an honest account of either the likely outcome of prosecution, the criminal’s future (having normalized violent robberies), or their future victims. This is why it’s called “toxic empathy”: because you’re soothing your own feelings without engaging in rational analysis nor true empathy, eg, by understanding that sometimes criminals turn their lives around because they’re punished or that future victims deserve your care also.
  - tombert 2y ago
    No, you’re making a lot of assertions here that are not founded. > while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. Actually that’s not what I did. I didn’t really concede them “using force”, a light shove really isn’t “force” any more than an asshole pushing his way onto the subway is “using force”, and I said in sibling comments that I would have pressed charges if I genuinely thought that there was any real risk of danger on my end. And again, I absolutely do not concede that putting a kid through the system is automatically going to lead to better results. > These both sounds like you’re rationalizing an emotive decision, post hoc. I am not rationalizing a decision “post hoc”, because that was literally the decision making process that was being employed when I was given the option to press charges. You can say it was dumb, that’s fine, but it’s not “post hoc”, because it’s not “post”. > you’re soothing your own feelings without engaging in rational analysis nor true empathy, eg, by understanding that sometimes criminals turn their lives around because they’re punished or that future victims deserve your care also. That can happen, but that’s not usually what happens when people get put through the system. You have no reason to think that bureaucratically punishing a child is going to force them to turn their life around. You’re asserting it. I do not agree with your characterization of my character as “toxic empathy”. Frankly I find this line of thinking pretty tiring, with people pretending that they care about abstract “future victims”, that may or may not exist, as a means of LARPing empathy.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      You ignored the expected outcomes to emphasize your emotional rationalization based on “jailing a child”. That was never likely to happen, based on how US law works. For theft, even felony theft, you’re usually talking about supervised probation on a first offense — the same as felony drug offenses. There’s a whole chart of proscribed sentences based on offense and contributing factors. > That can happen, but that’s not usually what happens when people get put through the system. But that’s not the relevant question, eg, you’re ignoring the fact most thieves don’t stop because someone declined to prosecute them, either. You’re holding me to standards you didn’t apply to yourself. The relevant question is — “for serial criminals who later stopped, what caused them to?” In many cases, being jailed does stop their repeated criminality or stop the pathway of escalation. By contrast, there’s also many people who because they’re not punished, continue to escalate until they commit a violent offense and the state is forced to jail them. > Frankly I find this line of thinking pretty tiring, with people pretending that they care about abstract “future victims”, that may or may not exist, as a means of LARPing empathy. We’re discussing practiced criminals who likely offended before and will again — and who were physically aggressive with their victim. You’re accusing me of “LARPing” empathy, but you’re showing time after time you’re not engaging in empathy (either understanding the thieves nor concern about victims), but soothing your emotions. That you don’t think future victims matter or people are genuinely concerned about them speaks to your own lack of empathy — both in general (ie, you can’t imagine how the person who stole from you might harm someone else and that person might be hurt) and in particular (ie, you can’t imagine how I’d genuinely be concerned about other victims, because that’s not how you feel). You’re the one LARPing empathy to cover for your toxic emotionally driven conduct.
- sugarplant 2y ago
  the irony in calling someone "extremely naive" while talking about a 17 year old getting prison time for snatching a phone. on top of the rest of the posts

tombert 2y ago

Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that this would go to grownup court and they’d be given the full consequences. “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison. I think it is extremely naive to think that sending someone to an American prison will create anything but a worse felon. This isn’t Norway, American prisons are purely punitive. I don’t know which stats you’re referring to, but I highly doubt that “yuppies not pressing charges against children stealing two year old iPhones” is a significant cause of a crime uptake.

zmgsabst 2y ago
> “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. People call it “toxic empathy” not because empathy is inherently wrong, but because it leads to people such as yourself minimizing the use of force in a crime (which you admit this was) while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. > Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”. > I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison. These both sounds like you’re rationalizing an emotive decision, post hoc. > I think it is extremely naive to think that sending someone to an American prison will create anything but a worse felon. This isn’t Norway, American prisons are purely punitive. They likely would’ve negotiated a plea for a misdemeanor and treatment on a first offense, in the US. Even first time lower felonies result in supervised probation and mandatory treatment, eg, the recommended outcome for drug felonies. Again, you seem to be focusing entirely on your feelings — without an honest account of either the likely outcome of prosecution, the criminal’s future (having normalized violent robberies), or their future victims. This is why it’s called “toxic empathy”: because you’re soothing your own feelings without engaging in rational analysis nor true empathy, eg, by understanding that sometimes criminals turn their lives around because they’re punished or that future victims deserve your care also.
- tombert 2y ago
  No, you’re making a lot of assertions here that are not founded. > while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. Actually that’s not what I did. I didn’t really concede them “using force”, a light shove really isn’t “force” any more than an asshole pushing his way onto the subway is “using force”, and I said in sibling comments that I would have pressed charges if I genuinely thought that there was any real risk of danger on my end. And again, I absolutely do not concede that putting a kid through the system is automatically going to lead to better results. > These both sounds like you’re rationalizing an emotive decision, post hoc. I am not rationalizing a decision “post hoc”, because that was literally the decision making process that was being employed when I was given the option to press charges. You can say it was dumb, that’s fine, but it’s not “post hoc”, because it’s not “post”. > you’re soothing your own feelings without engaging in rational analysis nor true empathy, eg, by understanding that sometimes criminals turn their lives around because they’re punished or that future victims deserve your care also. That can happen, but that’s not usually what happens when people get put through the system. You have no reason to think that bureaucratically punishing a child is going to force them to turn their life around. You’re asserting it. I do not agree with your characterization of my character as “toxic empathy”. Frankly I find this line of thinking pretty tiring, with people pretending that they care about abstract “future victims”, that may or may not exist, as a means of LARPing empathy.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    You ignored the expected outcomes to emphasize your emotional rationalization based on “jailing a child”. That was never likely to happen, based on how US law works. For theft, even felony theft, you’re usually talking about supervised probation on a first offense — the same as felony drug offenses. There’s a whole chart of proscribed sentences based on offense and contributing factors. > That can happen, but that’s not usually what happens when people get put through the system. But that’s not the relevant question, eg, you’re ignoring the fact most thieves don’t stop because someone declined to prosecute them, either. You’re holding me to standards you didn’t apply to yourself. The relevant question is — “for serial criminals who later stopped, what caused them to?” In many cases, being jailed does stop their repeated criminality or stop the pathway of escalation. By contrast, there’s also many people who because they’re not punished, continue to escalate until they commit a violent offense and the state is forced to jail them. > Frankly I find this line of thinking pretty tiring, with people pretending that they care about abstract “future victims”, that may or may not exist, as a means of LARPing empathy. We’re discussing practiced criminals who likely offended before and will again — and who were physically aggressive with their victim. You’re accusing me of “LARPing” empathy, but you’re showing time after time you’re not engaging in empathy (either understanding the thieves nor concern about victims), but soothing your emotions. That you don’t think future victims matter or people are genuinely concerned about them speaks to your own lack of empathy — both in general (ie, you can’t imagine how the person who stole from you might harm someone else and that person might be hurt) and in particular (ie, you can’t imagine how I’d genuinely be concerned about other victims, because that’s not how you feel). You’re the one LARPing empathy to cover for your toxic emotionally driven conduct.
sugarplant 2y ago
the irony in calling someone "extremely naive" while talking about a 17 year old getting prison time for snatching a phone. on top of the rest of the posts