8 ms·

"so by implication you're saying it's immoral to enforce laws against all lesser offenses" Amazingly, the parent didn't actually say or imply that. "worse crim

"so by implication you're saying it's immoral to enforce laws against all lesser offenses" Amazingly, the parent didn't actually say or imply that. "worse crimes go unpunished" doesn't imply "enforcing laws against lesser offenses is immoral".

tptacek 12y ago
So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you.
- atlantic 12y ago
  I think the point being made is that the law is enforced selectively and with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to further the interests of specific political groups.
  - tedks 12y ago
    It's striking that someone as intelligent as the comment parent could not see this. Saying "the US justice system seems only to protect the status quo because it vigorously enforces email leaks out of shady private spying companies while ignoring torture" doesn't imply that car theft should go unpunished at all. But then, if you're an HN celebrity, you can probably count on being able to say anything and get upvoted, and then having anything said against you downvoted. You could test this by masking the username on a comment until after a vote, but HN would never do that because the people who could do that are all people that benefit from this effect, and the powerful never cede power. (I hope to be proven wrong, but cynicism is rarely wrong in the world where we live.)
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I don't know why you're attributing motives for this phenomenon to me, because (a) I mostly agree with you, and (b) find it irritating, not satisfying. (I mean, I agree that my comments will get upvoted much more quickly than yours no matter what I say, not that my comment above was so incoherent that it could only be upvoted out of bias). The problem with masking usernames prior to votes is that it would make all comments anonymous, and spur a lot of pointless voting. I'd much rather an HN flag that simply stopped awarding karma or, for that matter, comment scores above (say) 5 once a commenter crosses (say) 50k karma. Dan wouldn't even have to make it mandatory; he could just make it public whether or not you've opted-in to that "level playing field" feature. Most high-karma commenters would. The top 10 commenter karma scores on the leaderboard were removed after I lobbied for it for months. I wish they'd extend it all the way down to that 50k threshold; at a certain point, you should just have "karma: lots" (like Slashdot used to) and no gradations between those users. I'd still get bonus upvotes though, because there are people who more or less "subscribe" to my comments. Same thing with Patrick, George Grellas, and 'mechanical_fish. And, god willing, 'tzs. Finally, believe me, my real professional circle is mostly made up of people who think very little of HN, and my karma here is not a source of "celebrity" for me, or at least, not in a good sense.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you. Well, for one the point is that you govern by example, and the example of giving the corrupt elit a "get out of jail free card" is bad for society. So, the comment could be read as: punish all guilty, don't selectively punish. Another point to be made reading the comment is that there are essential crimes any moral citizen should abhor (such as torture and imprisonment without due process) that are going unpinished because those in power like them, and stuff that has no real merit to be illegal or to be punished that harshly but that it is, because those in power don't like it. Nobody would read it as advice to not punish theft, domestic abuse etc because there's officially santioned torture that goes unpinished.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This comment reads as if I thought torture should go unpunished.
    - tedks 12y ago
      I didn't read it that way, and I don't see why someone would. In fact, I don't see any critique of your views in this comment. The comment is entirely a rewording and expansion of the original comment. I think you're confusing the comment reading as if torture should be punished with the comment reading as if you think torture should be unpunished. That is, you're reading a comment that disagrees with you, and assuming that it implies you hold the opposite side. I don't think you think torture should go unpunished. However, you seem to think that saying the justice system is corrupt because it punishes Brown while not punishing torturers implies that Brown should go unpunished. This is not the case either, and the original commenter need not believe that. The systematic corruption of the justice system is clear no matter what your views on Brown's guilt in this matter happen to be. Can you say why it is you think the original comment argued in favor of not prosecuting car theft? So far you don't seem to have done so, but responded by asking why anyone wouldn't think so, which doesn't explain why you think so.
      - 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you.

atlantic 12y ago
I think the point being made is that the law is enforced selectively and with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to further the interests of specific political groups.
- tedks 12y ago
  It's striking that someone as intelligent as the comment parent could not see this. Saying "the US justice system seems only to protect the status quo because it vigorously enforces email leaks out of shady private spying companies while ignoring torture" doesn't imply that car theft should go unpunished at all. But then, if you're an HN celebrity, you can probably count on being able to say anything and get upvoted, and then having anything said against you downvoted. You could test this by masking the username on a comment until after a vote, but HN would never do that because the people who could do that are all people that benefit from this effect, and the powerful never cede power. (I hope to be proven wrong, but cynicism is rarely wrong in the world where we live.)
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I don't know why you're attributing motives for this phenomenon to me, because (a) I mostly agree with you, and (b) find it irritating, not satisfying. (I mean, I agree that my comments will get upvoted much more quickly than yours no matter what I say, not that my comment above was so incoherent that it could only be upvoted out of bias). The problem with masking usernames prior to votes is that it would make all comments anonymous, and spur a lot of pointless voting. I'd much rather an HN flag that simply stopped awarding karma or, for that matter, comment scores above (say) 5 once a commenter crosses (say) 50k karma. Dan wouldn't even have to make it mandatory; he could just make it public whether or not you've opted-in to that "level playing field" feature. Most high-karma commenters would. The top 10 commenter karma scores on the leaderboard were removed after I lobbied for it for months. I wish they'd extend it all the way down to that 50k threshold; at a certain point, you should just have "karma: lots" (like Slashdot used to) and no gradations between those users. I'd still get bonus upvotes though, because there are people who more or less "subscribe" to my comments. Same thing with Patrick, George Grellas, and 'mechanical_fish. And, god willing, 'tzs. Finally, believe me, my real professional circle is mostly made up of people who think very little of HN, and my karma here is not a source of "celebrity" for me, or at least, not in a good sense.
coldtea 12y ago
>So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you. Well, for one the point is that you govern by example, and the example of giving the corrupt elit a "get out of jail free card" is bad for society. So, the comment could be read as: punish all guilty, don't selectively punish. Another point to be made reading the comment is that there are essential crimes any moral citizen should abhor (such as torture and imprisonment without due process) that are going unpinished because those in power like them, and stuff that has no real merit to be illegal or to be punished that harshly but that it is, because those in power don't like it. Nobody would read it as advice to not punish theft, domestic abuse etc because there's officially santioned torture that goes unpinished.
- tptacek 12y ago
  This comment reads as if I thought torture should go unpunished.
  - tedks 12y ago
    I didn't read it that way, and I don't see why someone would. In fact, I don't see any critique of your views in this comment. The comment is entirely a rewording and expansion of the original comment. I think you're confusing the comment reading as if torture should be punished with the comment reading as if you think torture should be unpunished. That is, you're reading a comment that disagrees with you, and assuming that it implies you hold the opposite side. I don't think you think torture should go unpunished. However, you seem to think that saying the justice system is corrupt because it punishes Brown while not punishing torturers implies that Brown should go unpunished. This is not the case either, and the original commenter need not believe that. The systematic corruption of the justice system is clear no matter what your views on Brown's guilt in this matter happen to be. Can you say why it is you think the original comment argued in favor of not prosecuting car theft? So far you don't seem to have done so, but responded by asking why anyone wouldn't think so, which doesn't explain why you think so.
    - 12y ago