9 ms·

I think what's more concerning is that the same logic could be used to rebuke Aaron himself. "Aaron would be alive today if he'd only stopped before he decided

by mpyne 13y ago

I think what's more concerning is that the same logic could be used to rebuke Aaron himself. "Aaron would be alive today if he'd only stopped before he decided to put a laptop in that server closet." Certainly the prosecution was overbearing, and MIT could have been more on Aaron's side. But if we're going to reach into the realm of "If X had done Y Aaron would be alive today" then I think it would be distressing to think how many X's there could be.

coldtea 13y ago
>then I think it would be distressing to think how many X's there could be. So how about we take the more obvious Xs and condemn THOSE? It's not like anyone blames Lincoln for going to the theater that day instead of having a quit dinner at home.
- jmduke 13y ago
  Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes. If JSTOR had failed their negotiations with the Royal Society of London in '99 and subsequently faded into obscurity, Aaron might still be alive today, etc. The idea that Aaron did something illegal and the idea that Aaron was treated incredibly poorly are not mutually exclusive.
  - erikpukinskis 13y ago
    > Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes What definition of what term makes that case for you? You seem to basically be denying the concept of causality entirely, which, fine: causality is a brittle concept. But we can still use it to help us reason around things. There are proximate causes and distal causes and all kinds of causes in between and beyond. These are messy, flawed concepts that are useful for trying to analyze systems. You act like you don't understand the distinction between the relationship between MIT and Aaron and the relationship between those negotiations and Aaron, but I am fairly certain you do.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      You're welcome to actually explain that distinction. Otherwise, it's just intuition.
      - erikpukinskis 13y ago
        Sure! There are of course many distinctions, but here is one I think is quite relevant: MIT made its decisions with the knowledge that Aaron was being prosecuted, and therefore were in a position to consciously influence the outcome of the case. JSTOR and the Royal Society in '99 did not, and therefore were not.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I like your idea in general, of blaming the person who actually killed the deceased. But I don't see how that would help in this situation. Besides, what would you do in situations where there was no clear 'smoking gun'? Let's say a child dies of anaphylatic shock after eating a cookie that had accidentally touched peanut products on the counter, and that the guy who made his PB&J sandwich hadn't know there was a kid running around with peanut allergies. Who do you shame and despise in that situation? "If X had only cleanup the counter Y would be alive today!" It must be nice for the world to be so binary.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- freyr 13y ago
  Lincoln also didn't shoot himself. He was shot. Aaron suffered from suicidal depression. We know that from his closest friends' own accounts that his depression long predated the JSTOR incident. So to lay all the blame for his depression and eventual suicide on MIT is just lazy and irresponsible.
philwelch 13y ago
Aaron would be alive today if he'd only stopped before he decided to hang himself in his apartment. No one else bears any responsibility for his death.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ralish 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's absolute rubbish. I rarely post on HN, but I feel compelled to do so here. People rarely live in a vacuum, they engage with society, and those interactions have tangible results. I feel this is obvious, but it seems lost on people. When a person is systematically bullied, that negative interaction with society will inevitably have an impact, and if severe enough, suicide is a potential result. Aaron had the weight of a state on his shoulders, and while I'm glad to say I've never experienced that the prospects of it terrify me. As someone with a history of depression, I can quite confidently state, I'm unsure I'd survive through the experience, and can foresee it simply becoming too much. To state that no one has responsibility for his death is to excuse the gross abuses of those who's interactions with Aaron led to it. You are giving a pass to disgraceful prosecution tactics including intimidation and overreach. You are giving a pass to institutions that abandoned morality by siding with an abusive prosecution instead of standing up for a member of their community. Most egregiously, you are encouraging a broad view that only the victim is at fault for their choice. There's so much wrong with this view it's hard to know where to start, but for one, it suggests they're in the position to even logically and rationally evaluate the choice. If you're depressed to the point of suicide, it's fairly safe to assume, you aren't thinking logically or rationally. How can you then be held at fault for the resultant choice? Suicide is horrible, and I've known some who've taken that path. But blaming those who commit such an act is the easy way out. To reduce the instances of people taking their own lives, you need to understand why. This means fully comprehending the circumstances that led to their choice, and this means holding those to account that contributed to it.
  - antoko 13y ago
    I'm sorry, but that's absolute rubbish. I rarely post on HN, but I feel compelled to do so here. Thanks for this, you should post more, a community is only as good as its active members.
rayiner 13y ago
I'd posit that one of the reasons that suicide is considered sinful and judged so harshly in traditional western culture is precisely the fact that its so socially disruptive to the survivors, and leads to all this finger-pointing and blame-laying. I'd also posit that its hypocritical of people who support the legalization of suicide as a "victimless crime" to engage in such exercises.
- clicks 13y ago
  In most cases people who commit suicide are in ill mind (clinical depression, psychosis, and so on), so I don't think calling it 'sinful' is such a prudent choice.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I'm not wholeheartedly endorsing the traditional view, which obviously predates modern psychology, just pointing out that there is a rationality to it that continues to be valid today. People make mistakes, and people are judged for those mistakes, and sometimes people make amends. The social fabric heals. Suicide takes all that off the table, makes people guilty of murder in the eyes of others, and leaves the survivors with precious little way to heal the social fabric.

by mpyne 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>then I think it would be distressing to think how many X's there could be. So how about we take the more obvious Xs and condemn THOSE? It's not like anyone blames Lincoln for going to the theater that day instead of having a quit dinner at home.

jmduke 13y ago
Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes. If JSTOR had failed their negotiations with the Royal Society of London in '99 and subsequently faded into obscurity, Aaron might still be alive today, etc. The idea that Aaron did something illegal and the idea that Aaron was treated incredibly poorly are not mutually exclusive.
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  > Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes What definition of what term makes that case for you? You seem to basically be denying the concept of causality entirely, which, fine: causality is a brittle concept. But we can still use it to help us reason around things. There are proximate causes and distal causes and all kinds of causes in between and beyond. These are messy, flawed concepts that are useful for trying to analyze systems. You act like you don't understand the distinction between the relationship between MIT and Aaron and the relationship between those negotiations and Aaron, but I am fairly certain you do.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    You're welcome to actually explain that distinction. Otherwise, it's just intuition.
    - erikpukinskis 13y ago
      Sure! There are of course many distinctions, but here is one I think is quite relevant: MIT made its decisions with the knowledge that Aaron was being prosecuted, and therefore were in a position to consciously influence the outcome of the case. JSTOR and the Royal Society in '99 did not, and therefore were not.
mpyne 13y ago
I like your idea in general, of blaming the person who actually killed the deceased. But I don't see how that would help in this situation. Besides, what would you do in situations where there was no clear 'smoking gun'? Let's say a child dies of anaphylatic shock after eating a cookie that had accidentally touched peanut products on the counter, and that the guy who made his PB&J sandwich hadn't know there was a kid running around with peanut allergies. Who do you shame and despise in that situation? "If X had only cleanup the counter Y would be alive today!" It must be nice for the world to be so binary.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
freyr 13y ago
Lincoln also didn't shoot himself. He was shot. Aaron suffered from suicidal depression. We know that from his closest friends' own accounts that his depression long predated the JSTOR incident. So to lay all the blame for his depression and eventual suicide on MIT is just lazy and irresponsible.

philwelch 13y ago

Aaron would be alive today if he'd only stopped before he decided to hang himself in his apartment. No one else bears any responsibility for his death.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ralish 13y ago
I'm sorry, but that's absolute rubbish. I rarely post on HN, but I feel compelled to do so here. People rarely live in a vacuum, they engage with society, and those interactions have tangible results. I feel this is obvious, but it seems lost on people. When a person is systematically bullied, that negative interaction with society will inevitably have an impact, and if severe enough, suicide is a potential result. Aaron had the weight of a state on his shoulders, and while I'm glad to say I've never experienced that the prospects of it terrify me. As someone with a history of depression, I can quite confidently state, I'm unsure I'd survive through the experience, and can foresee it simply becoming too much. To state that no one has responsibility for his death is to excuse the gross abuses of those who's interactions with Aaron led to it. You are giving a pass to disgraceful prosecution tactics including intimidation and overreach. You are giving a pass to institutions that abandoned morality by siding with an abusive prosecution instead of standing up for a member of their community. Most egregiously, you are encouraging a broad view that only the victim is at fault for their choice. There's so much wrong with this view it's hard to know where to start, but for one, it suggests they're in the position to even logically and rationally evaluate the choice. If you're depressed to the point of suicide, it's fairly safe to assume, you aren't thinking logically or rationally. How can you then be held at fault for the resultant choice? Suicide is horrible, and I've known some who've taken that path. But blaming those who commit such an act is the easy way out. To reduce the instances of people taking their own lives, you need to understand why. This means fully comprehending the circumstances that led to their choice, and this means holding those to account that contributed to it.
- antoko 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's absolute rubbish. I rarely post on HN, but I feel compelled to do so here. Thanks for this, you should post more, a community is only as good as its active members.

rayiner 13y ago

I'd posit that one of the reasons that suicide is considered sinful and judged so harshly in traditional western culture is precisely the fact that its so socially disruptive to the survivors, and leads to all this finger-pointing and blame-laying. I'd also posit that its hypocritical of people who support the legalization of suicide as a "victimless crime" to engage in such exercises.

clicks 13y ago
In most cases people who commit suicide are in ill mind (clinical depression, psychosis, and so on), so I don't think calling it 'sinful' is such a prudent choice.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I'm not wholeheartedly endorsing the traditional view, which obviously predates modern psychology, just pointing out that there is a rationality to it that continues to be valid today. People make mistakes, and people are judged for those mistakes, and sometimes people make amends. The social fabric heals. Suicide takes all that off the table, makes people guilty of murder in the eyes of others, and leaves the survivors with precious little way to heal the social fabric.