3 ms·

To be frank, the issue is that our society is not more damning of people involved in the low-level actioning of great injustices.

Spooky23 2y ago
That’s worked really well in other areas of criminal justice. /s
lolinder 2y ago
A far bigger issue with our society is our willingness to brand someone forever based on what they did decades prior—we (as a society) pay lip service to the idea that people change, but we don't truly believe it. It's the same punitive impulse that causes the permanent second-class citizenship bestowed upon anyone who finishes a prison term.
- noah_buddy 2y ago
  Generally, that problem is separate. The impact of little Eichmanns everywhere is greater than the loss of productivity from people convicted of crimes who can’t get a job later imo. Our society is very forgiving if you propagate “faceless” evil. It’s unforgiving if there’s a human face to it. Part of this ties into the power of monetary capital over social capital.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Our society is very forgiving if you propagate “faceless” evil. It’s unforgiving if there’s a human face to it. How does this track with your assertion that "the issue is that our society is not more damning of people involved in the low-level actioning of great injustices"? Isn't your impulse to damn now that there's a low-level face to the faceless evil the exact same impulse as the one people have to condemn a low-level drug runner for the rest of their life?
    - noah_buddy 2y ago
      > Isn't your impulse to damn now that there's a low-level face to the faceless evil the exact same impulse as the one people have to condemn a low-level drug runner for the rest of their life? First, there’s a disconnect here in my opinion: the low level drug offender deals with headwinds entering professional society writ large, not specific industry. This is much more consequential and, in my opinion, unfair. Being a drug runner doesn’t imply you would be a bad sales rep, but that’s how our society operates. If we were considering that low-level drug dealers face a specific impediment to becoming public health officials, I would argue that’s at least more sensible. Both the drug dealer and this guy have probably caused outsized social health impacts (and, don’t forget, deaths) through their actions. That invites scrutiny. Second, I have no delusions. Yes, I think this guy should be heavily scrutinized. Perhaps it’s not exactly fair that your actions follow you for your life, but if you have a hand in one of the worst public health crises of recent years, that’s damning if you want to run a public health office. Civil servants necessarily should be held to a higher standard. All that said, I doubt he will be disqualified from the office. There’s a wider question: what are we prioritizing? Individual fairness or public health (more generally, public good)? I think from that frame (and a similar framing in many industries) more people should be made an example of if they have worked against the interests of an office they seek. Airline lobbyists should not be heads of transportation (and heads should be legally disallowed from entering lobbying for a period after office), food magnates who seek to dilute and adulterate their products as much as legally allowable should not run the USDA, the parallels are numerous. These people hold the wrong incentive (making money) highest. By making examples of these people and disqualifying them, you right the scale to some degree and influence the actions of others. I don’t have the time at the moment to make a wider argument of systems, but if you look at China vs. the US…
- ricksunny 2y ago
  I feel the gap to be crossed here is whether the low-level employee demonstrably took pro-active steps in their subsequent career to either 1. steer far clear of, (incl. steering clear of *the fruits of*), or 2. mitigate/neutralize/counter the effects of... ...the gestalt whose function they were supporting prior.
  - ricksunny 2y ago
    But I do feel we as society participants should not be bkinkered from recognizing social-scale pathologies in the atomic units that form our society. Those atomic units are individuals - their decisions, actions, and yes their career-paths.
theossuary 2y ago
No it's not. The issue with our society is allowing the people who built the system and created the incentives that caused it to get off without jail time.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
Yes, that's why I wish for nurses to get murdered too, not just health care CEOs

Spooky23 2y ago

That’s worked really well in other areas of criminal justice. /s

lolinder 2y ago

A far bigger issue with our society is our willingness to brand someone forever based on what they did decades prior—we (as a society) pay lip service to the idea that people change, but we don't truly believe it. It's the same punitive impulse that causes the permanent second-class citizenship bestowed upon anyone who finishes a prison term.

noah_buddy 2y ago
Generally, that problem is separate. The impact of little Eichmanns everywhere is greater than the loss of productivity from people convicted of crimes who can’t get a job later imo. Our society is very forgiving if you propagate “faceless” evil. It’s unforgiving if there’s a human face to it. Part of this ties into the power of monetary capital over social capital.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Our society is very forgiving if you propagate “faceless” evil. It’s unforgiving if there’s a human face to it. How does this track with your assertion that "the issue is that our society is not more damning of people involved in the low-level actioning of great injustices"? Isn't your impulse to damn now that there's a low-level face to the faceless evil the exact same impulse as the one people have to condemn a low-level drug runner for the rest of their life?
  - noah_buddy 2y ago
    > Isn't your impulse to damn now that there's a low-level face to the faceless evil the exact same impulse as the one people have to condemn a low-level drug runner for the rest of their life? First, there’s a disconnect here in my opinion: the low level drug offender deals with headwinds entering professional society writ large, not specific industry. This is much more consequential and, in my opinion, unfair. Being a drug runner doesn’t imply you would be a bad sales rep, but that’s how our society operates. If we were considering that low-level drug dealers face a specific impediment to becoming public health officials, I would argue that’s at least more sensible. Both the drug dealer and this guy have probably caused outsized social health impacts (and, don’t forget, deaths) through their actions. That invites scrutiny. Second, I have no delusions. Yes, I think this guy should be heavily scrutinized. Perhaps it’s not exactly fair that your actions follow you for your life, but if you have a hand in one of the worst public health crises of recent years, that’s damning if you want to run a public health office. Civil servants necessarily should be held to a higher standard. All that said, I doubt he will be disqualified from the office. There’s a wider question: what are we prioritizing? Individual fairness or public health (more generally, public good)? I think from that frame (and a similar framing in many industries) more people should be made an example of if they have worked against the interests of an office they seek. Airline lobbyists should not be heads of transportation (and heads should be legally disallowed from entering lobbying for a period after office), food magnates who seek to dilute and adulterate their products as much as legally allowable should not run the USDA, the parallels are numerous. These people hold the wrong incentive (making money) highest. By making examples of these people and disqualifying them, you right the scale to some degree and influence the actions of others. I don’t have the time at the moment to make a wider argument of systems, but if you look at China vs. the US…
ricksunny 2y ago
I feel the gap to be crossed here is whether the low-level employee demonstrably took pro-active steps in their subsequent career to either 1. steer far clear of, (incl. steering clear of *the fruits of*), or 2. mitigate/neutralize/counter the effects of... ...the gestalt whose function they were supporting prior.
- ricksunny 2y ago
  But I do feel we as society participants should not be bkinkered from recognizing social-scale pathologies in the atomic units that form our society. Those atomic units are individuals - their decisions, actions, and yes their career-paths.

theossuary 2y ago

No it's not. The issue with our society is allowing the people who built the system and created the incentives that caused it to get off without jail time.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

Yes, that's why I wish for nurses to get murdered too, not just health care CEOs