7 ms·

He certainly seemed to support the outrageous, overreaching prosecution that Aaron was facing. "Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and p

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  • woah 14y ago
    I'm willing to consider other view points, can you explain why?
  • django34211 14y ago
    "Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills." ~Ed Sounds like Ed was a bit harsh on someone who was going through allot of trouble. The comment was excessively cruel. Not to mention it was the top comment, which must of added large dosage of salt on an already wounded soul. So he(Ed) rightfully deserves any criticism thrown at him. It's such a tool bag comment, Ed should apologize. Your defending such a vitriolic comment, sorry but you sound like scum.
    • jacquesm 14y ago
      (1) hindsight is 20-20 (2) the facts as we know then today were not readily apparent back then (even to those that were actively seeking those facts) (3) Ed has a longstanding history of compassion and care (4) mistakes were made, but there is nobody to apologise to. Can we please stop the mobbing? Thanks.
      • geoka9 14y ago
        > Can we please stop the mobbing? Thanks. Can we just say it's a good a lesson to us all? I understand what the OP must be going through now; it'd make anybody feel miserable.
        • jacquesm 14y ago
          > Can we just say it's a good a lesson to us all? I'm pretty sure that it is.
          • irollboozers 14y ago
            How do we make sure we remember all the lessons in this? Are these just growing pains of the internet as a whole, or are we fated to relapse the next time it happens again?
      • JohnsonB 14y ago
        The feds going after a 20-something idealistic activist, who we all knew was completely harmless, and hadn't committed a real crime? That can't be anything other than a severe and cruel abuse of power. I'm sorry but enough information was known at the time to conclude what was going on.
        • RegEx 14y ago
          What information? I'd legitimately appreciate links/sources of the situation's severity other than hindsight.
          • 14y ago
    • saraid216 14y ago
      And you'd never say something like that yourself, amirite?
    • RegEx 14y ago
      And you sound like a drama queen. The severity was not conveyed. According to HN users in this thread, it couldn't be for whatever reasons. We didn't know the extent of the trouble. Sure, he was rude, and I don't like it when people are rude, but some people in this thread are making it sound like he pulled the fucking trigger. Give it a rest.
      • django34211 14y ago
        Why don't you "man up" and acknowledge, the comment was not only very distasteful, but extremely vitriolic and damaging for someone who was asking for help. He was asking for help, is this the type of rude comment you make when someone ask for it. Severity wasn't conveyed, what does everything have to be explicitly spelled out for you in order to understand.
        • RegEx 14y ago
          You're too emotional to ration with. I hope you stop displacing anger in every which way.
          • thosegivenmuch 14y ago
            Wow, thats a useful comment, given you have no idea what the op's state of mind actually is and for the record its "reason with" not "ration with"
      • thosegivenmuch 14y ago
        Give it a rest yourself. He publicly heaped scorn on Aaron collecting money to defend himself. Not really a stretch to say he contributed to someones isolation. And saying "he pulled the fucking trigger" is grotesque.
    • baak 14y ago
      You're just as capable of hurting people. Maybe you just pushed someone over the edge by calling them scum. Tomorrow, will I get to call you names and talk about how your comment was excessively cruel and vitriolic? Do you know if the person you just blamed and insulted is stable and can handle it?
      • django34211 14y ago
        Your logic makes no sense. Geez, I didn't know I just as capable of hurting people. I learned some new on HN. Of course even the dumbest person in the world know this. What matters is that those comments were hurting someone who was only looking for help. There is a big difference between someone who responds to comments and someone who attacking someone's call for help. "Do you know if the person you just blamed and insulted is stable and can handle it?" If you know someone is asking for help, why would you berate them. Please get a clue and increase your social IQ.
        • baak 14y ago
          No. The difference between your comment and his is hindsight. Well, that and that his comment had some thought behind it. You are just as nasty with your commments and have absolutely no shame because you're anonymous.
          • fermule 14y ago
            You don't get it. It is rude to say such things when some is asking for help. Use your brain and think about it for one second.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • neumann_alfred 14y ago
      Not to mention it was the top comment You say this as if it was the fault of the poster. Why did HN in general not upvote another, more positive comment? WTF kind of witch hunt is this even? I don't like the comment either, but cut it out, all of you.
    • roguecoder 14y ago
      Ed commented in the general tone of HN. His comment was unexceptional, except that later events called it out as such. Focusing on Ed is counter-productive. What should be the topic is the harmful, negative and alienating tone that HN comments adopt. The upvotes that such comments garner show that they are not individual actions, but rather the result of community incentives. I'd like to hear suggestions of how to cultivate useful, supportive, productive comment threads. That is, of course, if the community decides it wants to change, rather than just heaping scorn on a single instance of a systematic problem.
  • streblo 14y ago
    Really? "nothing of the sort"? That's what it seems to suggest.
• derleth 14y ago
  > Aaron should man up And now we see the consequences of our society's sexism. Nobody tells women to "man up".
  • gnaritas 14y ago
    I'm sure they do actually, but likely with slightly different language like "stop crying"; same thing. Just because a statement isn't gender neutral doesn't make it sexist.
  • Mz 14y ago
    I am a woman. I go around telling women to "woman up". I try to do so in an empowering way and not be an asshole. Fuck sexism though.
    • derleth 14y ago
      > I am a woman. I go around telling women to "woman up". Well, the difference between "woman up" and "man up" is that, for men, showing emotion is a sign of weakness, so "man up" means "don't show emotion". That's a very dangerous thing to tell people who have serious emotional problems.
      • nostrademons 14y ago
        It's not, though. There's a perception that showing emotion is a sign of weakness for men. However, think about how you actually react to men who show emotion. How did you react to Lessig's or Doctorow's posts about Aaron, with all their emotion? Did you think them less of a man for it? I think there is a strong taboo against men appearing out of control of themselves or their situation. But that's not really gendered: when women appear out of control, we label them "crazy bitches".
        • graue 14y ago
          > there is a strong taboo against men appearing out of control of themselves Exactly. This applied to Aaron asking for help he badly needed for his legal fund. This did not apply to Larry or Cory. They may have been sad or angry, but they were not personally scared, threatened, unable to fund their own legal defenses, etc., so they did not violate the taboo. Their posts were more along the lines of a father mourning a lost son. Emotion is expected there.
• citricsquid 14y ago
  Aaron did something wrong [/edit: wrong in the eyes of the law: illegal, poor word choice/], something that he knew was wrong and that is an accepted fact, correct? If he did something he knew was wrong then what edw519 said is right, he should "man up" and accept the consequences, as everyone should do when they do something wrong. The problem is what has come to light since that post was made, it has come to light that Aaron was not being held accountable for his "actions", he was being used. He was being made into an example, he was being turned into a tool to help peoples careers. This is what is important and why we should have supported him. At the time nobody knew what he was facing, we know now and I'm sure if everyone here could go back they would support him more. Go back to the thread, forget everything you know about the case and situation and read the link (the appeal page on Aaron's website) and then the comments in the thread and form an opinion. It won't match what you're saying here because what you're thinking about now (and holding edw519 to) was not known at the time.
  • danielweber 14y ago
    I think I remember that thread, and I remember thinking of typing "criminal defenses, guilty or innocent, are extremely expensive, and this is by no means a good thing" but I guess I didn't pull the trigger and say it. In retrospect, I wish I'd made it, and I also wish I'd said "even though I consider Aaron in the wrong, I'm still donating $5 so he knows that other people know he's alive, and I encourage those who are on his side to donate as well." Lots of donations, even if small in amount, would have at least helped him not feel alone. Depression sucks.
  • thaumaturgy 14y ago
    See, here's the problem. In one sentence you're arguing that he should "accept the consequences", and in literally the very next sentence, you're describing how bad the consequences ended up being. That is what is wrong with saying, "just accept the consequences", when you have no damn idea what the consequences are.
    • citricsquid 14y ago
      A story and the reality are always different. The story as presented to people at the time was Aaron had done something (legally) wrong and was in trouble for doing it, some people believed what he did was for a just cause (education material should be free) and others didn't. If the people reading the story at the time were expected to act on the situation by donating, why is it wrong for them to act in the form of a comment? How can it be fair to say people should have donated based on their understanding of the situation but not be able to comment on the situation? Every single person in that comment thread is just as guilty of wrong doing if edw519 is guilty of any, because they all formed an opinion around something they knew very little of. It just so happens that the opinion edw519 expressed is unfortunately one that is at odds with the reality of the situation.