4 ms·

I did not work hard to find that interpretation. It was literally the first one that came to mind, because I am not a cynic.

by borski 2y ago

almostgotcaught 2y ago
> I am not a cynic Cynicism is about people with agency. Saying you're not a cynic about the actions of an organization/institution with no agency/sentience is completely nonsensical. Edit: I've been rate limited; to the person below: > So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function? Edit 2: > Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful Besides the clear contradiction here (at least from a Bayesian perspective), I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights"). Edit 3: > Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians. You are accusing him of a new crime. Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights. > I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying. I have already made my point at the beginning of this thread: you are doing an inordinant amount of free intellectual labor justifying the actions of an authoritarian institution.
- borski 2y ago
  Cynic, noun 1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. Others do believe that.
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    this is an outdated definition of cynicism; i think in many modern cases cynicsm is about the written ideals or formal rules being incongruous with the unwritten "rules of the game" in a way that isnt necessarily (but often is) about self interest.
    - borski 2y ago
      Changing the definition of the word doesn’t make you right. What I meant is extremely clear, and this sort of pedantry is irrelevant and doesn’t move the conversation forward.
      - throwawaymaths 2y ago
        you're not responding to the person you think you're responding to.
        borski 2y ago
        Fair, and sorry about that. The point stands, though.
- borski 2y ago
  > Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function? That is not what I said, and it not the most charitable interpretation of what I said either. Of course these choices aren’t made by a single guard. But there is no evidence that in this case it was not done for reasons that were reasonable. If it comes out that it was done purely as punishment, and not to assess what the fuck had just happened, I’d agree with you. Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful. You can separate the forest from the trees; in fact, you must. Sometimes, the justice system incarcerates innocent people and abuses prisoners. That’s fucking awful, and we need to fix it. But also, sometimes, the justice system works properly and locks up actual criminals who have committed actual crimes. SBF is one such case. There is no evidence he has been abused, unlike other criminals who had been abused. If you want to make this an argument about whether incarceration is beneficial at all, or if we should focus on better rehabilitation, I’d almost certainly agree with you, but that’s not the discussion we’re having, and it isn’t the system we have. [edit] > I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights"). Please. I’m very aware of this. Your extremely confident belief that you are right is clouding your ability to actually see what I’m saying. SBF is, in fact, a convicted criminal. He was considered innocent until he was, ahem, proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of his peers. They deliberated for less than an hour, I assume because the evidence was apparently very clear. Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying. I’m done with this conversation, mostly because the rate limiting is annoying. Have a lovely weekend.
- borski 2y ago
  > You are accusing him of a new crime. I am doing no such thing. I have no idea if he committed a crime. I am not litigating anything. He did an interview without getting permission, breaking the rules of his confinement. That’s obvious, since the interview aired. I don’t need to litigate it, and I’m not attempting to. > Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights. No, they aren’t; this is plainly untrue. They are afforded some of their constitutional rights, but not all of them. While prisoners do not enjoy full constitutional rights, they do receive 8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that California jails must abide by the court-mandated population limits to prevent overpopulation, and thus affording inmates a minimum standard of living in Brown v. Plata. There are some other rights, like due process, protection under the 14th amendment from discrimination and unequal treatment based solely on their race, sex, or creed, etc. Lastly, incarcerated individuals are guaranteed the right to religion and free speech as long as their status as prisoners does not interfere with these protected rights. Please educate yourself: https://www.jailhouselaw.org/your-rights-prison https://www.jailhouselaw.org/your-rights-prison Prisoners do not have all their constitutional rights. If your argument is that they should, then that’s a different discussion.

I did not work hard to find that interpretation. It was literally the first one that came to mind, because I am not a cynic.

by borski 2y ago

I did not work hard to find that interpretation. It was literally the first one that came to mind, because I am not a cynic.

almostgotcaught 2y ago

> I am not a cynic Cynicism is about people with agency. Saying you're not a cynic about the actions of an organization/institution with no agency/sentience is completely nonsensical. Edit: I've been rate limited; to the person below: > So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function? Edit 2: > Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful Besides the clear contradiction here (at least from a Bayesian perspective), I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights"). Edit 3: > Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians. You are accusing him of a new crime. Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights. > I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying. I have already made my point at the beginning of this thread: you are doing an inordinant amount of free intellectual labor justifying the actions of an authoritarian institution.

borski 2y ago
Cynic, noun 1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. Others do believe that.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  this is an outdated definition of cynicism; i think in many modern cases cynicsm is about the written ideals or formal rules being incongruous with the unwritten "rules of the game" in a way that isnt necessarily (but often is) about self interest.
  - borski 2y ago
    Changing the definition of the word doesn’t make you right. What I meant is extremely clear, and this sort of pedantry is irrelevant and doesn’t move the conversation forward.
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      you're not responding to the person you think you're responding to.
      - borski 2y ago
        Fair, and sorry about that. The point stands, though.
borski 2y ago
> Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function? That is not what I said, and it not the most charitable interpretation of what I said either. Of course these choices aren’t made by a single guard. But there is no evidence that in this case it was not done for reasons that were reasonable. If it comes out that it was done purely as punishment, and not to assess what the fuck had just happened, I’d agree with you. Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful. You can separate the forest from the trees; in fact, you must. Sometimes, the justice system incarcerates innocent people and abuses prisoners. That’s fucking awful, and we need to fix it. But also, sometimes, the justice system works properly and locks up actual criminals who have committed actual crimes. SBF is one such case. There is no evidence he has been abused, unlike other criminals who had been abused. If you want to make this an argument about whether incarceration is beneficial at all, or if we should focus on better rehabilitation, I’d almost certainly agree with you, but that’s not the discussion we’re having, and it isn’t the system we have. [edit] > I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights"). Please. I’m very aware of this. Your extremely confident belief that you are right is clouding your ability to actually see what I’m saying. SBF is, in fact, a convicted criminal. He was considered innocent until he was, ahem, proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of his peers. They deliberated for less than an hour, I assume because the evidence was apparently very clear. Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying. I’m done with this conversation, mostly because the rate limiting is annoying. Have a lovely weekend.
borski 2y ago
> You are accusing him of a new crime. I am doing no such thing. I have no idea if he committed a crime. I am not litigating anything. He did an interview without getting permission, breaking the rules of his confinement. That’s obvious, since the interview aired. I don’t need to litigate it, and I’m not attempting to. > Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights. No, they aren’t; this is plainly untrue. They are afforded some of their constitutional rights, but not all of them. While prisoners do not enjoy full constitutional rights, they do receive 8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that California jails must abide by the court-mandated population limits to prevent overpopulation, and thus affording inmates a minimum standard of living in Brown v. Plata. There are some other rights, like due process, protection under the 14th amendment from discrimination and unequal treatment based solely on their race, sex, or creed, etc. Lastly, incarcerated individuals are guaranteed the right to religion and free speech as long as their status as prisoners does not interfere with these protected rights. Please educate yourself: https://www.jailhouselaw.org/your-rights-prison https://www.jailhouselaw.org/your-rights-prison Prisoners do not have all their constitutional rights. If your argument is that they should, then that’s a different discussion.