6 ms·

Stopped reading after they equated 'a man who helps drug dealers' with 'sociopath'. There are a lot of reasons a good smart man would want use his technical ski

by ansgri 13y ago

Stopped reading after they equated 'a man who helps drug dealers' with 'sociopath'. There are a lot of reasons a good smart man would want use his technical skills to help spread narcotics. There's an essay by Aleister Crowley, 'Cocaine', where he argues that free drugs (even hard ones) are better for the society as a whole.

joshuapants 13y ago
Maybe if you'd decided to keep reading instead of leaping to a self-righteous conclusion you'd have noticed that they called him a sociopath because of his attempts to hire hitmen not because he was involved in drug sales
- logn 13y ago
  And then they further argued that he hired hitmen to protect Silk Road which he thought was changing the world for the better. And that unlike others with similar websites, he never ran off with the money. If anything, the article was pretty darn positive for a guy who wanted to kill people.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    If there's one reason to keep politics off HN that we should all be able to agree with, it's to keep us from finding out that people we talk to here believe it might be justifiable to kill people to protect a website.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
      Instead of "only suspecting"?
    - midas007 13y ago
      "Anything that you wouldn't say to someone face-to-face" + keeping to dinner party topics with people you just met.
      - selmnoo 13y ago
        Funny you say that, because that's exactly why I come here -- I want to hear people come out and say the things they're thinking of saying but wouldn't because it would violate some social guideline. I was having a conversation with a libertarian the other day (in fact it actually was a dinner party) and I kept getting the feeling that on certain points he /wanted/ to go to logical extremes (as did I) but didn't, because if we had gone there we'd inevitably end up talking about some pretty heavy stuff, including my country's history and how we mistreated many people. But the reality is that it actually is really hard talking about these things face-to-face (it is, at least to me). Online, where most memory is ephemeral as concerns people's identities on large forums, you don't know my race, religion, creed - you're not going to waste mental power trying to word things so that I don't get offended, you'll just come out and say what you mean. That's really what I want. But even I can't do this in real life (or at least, have significant trouble doing it), so I come here... and other places online to talk about those things. Because, if I'm not talking about these things at the dinner table, then where else would I talk about them if not online? I'd rather that we just get down and dirty, in an honest and direct manner. We often sacrifice progress on many issues by getting set back by social rules. Let's stop doing that.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      I suspect that most of us believe it might be justifiable to kill people to protect a website. Do you (or anyone else) oppose having armed guards protecting a data center? Armed guards protecting a data center means that someone might get killed to protect a website. (You can draw other moral distinctions, and I'm not defending this guy in particular. I'm just pointing out that the specific argument you are making is most likely incorrect.)
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Big doors and time-locks are likely to work better. Side-arms to protect computers is just security theater. The only reason I can think of to have armed guards at a data center is if the people working there are at a real risk of armed attack, not the computers. edit - also if your site security and uptime is dependent on some people with guns at a datacenter, then you are doing it wrong.
      - badman_ting 13y ago
        >I suspect that most of us believe it might be justifiable to kill people to protect a website. Right, that would be to tptacek's point.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Thank you. Please substitute in your head the argument reasonable people can infer I intended to make for the argument my words accidentally included. :)
    - logn 13y ago
      I was explaining the article's explanation of DPR's rationale. This isn't my viewpoint or the author's.
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    Your forgot the part about allegedly ordering a guy tortured to get his money back.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ghshephard 13y ago
The sociopath part was where he simultaneously was a kind, caring, sensitive person, while simultaneously comfortable ordering the execution of somebody, and three of his completely innocent roommates. That part is pretty messed up.

by ansgri 13y ago

joshuapants 13y ago

Maybe if you'd decided to keep reading instead of leaping to a self-righteous conclusion you'd have noticed that they called him a sociopath because of his attempts to hire hitmen not because he was involved in drug sales

logn 13y ago
And then they further argued that he hired hitmen to protect Silk Road which he thought was changing the world for the better. And that unlike others with similar websites, he never ran off with the money. If anything, the article was pretty darn positive for a guy who wanted to kill people.
- tptacek 13y ago
  If there's one reason to keep politics off HN that we should all be able to agree with, it's to keep us from finding out that people we talk to here believe it might be justifiable to kill people to protect a website.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
    Instead of "only suspecting"?
  - midas007 13y ago
    "Anything that you wouldn't say to someone face-to-face" + keeping to dinner party topics with people you just met.
    - selmnoo 13y ago
      Funny you say that, because that's exactly why I come here -- I want to hear people come out and say the things they're thinking of saying but wouldn't because it would violate some social guideline. I was having a conversation with a libertarian the other day (in fact it actually was a dinner party) and I kept getting the feeling that on certain points he /wanted/ to go to logical extremes (as did I) but didn't, because if we had gone there we'd inevitably end up talking about some pretty heavy stuff, including my country's history and how we mistreated many people. But the reality is that it actually is really hard talking about these things face-to-face (it is, at least to me). Online, where most memory is ephemeral as concerns people's identities on large forums, you don't know my race, religion, creed - you're not going to waste mental power trying to word things so that I don't get offended, you'll just come out and say what you mean. That's really what I want. But even I can't do this in real life (or at least, have significant trouble doing it), so I come here... and other places online to talk about those things. Because, if I'm not talking about these things at the dinner table, then where else would I talk about them if not online? I'd rather that we just get down and dirty, in an honest and direct manner. We often sacrifice progress on many issues by getting set back by social rules. Let's stop doing that.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I suspect that most of us believe it might be justifiable to kill people to protect a website. Do you (or anyone else) oppose having armed guards protecting a data center? Armed guards protecting a data center means that someone might get killed to protect a website. (You can draw other moral distinctions, and I'm not defending this guy in particular. I'm just pointing out that the specific argument you are making is most likely incorrect.)
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Big doors and time-locks are likely to work better. Side-arms to protect computers is just security theater. The only reason I can think of to have armed guards at a data center is if the people working there are at a real risk of armed attack, not the computers. edit - also if your site security and uptime is dependent on some people with guns at a datacenter, then you are doing it wrong.
    - badman_ting 13y ago
      >I suspect that most of us believe it might be justifiable to kill people to protect a website. Right, that would be to tptacek's point.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Thank you. Please substitute in your head the argument reasonable people can infer I intended to make for the argument my words accidentally included. :)
  - logn 13y ago
    I was explaining the article's explanation of DPR's rationale. This isn't my viewpoint or the author's.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Your forgot the part about allegedly ordering a guy tortured to get his money back.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ghshephard 13y ago

The sociopath part was where he simultaneously was a kind, caring, sensitive person, while simultaneously comfortable ordering the execution of somebody, and three of his completely innocent roommates. That part is pretty messed up.