Hacker News Reader

Comment by thegrimmest | Hacker News Reader

It's always a shame when ideologically motivated policy doesn't line up with reality. Bathrooms are closed to non-customers because the burden of dealing with the occasional mentally ill drug addict isn't worth the risk or expense. This was just as true a few years ago when the policy was changed as it is now, when it has been quietly changed back.

We can't have nice things because not enough of us are nice people. In places like Japan, where people are fundamentally more well-behaved, they can have nice things. I dare someone to ask why Japan doesn't have a problem with violent, drug-addicted, vagrants.

View on HN

Japan is an ethnostate where people die in quiet desperation. You don’t see society’s ills because they’re deeply stigmatized and brutally repressed by law enforcement.

We can desire a better world than these two opposite poles.

> We can desire a better world than these two opposite poles.

I don't disagree, but if you ask me which of these two evils I would prefer, I would always pick the peaceful one.

> people die in quiet desperation

To me this seems a much more dignified way to die than in a fit of mad violence, trying to take what isn't yours.

Every human being wants peace and order. The question is the cost: you shouldn’t support Mussolini because he makes the trains run on time. Japan has made a cynical bargain: peace and order are worth an astronomical suicide rate and a civic ethos that prefers clean streets over individual lives. It’s their bargain to make, but it isn’t one that’s compatible with a plural society like ours.

And likewise: everybody wants dignity. But I don’t see anything particularly dignified in suicides of shame or abandonment.

> Every human being wants peace and order.

The whole problem here is that this isn't true. Some significant majority of us do. But there is enough of a minority who are content with violence and chaos as to totally destroy peace and order if they are left unchecked. This is true basically any place criminality is studied. The only remaining question is how do we deal with this minority?

As someone without aggressive inclinations, I'm don't have sympathy or regard for those who display them. As a matter of primacy, I would like to live in a peaceful society. Anyone who violates this basic social contract has lost their humanity in my eyes. I would not object to their summary execution (in cases of absolute certainty of guilt), much as dangerous animals are routinely euthanized.

The maintenance of civilized order, and resolution of conflict via due process, are the only things distinguishing people from animals. This isn't remotely comparable to making the trains run on time.

> I don’t see anything particularly dignified in suicides of shame or abandonment.

To me there is nothing more dignified than being unwilling to impose yourself on others. If no one wants to help you, and you cannot continue on your own, then taking your own life is the only dignified course, given the alternatives.

> As someone without aggressive inclinations, I'm don't have sympathy or regard for those who display them. As a matter of primacy, I would like to live in a peaceful society. Anyone who violates this basic social contract has lost their humanity in my eyes. I would not object to their summary execution (in cases of absolute certainty of guilt), much as dangerous animals are routinely euthanized.

Then you would’ve euthanized nearly all of Japan circa WWII, since their widely popular militaristic regime committed countless atrocities across Asia/Pacific and shattered peaceful society for millions around the world.

I say this as respectfully as possible: you need to perform some serious introspection. You just told me in the same paragraph that you are “without aggressive inclinations” and would not object to “summary executions” of people you deem unworthy.

It seems pretty clear that I was advocating a position of nonaggression, not nonviolence. I think extreme escalation of violence is the most effective response to aggression.

> people you deem unworthy

I'm not deeming anyone "unworthy". I'm just pointing out that humans who act literally like dangerous animals should be treated as such. To me, humanity is a mode of behaviour, not an irrevocable trait.

Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles, but it doesn't impress the rest of us. What you're describing is murdering homeless drug addicts because you think they're dangerous, despite their primary danger being to themselves (and, indirectly, our ability to humanize others.)

I eagerly await your application of the same logic to tailpipe emissions.

It's convenient to put me into a category you disagree with and then dismiss me, but it's not really a great argument is it?

Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either.

Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently?

Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective?

> primary danger being to themselves

The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.

> Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently?

Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default.

That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it?

> Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective?

Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.

> Because they aren't dangerous wild animals

The humans in question are dangerous, they're not civilized (so they're wild), and they're animals, so yes, they are.

> In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration

This isn't substantiated by research. Quite the opposite actually, psychologists have found that no intervention is effective in modifying violent antisocial behaviour in young males (and it's almost entirely young males). The only solution seems to be incarceration until around the age of 30, at which point most people simply age out of these behaviour patterns.

Also, there are many dangerous animals that can be rehabilitated, pet dogs for instance. It doesn't stop us from mandating they be put down.

> as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.

I'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.

> 'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.

And I could assert quite a lot about your assertions, the mindset behind them, and what kind of society that leads to.

But I can't be arsed to: No matter how many deluded authoritarians you manage to bring to their senses, or just reduce to a heap of smoking online cinders, more fresh ones just keep popping up. And I got bored with Usenet flamewars decades ago.

Seems like you're saying that wanting to live in a truly safe place - a place where you can leave your doors, cars and bikes unlocked - is the dream of a deluded authoritarian. I guess I just disagree. These places do exist, and they are rather nice.

> Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles

I am certainly not a libertarian. Having said that, here is a scenario which clarifies the difference between "aggression" and "violence", imo - someone peacefully living in their home, when someone breaks in for a burglary. At that point, if the homeowner shoots and kills the burglar, that behavior is non-aggressive, violent and justified in my opinion.

So yes, definitely not hairsplitting and nothing to do with liberatarianism.

Assisted suicide is a dignified way to die. It is far more dignified than rotting away in some dilapidated "elder care" and kept alive only so that the said "caregivers" can continue leeching away at your lifetime's savings as the cost of "ongoing care".

Says the one dying or the one judging them as a nuisance?

Because they believe in collectivism. If someone is peeing on the street, they think oh how this makes my country look. In SF someone peeing in the street thinks aaah so much relief.

It's like how killer whales share their sense of self with others in the pod.

I don't think you need collectivism per se, all you need is functioning police. If you piss on the floor in a cafe in Japan, you'll be arrested, charged, found guilty, and sent to prison. This process is swift, effective and severe, and doesn't include any public outcry about racism or marginalization.

Japanese prisons are inhumane by American standards, but cheap and very effective. They don't allow prisoners to interact or form a prison culture, so they don't function as criminal training centers. Consequently, crime rates in Japan are among the lowest in the world, despite declining economic conditions and dense populations.

Everyone is isolated in prison? You can’t talk to other prisoners?

Yes.

> When and how to speak. Strict silence is observed the majority of the time. During leisure times, talking should be done in a low voice so as not to disturb others. Utmost respect must be used when addressing guards or punishments will follow.

1. https://gaijinass.com/2017/03/30/brutal-realities-of-prison-...

The police can’t be everywhere at every time. Policing can only be effective when crime is culturally uncommon and the incidents relatively mild. If crime is culturally excusable, it often exceeds what police can handle.

Japan isn’t the only country with a brutal criminal justice system. Many of the other examples have high crime.

Japan police are extremely corrupt.

Extremely.

There is a reason they have the highest conviction rate in the world.

It’s not justice.

It’s the social expectation that the law officers are correct, no matter what.

If you are charged, you are guilty, as you cannot bring shame to the police.

No need to pretend they are just or proper.

I never said that it wasn't corrupt, only asserted that it was very effective. Just like Israeli airport security - clearly ethnically discriminatory, but also very effective.

Polices aren't extremely corrupt but just sometimes incompetent. Prosecutors are corrupt.

>Because they believe in collectivism.

Not just that, I think.

What's true of Japan is also true of parts of Western Europe.

>If someone is peeing on the street, they think oh how this makes my country look. In SF someone peeing in the street thinks aaah so much relief.

In France, public urination is viewed as an unofficial human right[0], but I don't think you'd have SF's problems in Paris.

It's just more "civilized" societies (with better education, law enforcement, social safety nets, regional investment, etc.).

The U.S. is a step towards Pandora from Borderlands (in scale, material social investment, and cultural ethos).

0: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/11/646567224/paris-tries-to-cont...

Text-only version:

https://text.npr.org/646567224

Collectivism requires some amount of nationalism. When everyone in charge treats your country like it's just an economic zone you're not going to have that.

The access to drugs is a huge thing differentiating but it's also that they didn't close down psychiatric institutions and haven't been in any major wars with a battle-scarred population for a very long time now.

They still have a homeless problem, it's just without exacerbating factors.

Right, so we should reopen psychiatric institutions, and harshly prosecute people for property crimes. This has proven an effective strategy to reduce criminality overall.

Honestly, I do think we should reopen psychiatric institutions (although properly funded and regulated this time) and forcibly treat certain people that need help. I don't think it is good or acceptable to allow people with obviously severe mental illness to self medicate with unregulated drugs or alcohol and walk around disrupting society. The current state of affairs works for no one, especially the mentally ill who we could be treating but have chosen not to.

As for property crime, no one wants to live in a society where someone can steal your stuff with impunity, as the broadly supported recent recall of the DA in SF has clearly shown.

I think it isn't a very popular opinion to reopen those due to the enormous amounts of abuse that went on in those places. A more progressive approach I feel would be reopening them far away from cities and in nature... Much less like a prison and much more like going to summer camp.

Not prosecuting property crimes has to be the biggest what the hell did they think was going to happen I have ever seen. Impunity is a slippery slope.

It's indeed not a very popular opinion, but I think if you ask most people in private, they would happily tolerate the most abusive asylums/penal institutions if they could live in a legitimately polite, safe society, where even minor property crimes are a vanishingly rare occurrence.

Why does it have to be "most abusive" though, like isn't it obvious this just exacerbates problems to anyone with a mote of empathy and foresight?

Maybe you know different people than I do but I don't think that line of thought is as common as you think.

I never said they have to be abusive, only that even significant abuse of the violent minority would be tolerated by the peaceful majority. As to why they have to be abusive at all, I would ask you what is the difference between unwarranted abuse and effective operant conditioning?

Yeah, how about neither?

You know there's countries out there which aren't trapped in endless recividism cycles and enormous organized crime recruitment in the penal system right?

> due to the enormous amounts of abuse that went on

There’s an enormous amount of abuse in homeless encampments and on the streets. Shutting down psych hospitals didn’t reduce the abuse, it just moved it from a system we’re responsible for and could improve, to an un-system we can ignore and can’t improve. IMO, shuttering the wards was cruel.

Not harshly prosecute people for property crimes but definitely prosecute them.

Japan has a very high suicide rate which I think has a lot to do with the heavy-handed social expectations.

Aside from the major differences in social pressures others have mentioned, you've also completely missed that they have free universal healthcare in Japan. One might ask, how would drug addiction and mental health improve in the USA if we had free medical care and mental health care?

Sad that you're so quick to chock up issues in the USA to "not enough of us are nice people" when there are huge material differences between the USA and every other developed nation.

> Bathrooms are closed to non-customers because the burden of dealing with the occasional mentally ill drug addict isn't worth the risk or expense.

This can't be the whole story because a "mentally ill drug addict" is still the same person even if they buy something for $1 and become a customer.

TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if Japan just locked a lot more people up in institutions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com