27 ms·

It's a crying shame. Normally that's an empty phrase, but it describes this. I can't imagine reading this and not feeling tears well up. No sense of what I wo

• rfnslyr 13y ago
  Does anybody else constantly live in a state of guilt? So many lives lost and wars fought just to get us to where we are, and we reap the benefits. I feel so guilty for having a good paying job in the city. I'm not adding any value to the world, none at all. I tinker with a few codes every day and make silly amounts of money, when there's people struggling to put food on the table working 18 hour days. I need to do something, something meaningful. Sure I send a few bucks every month to a few charities but that just makes me feel worse, like I'm loosely patching holes of my guilt with plaster that will fade the next day. What can I do? I don't belong here. I'm just another waste of space.
  • cgag 13y ago
    I feel guilty for doing basically anything that isn't actively working to fix our horrible justice system.
  • evincarofautumn 13y ago
    You are a waste of space. But committing suicide is so boring—I don’t recommend it. You are going to have to figure out the point you want your life to have. So quit complaining on the internet about your privileged guilt, save your silly amounts of money for a while, then spend it executing your vision. The best any of us can hope to do is to mean something to somebody.
    • wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
      Edit. [disagreement was expressed re: suicide]
      • rktymnrml 13y ago
        No suicide jokes were used you illiterate boob.
        • wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
          Edit. [disagreement was expressed re: sockpuppet]
        • sillysaurus2 13y ago
          Will you both please stop this?
  • lostlogin 13y ago
    Contact representatives in government bodies every so often. I'm not sure it makes a difference but I always figure that at a bare minimum it occupies some of their time (at least it does here in New Zealand, as the replies are not canned as far as I can tell, and they aren't from assistants either usually) which prevents other work getting done. I have a faint hope that it achieves more than this, but hope is about all.
  • javajosh 13y ago
    There is hope. Software is the key to addressing a great deal of injustice in the world. I believe that software programmers who want to make a difference can do so by collaborating on open source projects intended for use by government at every level. Consider: if we can write the software that cities, states, and even the federal government uses to do it's job, then we can also have a material impact on transparency, usability, etc for the users. Take the judicial system. It is badly underfunded, especially in California, which has the largest civil court system in the Western world. What if an enterprising group of civic minded programmers simply wrote awesome, free, open software to run a state courtroom, complete with a self-help web interface? Such a project would not necessarily be fun. But it would be useful, and it would arguably contribute greatly to society.
    • saraid216 13y ago
      Have you talked to Code for America at all? That's exactly the kind of thing they'd be interested in aiming for, I think.
      • javajosh 13y ago
        No I haven't, thanks for the reference. The link is http://www.codeforamerica.org/ http://www.codeforamerica.org/ for anyone else interested.
    • jnbiche 13y ago
      > it would arguably contribute greatly to society. It would contribute to the system that is perpetuating these kinds of injustices. Recall that a good portion of these people serving life sentences for non-violent crimes are in state prisons. How is helping them build their software systems going to find justice for a man in jail for life for stealing some tools? By the way, this is not a rhetorical question: I'm honestly trying to understand this point of view.
      • javajosh 13y ago
        In this case, technology could have helped in (at least) two places: 1. In the courtroom. These people could have received a faster, more painless, and more just trial. The proceedings could have been more open, easier to search and data mine, and hence easier to react to faster. Additionally (and somewhat science-fictiony) I personally would like to see us experiment with alternative juries - particularly much larger, distributed juries. If justice can't be crowd-sourced, then I don't know what can. 2. In the legislature. Although the creation of bills is an intensely collaborative process, too often the details are delegated to underlings, and those details are seriously misinformed by the facts. So one piece of software that is needed world wide are better document collaboration tools that are tied to accurate sources. The legislature in particular should be obsessively concerned about how the justice system is applying their laws. Better visibility into what's happening, in real-time, would make the legislature a) more aware and b) more responsive to injustice.
  • cdcarter 13y ago
    Find a local (and hopefully small) charity you like. Start giving to them, as much as you can. Volunteer with them. See if they are looking to add trustees. Find every way you can help. It's hard. It's not just giving $10 to Oxfam (which you should do anyway), it's a real dedication of time and care. But you'll meet people, you'll support something you are passionate about, and you'll have a lot less time to think about how you're a waste.
    • jevinskie 13y ago
      I second volunteering. Donating your time makes you feel much more involved than if you donated an equivalent (or even greater than) your wage for that time. It also is a visible show of dedication to a cause!
  • jodrellblank 13y ago
    What can I do? I don't belong here. I'm just another waste of space. Isn't everyone? Why is working 18 hours of labour a day inherently more valuable or useful to humanity, the planet, the universe, anything? Why is someone struggling inherently a better, more worthy person than anyone else (and by what standards?). Would you really prefer a world where everyone has to struggle to survive, because that's where it sounds like your comment is leading. The feeling of guilt is an echo in your head. It's not actually an objective measure of your worth, it's not really some outside deity judging you and finding you unworthy, even if it feels like it is. Because of this, there's no saying there is anything you can do to assuage your feelings of guilt if you go with them. Maybe it's a while loop that says "while (bad_things_happen_anywhere) { feel_guilty(); }". You ask what to do as if there's bound to be a corresponding "if I do X then I can feel less guilty" pattern in your head waiting to be triggered - but maybe there isn't. What you can do is work on it as your problem, your suffering, your mental issue that needs addressing in your head. You're not unhappy because the world sucks for a dirt poor person. You're unhappy because of a "be unhappy" thought stuck in your head. Don't change the world to stop this suffering, change your thoughts.
    • collyw 13y ago
      I worked for an investment bank before for a year. I work for a genome sequencing centre now. In both cases building / maintaining databases. The work is paid less, and there is less opportunity to earn lots in the future, but I do feel better about myself for not being part of the corrupt self serving finance system. Many of our projects are involved in cancer research, so its doing the tiniest bit towards helping the world.
      • anu_gupta 13y ago
        You have my thanks and respect - I wish more people working in corrupt and unethical organisations did the same.
  • was_hellbanned 13y ago
    Take some of your money and travel. Go to Cambodia and don't be shy with your cash. Visit the landmine museum, do some crying, and see how the resilient people are (slowly) making a comeback. Buy all the trinkets and crap off the swarming children. Hire a guide. Stimulate their local economy, then come back with a greater appreciation of everything in your life. Vote (I suggest independent, since mainstream are different shades of the same color), focus on your friendships, and find yourself a more challenging and fulfilling job, and don't read so much bad news. Everyone plays a role in the world, and yours doesn't have to be one of direct savior. You can and do add value in innumerable ways that you don't even notice.
    • enko 13y ago
      > Buy all the trinkets and crap off the swarming children Oh FFS, don't do that, it just encourages them to treat visiting whiteys as walking ATMs, which is bad for their tourism industry long-term. Stay at hotels, eat at restaurants, take taxis, but don't encourage the obnoxious hawkers, no matter how young they are.
      • heynk 13y ago
        Would you advocate for the same 'top-down' approach to stimulating the economy in the US or another developed country? I think the concept of 'hawkers' could be easily applied to startups. Do you believe a good consumer should be supporting big corporations or fledgling startups? I'm just genuinely curious of your position and if you think the analogy applies in the first world.
        • enko 13y ago
          I am not so sure it is such a good analogy. The "business model" of these hawkers in third world countries like Cambodia or Laos is to explicitly present themselves as impoverished, and then pressure or guilt-trip you into buying something from them as a gesture of charity. The OP seemed to encourage such behaviour, even admitted it was "crap" they were selling (it is). I'd suggest that any startup worth its salt is actually offering something of real value, not explicitly a charity case, so the analogy completely breaks down. I fully support encouraging the startup ecosystem. And I'm not even sure about using a term like "top down". Hotels really do employ locals, as do restaurants, and by patronising them you send a strong signal of support to the local tourism industry. With that assurance they can make plans, invest, advertise, expand. It's not about making the rich richer, not at all. Giving a small regional tourism industry the confidence to plan for the future is a wonderful thing.
  • grahamburger 13y ago
    Remember that not everyone who is poor is unhappy.
    • smtddr 13y ago
      ...and not everyone who's rich, is happy...
      • pessimizer 13y ago
        But the main worry that unhappy people have is lack of money, so it's not at all parallel or equivalent.
  • mixmastamyk 13y ago
    No. If you're paying taxes and not a criminal/on the dole, we need ya... and more of ya.
  • Amadou 13y ago
    What can I do? Don't do it from a place of guilt, find something that you feel passionately about, cut back on the meaningless and lucrative tinkering and start tinkering for your passion. Your most valuable contribution to the world is your time, arrange your life so that you can spend as much time as possible, without burning out, on something meaningful to you.
  • lancewiggs 13y ago
    I really liked this "own a problem" perspective from an HR post (1). Pick a problem to help solve, prioritise that and deprioritise everything else to solve it. You can also shift to work for an institution which is genuinely trying to do good, such as the World Bank or a not-for-profit. Or you can do what you can from within your own organisation to get them to be working to improve the world rather than take advantage of it. (1) http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/what-problem-will-you-own/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/what-problem-will-you-own/ <update - my apologies, there is a registration requirement for the article. The lightbox appears after a little wait, so you should be able to read it>
    • nhaehnle 13y ago
      "... such as the World Bank ..." Just keep in mind the World Bank is considered by many as an instrumental part of a quasi-colonial system of institutions that is set up to exploit the third world through their advocacy for unfavorable debt and a certain economical bias. I'm sure they also do some good, but they are at least a somewhat ambiguous organization.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  • dodyg 13y ago
    I am a third worlder currently living in Cairo - if you think a bit of poverty here and there in the US is bad, here in this city we are surrounded by it. Being poor is not a moral flaw and I see people everyday go out of their bed and try to win most of their days. Still people manage to find happiness within the most dire constraints. You cannot do everything and nobody expects to. Take comfort in that. We are all doing out bits to repair the world (There's a wonderful Hebrew phrase for this: Tikkun olam). But when you have the means, go travel. Meet the others who occupy this world, who have different perspective of living, who struggles with different things that you do. They will be happy to meet you.
    • waps 13y ago
      I have visited, amongst other places, Cairo. I wouldn't be able to live there for the guilt it would instil in me. Sadly, Cairo is by far not the worst place (compared to New Delhi, government services are quite good in Cairo. Yes, really), and several "first world" locations are, at best, a degree of difference with Cairo (Hong Kong would be a good example). People don't seem to be able to imagine just how bad life is in the third world for the majority of people. And frankly, sorry to put it so bluntly, but here's a thought people should think about. Given you are a third-worlder, would you want to be one of the exploited or one of the non-exploited. Given that in practice most third-worlders still choose what job they want, the answer is obvious : with very few exceptions, people want to be one of the "exploited". Visit a third-world city, turn a few non-approved blocks, and you'll understand why. Btw: one of the things that amazed me about Cairo is that they've created a "fake" city center, where the poverty you see is almost absent, in a way that I've seen nowhere else. So in Cairo, you definitely have to turn a few non-approved blocks.
  • mattraibert 13y ago
    There are days when I could write this comment. But what you describe does not sound like an honest or clear assessment of the world. It sounds more like depression. Which is real and serious and treatable. The world is often tragic. It <em>is</em> wrong to live comfortably and be willfully ignorant to tragedy, but it is not wrong to take care of yourself and make yourself whole. So, yes, seek something meaningful to make the world better, and start by taking care of yourself.
  • rjurney 13y ago
    Change your life. Go work for a non-profit.
• lostlogin 13y ago
  Failure to sign the Ottawa treaty (anti landmine) and the international criminal court agreements, execution of minors (and execution at all), assassination of opponents even if citizens (via drones), torture, war crimes, illegal invasions, use of phosphorus (probably comes under war crimes), continual killing of civilians in non declared wars, massive prison population, secret prisons, outsourcing torture, supporting some of the worst governments of earth etc. Who sees the US as a leader in human rights? No one I know.
  • latch 13y ago
    It's easy to distill these issues and hold a self-righteous opinion, but I personally find most too complex to form anything resembling an educated opinion. Take land mines. I've heard that they play a critical role in South Korea's defense, which was a major reason Clinton didn't sign. Military experts talk about how it's an effective tool that, when used responsibly, can benefit civilians more than harm them. They also kill and maim people. Intellectually, both sides seem reasonable to me. Of course, emotionally, one is passively helping people (or so we are told), while the other is actively harming them, so, ya, I lean towards being anti land mines. But, I fundamentally can't shake the feeling that I have no clue what's going on, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to judge.
    • fleitz 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure North Korea used the exact same reasoning when they didn't sign.
      • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Point being?
        • sdoering 13y ago
          Point being (I believe), it is expensive to take a moral position. It costs you money and thoughtful action. You could secure the South Korean border without landmines. It just would cost a lot more money. You could do a lot of other things (or rather not do them), but it might cost you your political standing. So point being - playing the moral high card, as the US do around the world, should not follow the line from a Genesis song: "Do as I say, don't do as I do..." At least in my humble opinion (the same goes for my Governement, the German one by the way.)
• Natsu 13y ago
  If you hate this and want to do something for them, there is the option of petitioning for political pardons for them. After all, even if three-strikes is reformed, that almost certainly wouldn't be reapplied retroactively.
• deviltry 13y ago
  Ha ha, are you kidding me? This is not humanity? Yeah humane thing would be to let them go, right? :D I hope they rot and get raped and abused. If ALL dipshits like them would be locked for life, life would so much better. Just imagine - you wouldn't have to lock your doors. No keys for home, no keys for car. Sounds like heaven. Yeah go cry for these pieces of shits, you go boy......
• downandout 13y ago
  > It's a crying shame. That is an appropriate reaction, but the ACLU's focus on life without parole sentences grossly understates the savagery of US sentencing schemes. Tens of thousands more inmates are serving life with the possibility of parole for non-violent crimes. These inmates may very well never be released, and if they are they will have served so long that they will never be able to recover. In Nevada, for example, 1 in 5 prisoners is serving a life sentence with the possibility (but no guarantee) of parole. Our version of the 3 strikes law, which is used in several other states as well, enables any three felony convictions to qualify an offender for a life sentence. This can and has included repeat drug offenders (including those who were not dealing), those committing multiple relatively minor property crimes (vandalism, theft, etc), and those with multiple DUI's that never resulted in accidents. Simply put, US habitual offender laws defy all sense of logic, humanity, and reason. The political will to change this does not exist within either of our major political parties, so the problem is likely to expand over time.
  • reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    Multiple DUIs do deserve a severe punishment IMO, because that is attempted murder basically and they are a danger to the public. The rest I agree are ridiculous. Huffing drugs three times does not deserve permanent incarceration.
    • enko 13y ago
      > that is attempted murder basically Oh come on. I've lost my license for what you'd call DUI - made a stupid decision to drive the 1.5km back home from a pub, got a 1 year ban and a hefty fine. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do and I deserve what I got, but attempted murder? Don't be ridiculous. At most repeated DUI is criminal negligence, and negligence on the part of whomever supplied the offender with the vehicle. It should be met with driving bans and escalating punishments if those are ignored. Life imprisonment is an amazingly harsh and expensive over-punishment for a stupid but usually non-malicious crime.
      • omni 13y ago
• jnbiche 13y ago
  Almost sadder is the fact that if these people were ever released, they're in the exact same position as every other ex-con. Which means that finding a job goes from being a challenging task (for most of us) to almost impossible. If you manage to find the very rare employer willing to overlook a felony conviction, there's also the challenge of finding an apartment with a criminal record (apartments can and do reject ex-cons from leasing). Never mind the emotional hurdle of reuniting with family (if you're lucky), and the huge challenge of socially re-integrating with society.
• groupthinker 13y ago
  This comment is off-topic, and is not related to hacking at all. This entire submission should be deleted. I agree with all opinions expressed here.
• rayiner 13y ago
  The ACLU page is rather manipulative in that they construe the facts very favorably to the convicted. E.g. "After serving two years in prison during his mid-twenties for inadvertently killing someone during a bar fight." Oh yes, he just accidentally killed someone in a bar fight. Happens all the time really, right up there with leaving your credit card with the hostess after getting a little too tipsy. It would be less biased to show statistics for the kind of people sentenced under the three strikes law, but that wouldn't tug the heart strings as much. California's law is particularly dysfunctional, because it applies to any three felonies while most states limit their laws to serious felonies. As a result, about half of three strikers in California are in for non-serious or non-violent predicate felonies (burglary, robbery, and drug possession). But in other states the law is more limited. For example, the Georgia law only applies to: (1) Murder or felony murder, (2) Armed robbery, (3) Kidnapping, (4) Rape, (5) Aggravated child molestation, (6) Aggravated sodomy, or (7) Aggravated sexual battery. Besides that, what you're missing is that nobody is really intending for these specific, cherry-picked, people to be kept in jail for their whole lives. Their sentences are the unintended consequences of three-strikes laws that offer no discretion to sentencing judges. When legislators voted for these three strikes laws, with public support, they were thinking of people who are "irredeemable." Hardened convicts who end up in jail on three occasions. What they didn't count on was the fact that there are people living on the edge who rack up a number of felony convictions for relatively minor things even though they're not the kind of hardened criminal legislators were thinking about. If you live in the ghetto and have friends who engage in gang activity, it's pretty easy to get drawn into some bad behavior that results in a couple of felony convictions, so that "one mistake" later in your life can bring you under the three strikes law. Why don't these laws get repealed? Because Americans are really not sympathetic to people living on the edge. Ordinary people don't live in the kind of circumstances where they might wander into a felony conviction from a minor lapse in judgment. They don't have drug dealer boyfriends or friends who try to recruit them into burglarizing a house. It helps that 75% of people sentenced under California's three strikes law are black or hispanic (45% are black despite only 6.5% of the state population being black). Americans are particularly unsympathetic to racial minorities living on the edge. I think sentences in the U.S. are deeply dysfunctional, but I hate this sort of publication by the ACLU. It makes people who support sentence reform seem dishonest by cherry-picking the edge cases, instead of trying to paint an accurate picture with statistics.