5 ms·

Excellent. Ostracizing complicit people is the key to reducing bad behavior. Imagine if you did some real bad but legal thing and then no one would talk to you,

by genwin 13y ago

Excellent. Ostracizing complicit people is the key to reducing bad behavior. Imagine if you did some real bad but legal thing and then no one would talk to you, not even your family, or even serve you in a restaurant. Others would think twice. I don't think it's as horrible a consequence as prison, where these people belong. (NSA folk flouted their oath to support the Constitution and defend it against domestic enemies.) If you changed your ways you could be forgiven.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Amadou 13y ago
If you changed your ways you could be forgiven. One slight modification taking a page from South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Committees: If you acknowledge the error of your ways and also change them then you should be forgiven. How do we know it isn't a glib confession? That's going to have to be a judgment call.
- weaksauce 13y ago
  one could always wiretap/spy on them to see if they have any type of recidivism. /(only partially sarcastic but then who watches the watchers?)
pekk 13y ago
Unfortunately, "ostracizing complicit people" is often interpreted as code for "using force against people who disagree with me" (for example, someone who expresses an unpopular opinion concerning Bradley Manning). Blackballing people based on ideology is a McCarthyite idea, not a progressive one
- appleflaxen 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure the OP is advocating blackballing based on their actions. As he says, their behavior is illegal, and blackballing is better than they deserve. Nobody is advocating anything except due process and free speech. Who can possibly object to that?
  - whyenot 13y ago
    > As he says, their behavior is illegal, and blackballing is better than they deserve. Nobody is advocating anything except due process and free speech. It's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. No court has ruled that. It's sickening to me that you can on one had assume that a group of people should be punished for something they may not even be guilty of while at the same time claiming to support due process.
    - YokoZar 13y ago
      It is not "sickening" that I would refuse to have dinner with OJ Simpson even though the courts found him not guilty of murder, because every reasonable person believes he is a murderer. It does not take long extended trials determining precise compliance with law before we, as people, can determine whether or not we should chastize someone. Sometimes it merely takes their public behavior and a smidgeon of thought.
    - RickHull 13y ago
      > It's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. This may or may not be the fact, due only to surreptitious, insidious manipulations of legislation. But how about we try immoral, unconscionable, and unconstitutional? When Congress asked James Clapper really tough questions, to which he gave untruthful answers, is that because Congress thought the NSA was acting in accordance with the law? Did Clapper give untruthful answers because he thought the NSA was acting in accordance with the law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#False_testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance_programs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#False_testimony_t...
    - grey-area 13y ago
      It's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. No court has ruled that. These revelations have seriously weakened many people's belief in the rule of law, applicable to all. Secret courts and secret committees which oversee this activity lead us to judge actions as either moral or immoral, because we have no way to trust or verify the court decisions, or find out whether the law is even being followed, or even how it is being interpreted. It's sickening to me that you can on one had assume that a group of people should be punished for something they may not even be guilty of while at the same time claiming to support due process. When the law is applied inconsistently or not at all, people resort to vigilante action. This is the fault of politicians who have proposed retrospectively legalising activities like metadata collection on every American, tapping every line they can get their hands on, or ignoring breaking into foreign telecoms outfits in supposedly allied countries in order to perform mass surveillance. I'd prefer to avoid vigilante action too, because it does lead inevitably to more evil, misunderstanding and mob justice. We see this from time to time on HN as the mob picks on a target (typically a web company) and tears them apart for some trivial misdemeanour poorly understood at the time. Once the mob starts, it cannot be stopped, and everyone just joins in because to not join in or raise questions makes you a target. At times something similar has happened here to those who oppose this surveillance. People feel angry and impotent and take it out on those who support these actions. I do think this part of your statement is incorrect though and does not follow from the first sentence - something they may not even be guilty of. We now know with a fair degree of certainty what they are guilty of, the legitimate question you raise is whether it is technically considered illegal or not. For many people though, because of the misuse and perversion of the laws governing these activities, they don't trust the law, and the question has now become: Is this right and can I support it, or should I oppose it at every opportunity, and any laws which support it?
- javert 13y ago
  "Ostracizing" is orthogonal from "using force." And AFAIK nobody is subjected to force for talking about Bradley Manning on either side of the debate, so I don't understand your example. > Blackballing people based on ideology is a McCarthyite idea, not a progressive one Being "progressive" is not an argument _for_ something. Progressivism (that's properly a capital P) is a subset of left-wing ideology. Probably less than 20% of HN participants are Progressives. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with blackballing people on the basis of ideology. In fact, you have to do that. Would you sympathize with a Nazi? The idea that moral judgement is immoral is, again, a Progressive idea (and is also self-contradicting). When you label something "McCarthyite," you are falsely lumping together moral judgement (which is needed) with irrational exuberance. It's a deceptive way to use language. Let's not do that.
whyenot 13y ago
> Ostracizing complicit people is the key to reducing bad behavior Exactly. If you are a member of the communist party you have no business working in the entertainment industry.
- genwin 13y ago
  Ostracization is warranted only when you are behaving very badly. Being a member of the communist party doesn't by itself imply bad behavior.

by genwin 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Amadou 13y ago

If you changed your ways you could be forgiven. One slight modification taking a page from South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Committees: If you acknowledge the error of your ways and also change them then you should be forgiven. How do we know it isn't a glib confession? That's going to have to be a judgment call.

weaksauce 13y ago
one could always wiretap/spy on them to see if they have any type of recidivism. /(only partially sarcastic but then who watches the watchers?)

pekk 13y ago

Unfortunately, "ostracizing complicit people" is often interpreted as code for "using force against people who disagree with me" (for example, someone who expresses an unpopular opinion concerning Bradley Manning). Blackballing people based on ideology is a McCarthyite idea, not a progressive one

appleflaxen 13y ago
I'm pretty sure the OP is advocating blackballing based on their actions. As he says, their behavior is illegal, and blackballing is better than they deserve. Nobody is advocating anything except due process and free speech. Who can possibly object to that?
- whyenot 13y ago
  > As he says, their behavior is illegal, and blackballing is better than they deserve. Nobody is advocating anything except due process and free speech. It's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. No court has ruled that. It's sickening to me that you can on one had assume that a group of people should be punished for something they may not even be guilty of while at the same time claiming to support due process.
  - YokoZar 13y ago
    It is not "sickening" that I would refuse to have dinner with OJ Simpson even though the courts found him not guilty of murder, because every reasonable person believes he is a murderer. It does not take long extended trials determining precise compliance with law before we, as people, can determine whether or not we should chastize someone. Sometimes it merely takes their public behavior and a smidgeon of thought.
  - RickHull 13y ago
    > It's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. This may or may not be the fact, due only to surreptitious, insidious manipulations of legislation. But how about we try immoral, unconscionable, and unconstitutional? When Congress asked James Clapper really tough questions, to which he gave untruthful answers, is that because Congress thought the NSA was acting in accordance with the law? Did Clapper give untruthful answers because he thought the NSA was acting in accordance with the law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#False_testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance_programs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#False_testimony_t...
  - grey-area 13y ago
    It's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. No court has ruled that. These revelations have seriously weakened many people's belief in the rule of law, applicable to all. Secret courts and secret committees which oversee this activity lead us to judge actions as either moral or immoral, because we have no way to trust or verify the court decisions, or find out whether the law is even being followed, or even how it is being interpreted. It's sickening to me that you can on one had assume that a group of people should be punished for something they may not even be guilty of while at the same time claiming to support due process. When the law is applied inconsistently or not at all, people resort to vigilante action. This is the fault of politicians who have proposed retrospectively legalising activities like metadata collection on every American, tapping every line they can get their hands on, or ignoring breaking into foreign telecoms outfits in supposedly allied countries in order to perform mass surveillance. I'd prefer to avoid vigilante action too, because it does lead inevitably to more evil, misunderstanding and mob justice. We see this from time to time on HN as the mob picks on a target (typically a web company) and tears them apart for some trivial misdemeanour poorly understood at the time. Once the mob starts, it cannot be stopped, and everyone just joins in because to not join in or raise questions makes you a target. At times something similar has happened here to those who oppose this surveillance. People feel angry and impotent and take it out on those who support these actions. I do think this part of your statement is incorrect though and does not follow from the first sentence - something they may not even be guilty of. We now know with a fair degree of certainty what they are guilty of, the legitimate question you raise is whether it is technically considered illegal or not. For many people though, because of the misuse and perversion of the laws governing these activities, they don't trust the law, and the question has now become: Is this right and can I support it, or should I oppose it at every opportunity, and any laws which support it?
javert 13y ago
"Ostracizing" is orthogonal from "using force." And AFAIK nobody is subjected to force for talking about Bradley Manning on either side of the debate, so I don't understand your example. > Blackballing people based on ideology is a McCarthyite idea, not a progressive one Being "progressive" is not an argument _for_ something. Progressivism (that's properly a capital P) is a subset of left-wing ideology. Probably less than 20% of HN participants are Progressives. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with blackballing people on the basis of ideology. In fact, you have to do that. Would you sympathize with a Nazi? The idea that moral judgement is immoral is, again, a Progressive idea (and is also self-contradicting). When you label something "McCarthyite," you are falsely lumping together moral judgement (which is needed) with irrational exuberance. It's a deceptive way to use language. Let's not do that.

whyenot 13y ago

> Ostracizing complicit people is the key to reducing bad behavior Exactly. If you are a member of the communist party you have no business working in the entertainment industry.

genwin 13y ago
Ostracization is warranted only when you are behaving very badly. Being a member of the communist party doesn't by itself imply bad behavior.