5 ms·

I up-voted his original comment I would do so again. Aaron knew what he was doing. There are many charities more deserving than his legal defense fund -- that

I up-voted his original comment I would do so again. Aaron knew what he was doing. There are many charities more deserving than his legal defense fund -- that isn't changed just because he was apparently mentally ill enough to take his own life. There should be a high burden you have to overcome to successfully find crowd-funding for anything including a legal defense.

ricardobeat 14y ago
There are many charities more deserving than the coffeeshop you go to, those nice kickstarter projects you backed and the companies who make your clothes. One thing doesn't null the other.
pygy_ 14y ago
Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. The threshold varies from one person to the next, but blaming his suicide on mental illness is IMO disingenuous. Which causes deserve funding is a matter of personal choice.
- Permit 14y ago
  >Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. This is ridiculous hindsight bias, people have been charged with far more than Aaron and didn't kill themselves. Aaron had been depressed for a long time leading up to all of this, yet everyone seems to argue that the prosecution is what did it and he would have been completely fine otherwise. They have nothing to base that off of, but that's still the case that is frequently made here.
  - davorak 14y ago
    It is more a statement of probabilities, do I know thats what pushed him of the edge of course not, is likely to have played a significant role, I think yes. It does not have to be all or nothing to change my opinion and my future actions.
    - Permit 14y ago
      You can call outside speculation "a statement of probabilities" in an attempt to make it seem legitimate, but that doesn't make you correct. Dressing up speculation doesn't change what it is.
      - davorak 14y ago
        I am confused on how you think the information should be used to change ones opinion and future actions. Do you think there should be zero influence? > but that doesn't make you correct. My aim was not to be 100% correct about Arron, but rather to on average be more correct with similar cases.
    - pygy_ 14y ago
      Another point I wanted to make, but couldn't articulate because 3am is not my neuron's best friend: The fact that you're experiencing or you've experienced depression in the past doesn't mean you're inherently broken. As for suicide, most people have an acute and a chronic stress threshold that can lead to a so-called "major depression" episode.
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    Ridiculous? Eat it! Hindsight bias, not really either, a plain old fact. Some people are more resistant than others, but at some point anyone will snap (for the toughest it may require severe sleep deprivation and torture, but most people have a much lower threshold). I didn't know Aaron Swartz, and I am thus not familiar with the details of his alleged depressive past. There are usually a lot of factors that bring people to kill themselves. Assuming he was indeed depressed, the intensity of the symptoms get modulated by external influences. The absolute weight of the charges is also completely meaningless. They were intentionally unfair, and the meaning of a given sentence varies from people to people. Blaming depression for his suicide on depression alone simply shows you don't know what you're talking about (FWIW I hold a MD).
    - encoderer 14y ago
      > FWIW I hold a MD It's not worth much in this discussion. Your logic here is fuzzy man. Asserting that everyone has a point at which they will kill themselves? Maybe you're basing this on knowing that YOU have a point at which you'd take your own life. But what in the thousands of years of human suffering gives you this certainty that "everybody" has this suicidal breaking point? You can't make an assertion into a "plain old fact" just by repeating it.
      - pygy_ 14y ago
        The MD is relevant regarding my knowledge about depression. I know you can't prove the threshold thing, short of trying to break each and every person on earth. That being said, there are various ways to weaken people (including, for the die hards, prolonged isolation, sleep and sensory deprivation, manipulation, mental and physical torture, destroying their social status, friendships and families... I never practiced this, BTW), and I believe that you can drive anyone to suicide using them. For example, put someone in a situation where he has the choice between killing himself or killing someone he loves. 5 seconds to decide, after which, if he didn't act, the other person is killed. This is becoming really gloomy. I balk out. Edit, actually the bargain I set up above is not a good example of what I meant exactly, but a good example of the level of cruelty you can use. Edit2: I didn't downvote you, BTW (AFAIK, you can't downvote the answers to your comments).
- mpyne 14y ago
  > Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. Perhaps, but many, many people have been in situations such as Aaron's and not killed themself, so it's warranted to at least ponder if there was something else going on than a mean prosecutor. And here we don't have to wonder, it's been reported already that there was a lot of depression involved.
JasonFruit 14y ago
Exactly. While he may have been being put under undue pressure, I disagreed with his actions, his reasoning, and his approach, and so I didn't think his legal defense was worth my money. That doesn't mean I don't regret his death, but his death wouldn't change my action in an analogous situation tomorrow.
- justin66 14y ago
  I'm actually in the same position: I didn't give any money to the guy's legal defense fund and I think any rational assessment of my budget and the merits of the case would result in the same decision if I had it all to do over. I don't think that is really the point, though. There's a world of difference between choosing not to help someone or some cause when they need it - a choice we all make, passively or actively, all the time - and mocking them and encouraging others not to help. That's just kicking a guy when he's down. That's the part some of us find really objectionable.
betterunix 14y ago
"Aaron knew what he was doing" ...and at the time, I said the same thing I am saying now: Aaron Swartz was doing the right thing and should be praised for being brave enough to try to use access to a university to make human knowledge available to others. When universities are in the business of punishing people who spread knowledge, there is a serious problem with society, and Aaron knew that -- and unlike most people, he went out and tried to do something about it. I was angry when the prosecutor tacked the extra charges on. I am just as angry today.
barrkel 14y ago
I don't think he knew what he was doing. I've written on my blog about my own encounters with him; but the biggest thing that stands out was his naivete, his childlike perspective. It's telling so many eulogies of him describe him as a boy. IMO, it was his innocent perspective, combined with what he thought was the clear and obvious path, that drove him to do what he did, not understanding the consequences.

ricardobeat 14y ago

There are many charities more deserving than the coffeeshop you go to, those nice kickstarter projects you backed and the companies who make your clothes. One thing doesn't null the other.

pygy_ 14y ago

Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. The threshold varies from one person to the next, but blaming his suicide on mental illness is IMO disingenuous. Which causes deserve funding is a matter of personal choice.

Permit 14y ago
>Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. This is ridiculous hindsight bias, people have been charged with far more than Aaron and didn't kill themselves. Aaron had been depressed for a long time leading up to all of this, yet everyone seems to argue that the prosecution is what did it and he would have been completely fine otherwise. They have nothing to base that off of, but that's still the case that is frequently made here.
- davorak 14y ago
  It is more a statement of probabilities, do I know thats what pushed him of the edge of course not, is likely to have played a significant role, I think yes. It does not have to be all or nothing to change my opinion and my future actions.
  - Permit 14y ago
    You can call outside speculation "a statement of probabilities" in an attempt to make it seem legitimate, but that doesn't make you correct. Dressing up speculation doesn't change what it is.
    - davorak 14y ago
      I am confused on how you think the information should be used to change ones opinion and future actions. Do you think there should be zero influence? > but that doesn't make you correct. My aim was not to be 100% correct about Arron, but rather to on average be more correct with similar cases.
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    Another point I wanted to make, but couldn't articulate because 3am is not my neuron's best friend: The fact that you're experiencing or you've experienced depression in the past doesn't mean you're inherently broken. As for suicide, most people have an acute and a chronic stress threshold that can lead to a so-called "major depression" episode.
- pygy_ 14y ago
  Ridiculous? Eat it! Hindsight bias, not really either, a plain old fact. Some people are more resistant than others, but at some point anyone will snap (for the toughest it may require severe sleep deprivation and torture, but most people have a much lower threshold). I didn't know Aaron Swartz, and I am thus not familiar with the details of his alleged depressive past. There are usually a lot of factors that bring people to kill themselves. Assuming he was indeed depressed, the intensity of the symptoms get modulated by external influences. The absolute weight of the charges is also completely meaningless. They were intentionally unfair, and the meaning of a given sentence varies from people to people. Blaming depression for his suicide on depression alone simply shows you don't know what you're talking about (FWIW I hold a MD).
  - encoderer 14y ago
    > FWIW I hold a MD It's not worth much in this discussion. Your logic here is fuzzy man. Asserting that everyone has a point at which they will kill themselves? Maybe you're basing this on knowing that YOU have a point at which you'd take your own life. But what in the thousands of years of human suffering gives you this certainty that "everybody" has this suicidal breaking point? You can't make an assertion into a "plain old fact" just by repeating it.
    - pygy_ 14y ago
      The MD is relevant regarding my knowledge about depression. I know you can't prove the threshold thing, short of trying to break each and every person on earth. That being said, there are various ways to weaken people (including, for the die hards, prolonged isolation, sleep and sensory deprivation, manipulation, mental and physical torture, destroying their social status, friendships and families... I never practiced this, BTW), and I believe that you can drive anyone to suicide using them. For example, put someone in a situation where he has the choice between killing himself or killing someone he loves. 5 seconds to decide, after which, if he didn't act, the other person is killed. This is becoming really gloomy. I balk out. Edit, actually the bargain I set up above is not a good example of what I meant exactly, but a good example of the level of cruelty you can use. Edit2: I didn't downvote you, BTW (AFAIK, you can't downvote the answers to your comments).
mpyne 14y ago
> Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. Perhaps, but many, many people have been in situations such as Aaron's and not killed themself, so it's warranted to at least ponder if there was something else going on than a mean prosecutor. And here we don't have to wonder, it's been reported already that there was a lot of depression involved.

JasonFruit 14y ago

Exactly. While he may have been being put under undue pressure, I disagreed with his actions, his reasoning, and his approach, and so I didn't think his legal defense was worth my money. That doesn't mean I don't regret his death, but his death wouldn't change my action in an analogous situation tomorrow.

justin66 14y ago
I'm actually in the same position: I didn't give any money to the guy's legal defense fund and I think any rational assessment of my budget and the merits of the case would result in the same decision if I had it all to do over. I don't think that is really the point, though. There's a world of difference between choosing not to help someone or some cause when they need it - a choice we all make, passively or actively, all the time - and mocking them and encouraging others not to help. That's just kicking a guy when he's down. That's the part some of us find really objectionable.

betterunix 14y ago

"Aaron knew what he was doing" ...and at the time, I said the same thing I am saying now: Aaron Swartz was doing the right thing and should be praised for being brave enough to try to use access to a university to make human knowledge available to others. When universities are in the business of punishing people who spread knowledge, there is a serious problem with society, and Aaron knew that -- and unlike most people, he went out and tried to do something about it. I was angry when the prosecutor tacked the extra charges on. I am just as angry today.

barrkel 14y ago

I don't think he knew what he was doing. I've written on my blog about my own encounters with him; but the biggest thing that stands out was his naivete, his childlike perspective. It's telling so many eulogies of him describe him as a boy. IMO, it was his innocent perspective, combined with what he thought was the clear and obvious path, that drove him to do what he did, not understanding the consequences.