Hacker News Reader

Comment by redthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

I don't think "cowardly" is the right way to put it. The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face of it is admirable. That said, it's not something that most people want in their lives. Many people just want to pursue their interests, develop their career, and raise a family. Dealing with the level of harassment you face imperils all of those goals. Unless someone is dedicated to a cause and willing to sacrifice a lot to serve it, it's unreasonable to ask them to invite that kind of drama into their lives.

I respect what you do, but I think it's unfair and myopic to label as "cowards" anyone who doesn't share your commitment.

On an unrelated note, does this mean the FBI will be serving pg with a warrant for our info?

View on HN

It is cowardly, though. By refusing to associate with someone simply because they've been bullied, you have given your consent to the bullying and even (to a small degree) participated in it. By the way, no one was labeled a coward for failing to share his commitment; that part of your comment is a straw man. People were labeled as cowards for refusing to associate with him.

Bingo.

As I said, the refusal to risk the harassment he endures comes not from cowardice, but from having other, competing goals that are more personally important. If I, as a 20-something man saw a woman getting raped, I would feel compelled to intervene, at non-zero risk to myself. Would I take the same risk if I had a wife at home with our newborn child? Likely not.

The willingness to expose oneself to the kind of harassment Applebaum endures is derived from one's commitment to the cause. I can certainly applaud those who risk being ostracized by associating with someone being bullied, without condemning those who don't. The bullying is morally wrong, but the reaction of others is neutral.

I don't have a partner or a child, so what I think I'd do isn't worth much. I'm not even sure I'd have the courage to intervene as a single person. But I hope I would.

And I don't think having a partner and child would change that. Because I don't want my children to grow up in a world where someone would walk by them getting raped and ignore it. I would rather they grow up in a world where their father died to help someone.

The same applies to Applebaum. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where it's considered good and decent for them to be ostracized by people like you for making choices like Jacob's. I wouldn't want them to grow up with a father who supported that.

Because I don't want my children to grow up in a world where someone would walk by them getting raped and ignore it. I would rather they grow up in a world where their father died to help someone.

Keep in mind when making this decision that it will still be a world where a rape victim can get ignored.

At least he won't have contributed to that world. If enough others followed the example, it would cease to exist. These people are what we call natural leaders, able to inspire those around them to rise to an occasion to prove their decency and humanity.

"Because I don't want my children to grow up in a world where someone would walk by them getting raped and ignore it. I would rather they grow up in a world where their father died to help someone."

Indeed. Nor would I want to live with a soul that knows it had ignored someone in such distress.

There is no doubt that a cowardly action might be safer under certain circumstances. But who wants to live like that?

There are plenty of good reasons to take a more cowardly route. I know plenty of good people who have decided that this isn't a good battle for them to fight. I still respect them, but backing down from this is a cowardly thing to do. If you have a lot to lose it is indeed much much harder to stand up for what is right. That does not mean Jake chose the wrong word. It does not mean you are not a good person either, it just means you're in a bad position to take a stand.

I find this a very interesting discussion.

Back in the days I used to live in quite a politically volatile area in a developing nation while trying to get myself an education. It is the kind of place where it is not uncommon to be knifed/hacked/soundly beaten in a public place in broad daylight for being on the wrong end of the political spectrum or even just for being bothersome.

It was eye opening for the young and somewhat naive me that very very few people were willing to interfere in this. Even to the point of not calling the police or an ambulance while someone slowly bleeds down.

I have had discussions with people on this topic. Every time the response was exactly the same as yours. Also everyone believed that nothing could be done about it. It was socially accepted that this sort of thing happen and all you can do is to keep your head down and go about your own business. People survived by holding the magical belief that whatever was happening to their fellow citizens won't happen to them .. Somehow ..

Irrespective of what we were always told (i.e. That the incredible apathy was the result of a lack of education and an issue endemic to poor third world nations), it appears that the attitude is not as uncommon as it was made out to be.

I never claimed nothing could be done about it, or that people who aren't willing to stand up to injustice are deluded. I said that oftentimes, for those who are not committed to a given cause, there are things they care more about that standing up for that cause would imperil.

I don't advocate doing nothing in the face of injustice, but neither do I condemn those who are unwilling to risk their families and careers over causes they aren't wed to. Morality isn't binary, and so we can applaud those with the courage and conviction to suffer for a cause, without condemning those who lack such dedication.

Or we could go the nihilistic way, and not even applaud those who act. They are, after all, only being consequent with who they are, and that's hardly special or worthy of praise. Sorry, I've been reading too much Camus...

Typically, 'cowardly' characterizes those who shy away from difficult or unpleasant situation or tasks that a significant number of people still manage to do. That's the whole point. Shying away is the exception, not the rule, which is why it's given a derogatory characterization. Are you sure that's what's going on here? Or has the abuse reached a point where reasonable people start to say "yeah - this is monstrous, it's way bigger than me, and can I afford to put myself in harm's way as an identifiable individual?"

Also, you're speaking in VERY broad terms when you say "By refusing to associate with someone simply because they've been bullied, you have given your consent to the bullying and even (to a small degree) participated in it." Do you think this is equally true of ALL bullies? That is to say, do you see ZERO difference between (say) a wayward grade-school thug who picks on the most promising target, and armed federal agents who have clearly been given specific orders to harass, intimidate, and coerce a very specific individual for a very specific reason?

I partially agree with you. The level of harassment I deal with is obscene and the never ending nature is very stressful.

However, I use the word cowardly because the results you outlined are not certain. It's not even likely.

When fear rules you and limits otherwise desirable actions, you're acting as a coward without a doubt.

I'm not convinced. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I don't think that there is a moral imperative to risk life and liberty to extinguish injustice. We can certainly applaud those who do, without condemning those who don't. Not everyone has the moral fortitude and strength of character to be an Oskar Schindler. We could wish the world were otherwise, but I don't think recognizing the virtue of those such as Schindler necessitates condemning his neighbour who only wanted to protect and provide for his family.

I think sage_jock said it best here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567

I agree. Sorry that you're being harrassed like this. We have got to stick together and stand up to this.

Need any help?

I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. However, the folks that distance themselves from you undoubtedly have things to lose, and can't afford to share your fight. You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous.

As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it.

It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.

Your first premise is flawed: I have not determined that I have nothing else to lose.

I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself.

What? That sounds insane. In what sense does he have nothing to lose?

Bowing to bullies is cowardice, no matter how rational it is. The reason "cowardice" is a perjorative word is that usually seeking your own rational self-interest by accommodating thugs ends up hurting other people, and I believe that's true in this case, as well. If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.

> In what sense does he have nothing to lose?

Based upon my quick reading, it sounds like he has nobody that depends on him. All of us have to consider that if we were to suddenly disappear from the face of the planet, who would suffer as a direct result?

> If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.

Yeah, I detained him at the border. Good one.

You give the government a lot of credit for being extraordinarily clever. I have serious, serious doubts that people distancing themselves from inviting similar harassment (which means aiding Jacob, not necessarily knowing him -- I never committed on that point) is something that the government would consider a win. "We have succeeded by limiting new acquaintances!" That's hysterical.

This is the government we're talking about here, the world's legendary bureaucracy, the same government that can't even find bin Laden after how many years. They want Julian Assange, and they'll procedurally harass anybody they can to get to him until they get him. Assuming there's a shadowy evil plot to decrease Jacob's LinkedIn connection count is patently silly, and accusing me of furthering the government's attack because I don't want to risk my family for a cause is a pile of disrespectful and stupid.

It might be true that nobody depends on him, but that's sure a long way from "nothing to lose." Notwithstanding his own self, I'm sure he has a lot of friends and loved ones that suffer when he's hurt.

I don't think it takes extraordinary cleverness to try to attack people by ostracizing them and indirectly threatening others who associate or collaborate with them. That sounds as straightforward as it gets. I guess I don't see what seems silly about it.

Granted. I can see your point, but I'd argue that Jacob is a means to the end, not the end. I don't think ruining his life is the goal here. They just want to beat him up until he gives them who or what they really want.

It is one of the goals and I'd love to see your evidence to the contrary.

I'd love to see your evidence that it is beyond drawing a conclusion from circumstances. That's a zero-sum game, right there, because there's no way either of us could have evidence as to the ultimate motive.

At any rate, I've said my piece, and I'm circling close to offending you -- which isn't my goal -- so don't take anything I say as intentionally offensive. It seems silly to argue about your life, anyway, from the perspective of someone not in your life.

> You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous … In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management

I don't think "simple risk management" and "cowardice" are mutually exclusive, and I am deeply offended that you are accusing me and Jake and others of dishonesty for expressing that opinion. I understand the desire to defend yourself (however cowardly you may be) but I do not believe that desire justifies launching personal attacks on the integrity of those who disagree with you.

Indeed, it's rather ironic to hear someone justifying cowardice setting themself up as a judge of the integrity of others.

Please do not infer that I was accusing anybody of dishonesty. I wasn't aware that disingenuous carried that overtone -- to me, it means "aware of a couple explanations and intentionally picking one that makes a little less sense," and I have seen now that my usage of the word was incorrect. I meant no such attack, and had I wanted to call you dishonest, I would have gone about it more directly.

HN certainly gets more and more hostile as days go by, and I think it'd do us all a favor to assume the best in our conversational counterparts. Judge of integrity, indeed.

I would argue that someone assuming you actually know the definitions of the words you use is assuming the best in their conversational counterpart. It isn't like you made a super complex point and he's nitpicking and straw-manning and the like -- it's a pretty well understood word.

> to me, it means "aware of a couple explanations and intentionally picking one that makes a little less sense,"

If a person is aware of a couple of explanations for something and has judgments about how much sense they make, those judgments represent their degree of belief in those explanations. If they claim to believe the one they actually believe in less, then they are being dishonest.

> On an unrelated note, does this mean the FBI will be serving pg with a warrant for our info?

If they already had, would you even know? Twitter has fought the subpoena and gag order in court, which is the only reason we've heard about it. Presumably Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Hotmail, and other service providers have also had information requested from them, but we haven't heard anything from them, presumably because they cooperated instead of fighting.

I am under the impression that public libraries in the US will often place signs in their windows saying something to the effect of "The FBI have NOT yet visited us". When they get served with a warrant and a gag order, they simply remove the sign (but are unable to actually mention anything).

That sounds interesting. Do you have a(n online) source for this?

Although I think removing that sign would be considered violating the gag order.

rsync.net famously does (did?) the same thing, publishing weekly messages of "as of april 11, 2011 we have not been served". There was some debate about whether they could stop publishing these messages without violating the gag order.

> I don't think "cowardly" is the right way to put it.

Oh, is "apathetic" a more comfortable label ?

> The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face of it is admirable. That said, it's not something that most people want in their lives.

That guy is getting harassed a lot because he is alone. I don't think the overloads up there have the courage to harass tens of thousands - do they ? Wide ranging support means less heroism will be required to get what people want. He is not fighting a personal battle, right ? It is better to fight smaller battles now and avoid the possibility of all out wars that we are seeing in Africa and the Middle-East.

> Dealing with the level of harassment you face imperils all of those goals. Unless someone is dedicated to a cause and willing to sacrifice a lot to serve it, it's unreasonable to ask them to invite that kind of drama into their lives.

So, that person won't even "want to meet or correspond with" them. Do they realize the stark contrast between Jake's priorities and theirs.

First they came for the avid Wikileaks supporters, and I didn't speak out because I was not an avid Wikileaks supporter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com