5 ms·
It seems like everyone considers this the most important question: Should we, or should we not, have a witchhunt because of what this guy said over dinner? I
by cousin_it 12y ago
It seems like everyone considers this the most important question:
Should we, or should we not, have a witchhunt because of what this guy said over dinner?
I think this is the wrong question to ask. I've seen quite enough internet witchhunts over the last few years, and have come to the conclusion that they are always harmful, because they are never proportionate. You can't have justice if your mechanism of justice isn't proportionate.
- calbear81 12y agoI don't think that's true. There are many instances in which we as a society have chosen disproportionate responses as a way to deter future infractions by others thinking about doing the same thing. Think about penalties doled out to corporations for bad behavior and/or when juries award large damages in cases of wrongful death from the police or what not.
- peterwwillis 12y agoThe only time the first example is disproportionate is when we fine corporations too little for their abuses, and that is never good. edit The damages you discuss are punitive damages, but again are not intended to be disproportionate; they are intended to be proportionate in a way that is an adequate remedy to the basis of a lawsuit (when compensatory damages won't work). Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. Justice should always be proportionate. Sadly, there is often too little justice served in our society, and too much abuse, as evidenced by people defending disproportionate justice.
- ganeumann 12y agoIf this were true, then the difference between plea bargain fines and court-ordered fines would be the cost of a trial. This does not seem to be the case.
- grey-area 12y agoAnd yet in between the infractions and the punishment, however extreme, comes a system of justice based on laws, presumption of innocence, and equality before the law. An imperfect system, but at least one which aspires to impartiality and justice. The parent is objecting to replacing that justice system with mob justice (which is usually disproportionate, harmful to everyone involved, and often just plain wrong).
- forrestthewoods 12y agoI generally oppose all witch hunts as a matter of principal. Even if the person actually did something wrong the damage done by enabling a pitch fork wielding mob is far worse than whatever thing was done by a single person.
- joelrunyon 12y agoThis. Plus every witch hunt enables the next witch hunt by serving as a reference point & rationalization for extreme reaction.
- lotsofmangos 12y agoI guess the counterpoint to that might be the events surrounding the downfall of Nicolae Ceaușescu. Not just the jeering mob that let the facade of power slip, but also the army switching sides thinking the defense chief had been murdered when he had in fact committed suicide. edit - Am meaning it more as an exception that proves the point. Someone really has to be nasty on the scale of Ceaușescu before forming a badly informed mob can be a good idea.
- lotsofmangos 12y agoAre you sure that is what people consider the most important question? I haven't noticed any pitchforks, no warming buckets of tar and chickens being plucked, just people deleting the app.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- lotsofmangos 12y agoCommentary with voting sounds like a peculiarly civilized form of witch-hunt. Sounds more like a description of a debate. Debates can be rowdy, but they need to really be followed with unpleasant actions against someone before they can be described as a witch-hunt, otherwise it is merely complaining.
- freshflowers 12y agoIt's an easy diversion to label any criticism a "witchhunt". It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence. In this case, Emil Micheal publicly confirmed the veracity of the Buzzfeed report and apologized. In another example that was labelled a witchhunt, Brendan Eich was on public record as supporting an anti-gay proposal. It's not a witchhunt if the people in question are attacked over what they do or say and not over unproven allegations. As for proportionate, that's quite subjective. It's not a coincidence that the subjects tend to be fundamental issues of ethics and ideology over which opinions vary wildly.
- cousin_it 12y agoPeople shouldn't be attacked for what they say. My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Absence of government censorship is only a small part of it. It was good enough long ago, when governments were the only powerful groups that could scare you into silence, but today it's no longer enough.
- dtparr 12y ago>People shouldn't be attacked for what they say. > My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Aren't the people doing the 'attacking' (assuming you're being metaphorical and I've not missed an account of a physical assault), also simply speaking their mind? Edit: Just a note that this isn't specific to this case, but the general notion that you can say what you want without being criticized seems to actually limit the speech of others.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- cousin_it 12y agoI suppose I'm just wishing for a society that would disapprove of political witchhunts the same way it disapproves of Eich's support of Prop 8.
- downandout 12y ago>You can't have justice if your mechanism of justice isn't proportionate The people bashing Uber over this story were mostly the same people that have always bashed Uber. They weren't looking for justice over this particular event, and it was obvious that many didn't actually read the absurdly written story that started this whole thing. They simply saw a mob that agreed with their dislike for Uber and joined it.
- fleitz 12y agoA witchhunt would be inappropriate, however mob justice meated out by people not privy to the conversation is well within reason.