Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joakal | Hacker News Reader

It's sad how the British government is responding compared to Norway.

Norway: First) Provides support to anyone who needs it. Problem) Mentally unstable bomber/shooter. Solution) We'll continue supporting. Security will get reviewed but not that necessary to implement new laws.

Britain: First) Cut back support for bringing up people. Problem) Surprised people riot. Solution) Slam down authoritative fist. So far; 1) Increase police from 20,000 to 26,000. 2) Consider restricting internet further (This). They believe the cure is apparently better than the vaccine, better parenting and government assistance.

View on HN

I don't think censoring social media is a good idea or even remotely helpful, but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous. The Norwegian attacks were carried out by one person who is already in custody. The British riots arise out of amorphous groups of thousands of individuals who are still at large. They're completely, utterly different.

It wasn't a comparison of problems, it was a comparison of solutions to serious problems.

Nurturing vs authoritarian.

Different serious problems require different serious solutions. The comparison to Norway isn't useful.

I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and add police, or look deeper to the root causes?

It really isn't an interesting exercise. It's comparing one bombing by one person to thousands of acts of vandalism and theft by thousands of people.

It's fairly self evident that "looking deeper into the root causes" is not going to prevent rioters from destroying private property in the next 24 hours.

Sorry let me clarify -- again I'm not focusing on the comparison of the two acts. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.

Does this make more sense?

In addition, clearly "looking deeper" won't resolve anything on its own as I feel you are suggesting -- what counts rather are the actions that could result from gaining better understanding through the act of looking deeper.

How is it at all interesting if it isn't a fair comparison? What you are suggesting isn't what you are defending here: you're suggesting that we compare two entirely different scenarios and then defending it by saying it is worth doing an entirely different thought experiment.

(For the record, I'm appalled that anyone would consider anything that could remotely be called "web censorship" as a response, I just don't think you're making any sense here).

Sorry let me clarify. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.

Does this make more sense? Again I don't agree with the comparison of the two acts.

I think it does make more sense. Does it make sense why those of us who have responded don't read your first comment that way?

(I appreciate the clarification, btw)

You're comparing very different situations: in Norway, once the killer was arrested the risk of further damage was low. In the UK, there might be further riots.

If you are dealing with a crisis, I think you should do things more or less in this order, and I don't think we'll be ready to start on #4 for another day or two in the UK:

1) Don't make it any worse.

2) Prevent further damage from happening.

3) Clean up the existing damage.

4) Investigate ways to prevent a repeat occurrence, and implement if a good solution is found.

After the incident, Norwegian media has highlighted that the charged terrorist debated on web forums, including those where other participants expressed similar sentiments. Police has encouraged people to report cases of extreme language online.

Deleted comment

What was the root underlying cause for the riot? It wasn't plenty of jobs and a bright future.

Edit: mibbit has deleted his comments.

Deleted comment

Once "criminals" have a bright future and a job, they probably won't be criminals any more. I think that's a good thing for everyone involved.

I say "criminals" not to imply that what these people do isn't criminal (it is), but because dividing the world into criminals and good law abiding citizens is a false dichotomy. Normal people sometimes do criminal things and criminals sometimes to things that are good.

Additionally, by applying only the label "criminal" to certain people, you're ignoring that these are human beings with lives and dreams and ideas and problems and families, who have reasons for the things they do. They may be good reasons, they might not be, but to disregard them altogether is a mistake.

At the same time, you're implying that crime is a problem that either cannot be solved or can be solved by jailtime and harsh sentencing. Neither of these implications are true.

Deleted comment

Unless you're planning on keeping them there forever, that's not a solution, just a postponement.

I never said that criminals should be offered a bright future and a job.

Your reply sidesteps my question.

You talk about a crappy underclass, thugs and criminal gangs: Why is there a crappy underclass? Why are there thugs and criminal gangs? Why is there a group of people that thinks it's okay to loot? What is the reason that this group exists, what is the _underlying_cause_ for this?

Deleted comment

I think your description of them says a lot about your arguments nature.

I mean of course the parent are to blame, but since they too belong to what you describe as underclass they simply do not have the mental surplus.

If you have kids you will know how hard it can be to control their whereabouts.

And as far as I can se, no one is claiming it's an excuse. It's an explanation. You can then as you do choose to disregard it or you could perhaps try and look at the root cause and accept that social status and income do have an effect.

I think that poor parenting is to blame, partly. We can argue how much it is to blame another time. Sticking with parenting:

I don't think saying "[bad parenting] will always exist" is constructive or helpful. What's important is that there is less bad parenting over time.

So if it would be a good thing to have better parenting the question becomes what would have to be done for this to happen?

There were also some examples of good parenting - one chap handed himself in to police because his mother recognised him on television and forced him to give himself up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com