Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Feb 18, 2019.
when is this a bad principle?
On internet forums.
They inform each other. Divorcing one from the other means you'll always be working with a false/incomplete image.
When someone says, "I'm shortly going to start shooting BBs toward your eyes."
It's tricky because at some point, saying is doing.
If a person often loudly calls for something to be done, or criticizes something/someone, they're not just talking; they're also advocating, or criticizing.
This does tie into something I think a lot about: the rules of society and individuals, both official and "hidden." It's the hidden rules that are the real rules you have to deal with. Official rules are more for stating how people would like things to be, not how they really are.
For example, the Official Rules state that you're not supposed to steal. Rob a bank, or a person, or swindle someone, and you're supposed to be punished.
The real, hidden, unofficial rules are that it's wrong to steal in a blue-collar way, and if you're not rich. Compare sentences for blue-collar robbers to white-collar ones who steal vastly more money. They're not the same.
Really, whenever there's a major difference between reactions to the same offense by different people, you get a peek at what the real rules are.
This has always frustrated me because my instinct is to be by-the-book. Everything becomes much more complicated, less predictable, and less fair once hidden rules supercede official ones. It also harms people's trust in institutions, laws, and other people in general when rules are so arbitrarily enforced. If you want a just society, make the official rules equitable and enforce them strictly and fairly. If you personally want to get places in life, though, learn all the hidden rules in all their arbitrary cruelty and favoritism.
Not sure I follow, but I'd say people's making and enforcing of rules is between people and, well, people. It's entirely possible to write fair laws or rules and enforce them fairly, and doing so would be better for everyone except for those you are used to enjoying favoritism in defiance of those rules (white-collar criminals and the rich in general).
Maybe. Let's give it a go!
When applied to POTUS.
if someone yells 'DUCK', dont wait to see if they duck too.
My understanding is because it's about how you commit your crime, not just how much you steal. When you're siphoning money electronically, you're not physically threatening anyone or pointing a weapon at them, so you're not a violent criminal and as much of a threat, right? No one's ever died because of embezzlement from what I'm aware of. But even for electronic crimes, you can still be severely punished - counterfeiting of securities for example can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and you can go to prison for decades. A lot of factors go into play in determining your sentence, but I wouldn't be surprised if blue collar theft like you say also has a bit of racism involved in sentencing disparities.
Poor people of whatever race get the stick, always. In addition to violent/nonviolent crime t's also about unequal access to legal resources. Plenty of poors who commit nonviolent crimes get the book thrown at them because simply because they cannot afford to properly lawyer up.
I would wager that a non-trivial number of people died from the control frauds that resulted in the 2000s financial crisis. That crime wave included thousands of illegal foreclosures which resulted in large numbers of people becoming homeless.
Trump's crimes have harmed a multitude more people than your everyday criminal, yet he has spent 0 days in jail. It's all about money.
I agree certain big things are awful and people are going unpunished, but I feel you're both talking about extreme outliers. I was thinking more on a personal level, as I believed Phrossack's comment was about how things affect your own life. If I'm going to steal money electronically, I'm committing a crime but I'm less of a public risk than if I were to hold up a gas station, you know what I mean?
I disagree. What if the person that lost their money electronically can no longer afford their medicine. This is not that uncommon among the elderly.
Someone is always impacted. Just because you don't see who it is, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
People lose their houses and go bankrupt because they get ripped off, lose their car, self-medicate. White collar elder abuse causes depression. It's way more common than physical crime, which unlike white collar, has been decreasing. I'd guess its body count is significantly higher than muggers, but it's the institutional sort of evil that offloads its guilt onto other sources.
I'm certainly not talking about extreme outliers. When I was arrested for marijuana possession back in 2010 (the state of New Jersey was arresting dozens of people for that each month at that time, I believe) there were two others arrested with me. One of those guys could not afford a lawyer and got a worse outcome from the case than me or the other kid who could afford a lawyer. I don't believe that example is unusual in any way.
Additionally, the control frauds I described above were not exceptional cases, this kind of crime was endemic to the whole financial sector in the 2000s. That is why it caused such a bad financial crisis and recession.
I mean, I would question this premise, certainly. It may be the case but it's not certain by any means. The bank CEO who enriches himself by destroying the solvency of his bank and other entities with which his bank does business is certainly a greater threat than a guy who lifts $200 out of a gas station cash register, but that's just my opinion.
If you're a victim of fraud you'll get your money back, of course being ripped off is different. But I feel you're deliberately being disingenuous just to be disagreeable, you know very well harm caused from collateral effects isn't the same as physical assault. If you steal my identity and ruin my credit so I can't get a loan to somehow keep myself alive, you're not going to be charged with murder like if you shot me. You know very well directly threatening someone's life is far scarier than indirect harm.
I wonder what percentage of muggings and robberies end in murder and what percentage of fraud victims end in suicide.
Separate names with a comma.