6 ms·

Of course, people, whether criminals or not, should be attributed for their intellectual contributions but there is a bigger point here which people do not say

Of course, people, whether criminals or not, should be attributed for their intellectual contributions but there is a bigger point here which people do not say enough: The criminal justice system already wields the responsibility of punishing criminals. Let the convicts go through due process and do their time. The rest of the society should not participate in "delivering justice": obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital.

MoreMoore 2y ago
[flagged]
- agnishom 2y ago
  That's not really what I am talking about.
  - Febra33 2y ago
    [flagged]
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  [flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Please don't post in the flamewar style, and please edit out swipes like "what are you talking about" from your posts here. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  - MoreMoore 2y ago
    I don't really understand the issue. They say that people have a legal system if they're wronged by these companies. And it's clear that the legal system isn't an option for normal people when a company like UHS denies claims. So I want to know what they're talking about and why they think the justice system is sufficient as it is today to help normal people. Seriously. I want to know what they're talking about. The justice system they're stating exists simply does not. It has nothing to do with a flame war. That's an unfair characterisation, particularly when people's lives are so deeply affected when they can't get the care they need because of their insurance company. Or have you been bought and paid for too?
    - dang 2y ago
      "What are you talking about?" is a swipe in online English. It insinuates that the other person doesn't know what they're talking about. That's even more true in a comment like the GP, which starts with 3 tendentious sentences hammering the other person's point and then moves to "What are you talking about". Such a comment pattern-matches to a cross-examination style of conversation, which the HN guidelines ask you to avoid because it's not what we want here. If you really want to know what someone is talking about, "what are you talking about?" is an ineffective way to say so, since it means the opposite of what it says, with an overlay of insult.
fimdomeio 2y ago
This is not mentioned nearly enough. I think it’s rooted in the idea that people must be either great or awful when being both is a very real possibility.
- mrayycombi 2y ago
  A certain owner of an electric car company comes to mind.
  - tankenmate 2y ago
    Which also raises the contrapositive; just because you are good at one thing (or even a handful of things) doesn't mean you're good at everything.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - mrayycombi 2y ago
        He's a good businessman. His market analysis around zip2, PayPal, tesla, and spaceX were spot on. Twitter, not so much.
        abustamam 2y ago
        I don't think he intended Twitter to be a good financial investment. It seems like he bought it for its power in the public discourse. Whether or not that investment paid off is an exercise for the reader.
        ruthmarx 2y ago
        Born into money and making obvious investments that plenty of people with similar opportunity would make isn't particularly impressive. It's not outright bad like failing to make money from a casino, but it's not particularly good either.
Y_Y 2y ago
I agree and would add this related and famous example: https://boingboing.net/2023/06/10/noted-mathematician-ted-kaczynski-dead-at-81.html https://boingboing.net/2023/06/10/noted-mathematician-ted-ka...
philipwhiuk 2y ago
> The rest of the society should not participate in "delivering justice": obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital. Why should the rest of society be forced to continue associating with someone?
- agnishom 2y ago
  They shouldn't be "forced" to continue associating with someone; they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. That sounds abstract, but such concepts already exist. If you have a restaurant, you are allowed to refuse to serve someone who happens to be a member of a race R, but you are not allowed to refuse someone _because_ they are a member of race R.
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    > they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. This sounds like you forcing them to adopt your views.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Maybe people are just very fickle these days, but last I checked: "someone posting on your server" is not association. Site owners put in that one article precisely so that cannot be the case. But this does break the CC license by unattributing content but not deleting it, so that's bad.
    - agnishom 2y ago
      I don't know if people are different these days, but we certainly have taken the concept "all relationships are voluntary" too far. If we had a society where people associated with each other only when there was personal gain to be made, that would not be a very nice society.
- latexr 2y ago
  How are you “forced to continue associating with someone” who is arrested and cannot use their online accounts? What exactly does that do to you? And how does Stack Overflow keeping all the posts but removing the name protect you in any way?
commandersaki 2y ago
Agreed, we kept the Reiser filesystem namesake and attribution in the kernel even after his murder. Didn't adversely affect the project or the views of Reiser himself.
stefantalpalaru 2y ago
[dead]
joeyagreco 2y ago
> The rest of the society should not participate in "delivering justice": obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital. Well said.
ilovetux 2y ago
I would like to piggyback on this sentiment to call out a common feeling in the US (and probably elsewhere). When people are facing jail time, they are usually told to expect to be brutalized in prison by the other prisoners and guards. Putting additional punishment in the form of abuse (physical, mental and sexual) and then putting the onus of that additional punishment on a vulnerable population is a recipe for disaster. Prison is the punishment, anything on top of that is a crime and a lot of people turn short sentences into life by targeting other prisoners with certain crimes. This culture of retribution runs deep.
- xeonmc 2y ago
  Sounds to me then that it’s working as designed.
  - fennecfoxy 2y ago
    Does your ruling of prison rape = "they deserve it anyway", apply to female criminals as well? Go on, make that statement.
    - xeonmc 2y ago
      All I'm saying is that the system had been designed from the start to be punitive instead of rehabilitative.
- Cub3 2y ago
  > told to expect to be brutalized in prison by the other prisoners and guards How horrific. I don't understand why the people of the US accept this.
- fennecfoxy 2y ago
  >When people are facing jail time Actually, it's when _men_ are facing jail time, that people make rape jokes. I've never really heard people do it for women at all. Not only is that sort of thing much less prevalent in prisons than media would have you believe, media still perpetuates this stereotype, just as it perpetuates the "all gay men are fruity heyyyyyy" stereotype that I also loathe. But the extract media and popular opinion is; rape jokes about men are funny, men being assaulted or kicked in the balls is funny, men dying on screen is just a bad guy or a henchman but a woman dying on screen is either not done, camera cut away or a huge plot point with emphasis on how _evil_ the victim is for doing such a thing. Men are the victims are of the majority of crime, however because of sexism many people (including women) are happy to lump men in all together with each other. People don't care if the victim is a man, because the criminal is a man, too. And that's like...the same! :O
belter 2y ago
> obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital. That is the privilege of corporations....
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

MoreMoore 2y ago

[flagged]

agnishom 2y ago
That's not really what I am talking about.
- Febra33 2y ago
  [flagged]
ImHereToVote 2y ago
[flagged]
dang 2y ago
Please don't post in the flamewar style, and please edit out swipes like "what are you talking about" from your posts here. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- MoreMoore 2y ago
  I don't really understand the issue. They say that people have a legal system if they're wronged by these companies. And it's clear that the legal system isn't an option for normal people when a company like UHS denies claims. So I want to know what they're talking about and why they think the justice system is sufficient as it is today to help normal people. Seriously. I want to know what they're talking about. The justice system they're stating exists simply does not. It has nothing to do with a flame war. That's an unfair characterisation, particularly when people's lives are so deeply affected when they can't get the care they need because of their insurance company. Or have you been bought and paid for too?
  - dang 2y ago
    "What are you talking about?" is a swipe in online English. It insinuates that the other person doesn't know what they're talking about. That's even more true in a comment like the GP, which starts with 3 tendentious sentences hammering the other person's point and then moves to "What are you talking about". Such a comment pattern-matches to a cross-examination style of conversation, which the HN guidelines ask you to avoid because it's not what we want here. If you really want to know what someone is talking about, "what are you talking about?" is an ineffective way to say so, since it means the opposite of what it says, with an overlay of insult.

fimdomeio 2y ago

This is not mentioned nearly enough. I think it’s rooted in the idea that people must be either great or awful when being both is a very real possibility.

mrayycombi 2y ago
A certain owner of an electric car company comes to mind.
- tankenmate 2y ago
  Which also raises the contrapositive; just because you are good at one thing (or even a handful of things) doesn't mean you're good at everything.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mrayycombi 2y ago
      He's a good businessman. His market analysis around zip2, PayPal, tesla, and spaceX were spot on. Twitter, not so much.
      - abustamam 2y ago
        I don't think he intended Twitter to be a good financial investment. It seems like he bought it for its power in the public discourse. Whether or not that investment paid off is an exercise for the reader.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        Born into money and making obvious investments that plenty of people with similar opportunity would make isn't particularly impressive. It's not outright bad like failing to make money from a casino, but it's not particularly good either.

Y_Y 2y ago

I agree and would add this related and famous example: https://boingboing.net/2023/06/10/noted-mathematician-ted-kaczynski-dead-at-81.html https://boingboing.net/2023/06/10/noted-mathematician-ted-ka...

philipwhiuk 2y ago

> The rest of the society should not participate in "delivering justice": obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital. Why should the rest of society be forced to continue associating with someone?

agnishom 2y ago
They shouldn't be "forced" to continue associating with someone; they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. That sounds abstract, but such concepts already exist. If you have a restaurant, you are allowed to refuse to serve someone who happens to be a member of a race R, but you are not allowed to refuse someone _because_ they are a member of race R.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  > they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. This sounds like you forcing them to adopt your views.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Maybe people are just very fickle these days, but last I checked: "someone posting on your server" is not association. Site owners put in that one article precisely so that cannot be the case. But this does break the CC license by unattributing content but not deleting it, so that's bad.
  - agnishom 2y ago
    I don't know if people are different these days, but we certainly have taken the concept "all relationships are voluntary" too far. If we had a society where people associated with each other only when there was personal gain to be made, that would not be a very nice society.
latexr 2y ago
How are you “forced to continue associating with someone” who is arrested and cannot use their online accounts? What exactly does that do to you? And how does Stack Overflow keeping all the posts but removing the name protect you in any way?

commandersaki 2y ago

Agreed, we kept the Reiser filesystem namesake and attribution in the kernel even after his murder. Didn't adversely affect the project or the views of Reiser himself.

stefantalpalaru 2y ago

[dead]

joeyagreco 2y ago

> The rest of the society should not participate in "delivering justice": obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital. Well said.

ilovetux 2y ago

I would like to piggyback on this sentiment to call out a common feeling in the US (and probably elsewhere). When people are facing jail time, they are usually told to expect to be brutalized in prison by the other prisoners and guards. Putting additional punishment in the form of abuse (physical, mental and sexual) and then putting the onus of that additional punishment on a vulnerable population is a recipe for disaster. Prison is the punishment, anything on top of that is a crime and a lot of people turn short sentences into life by targeting other prisoners with certain crimes. This culture of retribution runs deep.

xeonmc 2y ago
Sounds to me then that it’s working as designed.
- fennecfoxy 2y ago
  Does your ruling of prison rape = "they deserve it anyway", apply to female criminals as well? Go on, make that statement.
  - xeonmc 2y ago
    All I'm saying is that the system had been designed from the start to be punitive instead of rehabilitative.
Cub3 2y ago
> told to expect to be brutalized in prison by the other prisoners and guards How horrific. I don't understand why the people of the US accept this.
fennecfoxy 2y ago
>When people are facing jail time Actually, it's when _men_ are facing jail time, that people make rape jokes. I've never really heard people do it for women at all. Not only is that sort of thing much less prevalent in prisons than media would have you believe, media still perpetuates this stereotype, just as it perpetuates the "all gay men are fruity heyyyyyy" stereotype that I also loathe. But the extract media and popular opinion is; rape jokes about men are funny, men being assaulted or kicked in the balls is funny, men dying on screen is just a bad guy or a henchman but a woman dying on screen is either not done, camera cut away or a huge plot point with emphasis on how _evil_ the victim is for doing such a thing. Men are the victims are of the majority of crime, however because of sexism many people (including women) are happy to lump men in all together with each other. People don't care if the victim is a man, because the criminal is a man, too. And that's like...the same! :O

belter 2y ago

> obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital. That is the privilege of corporations....

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]