Hacker News Reader

Comment by deanCommie | Hacker News Reader

> Like, giving an employee unpaid leave until the mob dies down.

All the time. But, usually, that's not a laughable or desirable outcome. This is how bad cops who commit civil liberty violations or use excessive force continue to work for decades, or are eventually sidelined but continue to receive a salary.

While in this specific case we can excuse an intern who definitely didn't know better, and ultimately nobody was harmed, we shouldn't minimize or normalize administrative technicalities as a way to get away from outrage.

View on HN

Our entire justice system exists "as a way to get away from outrage" and we're better off for it.

Angry mobs don't produce good outcomes. That's true even when they're angry about bad cops.

Angry mobs are a signal of our justice system either having a gap or otherwise not working. The whole point of having a justice system at all is to transform mob rule into a dialog so when mobs form it’s usually because justice isn’t being served. You don’t see people showing up at a murderer’s house with pitchforks or workers breaking down the doors of factory owners because we have laws that (roughly) enforce the outcomes the people want.

Angry mobs produce fantastic outcomes at identifying when the justice system’s outcomes fall outside of the norms they’re supposed to be enforcing but they’re terrible at functioning as judge and jury in individual cases.

Angry mobs are a signal of our justice system either having a gap or otherwise not working.

Lately, most angry mobs start on twitter/facebook, and often are based upon exaggerations or lies, and have the aide of twitter/facebook amplification effects, which purposefully try to fan anger to drive more engagement.

"Angry mobs are a signal of our justice system either having a gap or otherwise not working"

Or...radicalized always-online bullies that simply takes joy in taking a political opponent down.

Angry mobs are a signal of humans being stupid pack animals. It's sheer luck if they coalesce around a good cause.

My threshold for whether a mob is legitimate is looting, I have no tolerance for your cause if your mob starts looting. Note however that police stations and capital buildings are a fair target.

So Twitter mobs are 100% legitimate as they have no opportunity to loot, but you make no allowance for mobs of mixed idealists and opportunists, or for attacking critical infrastructure? Fascinating.

If your twitter mob stays on twitter, that is free speech, stupid, but that is your right to be stupid. when your twitter mob starts to take action(swatting, doxing, physical attack) is when it starts to matter.

First note that mobs are ugly stupid irrational things in the first place.

Now ask your self. agree or disagree with the message, who is this mob attacking are they attacking their enemies? if so this is a legitimize mob, they have goals, objectives and are acting on them. you may be on the other side, they may be your enemy but the attacks are valid. leave the fight to them and the people they are attacking, or take a side.

however if the mob is targeting civilians, random people, causing willful destruction for the sake of destruction, that is, are they looting? This is an illegitimate mob, their message has no value, they have no right to exist and should be actively suppressed by all.

Not every dispute in our society involves the justice system. Far from it. Especially inside private companies.

But when it comes to police, the problem is even worse. The justice system there is charged with enforcing itself, and the conflict of interest is apparent.

Dealing with police brutality is no different than dealing with bullying or harassment at work - it usually involves some form of "internal affairs" or "human resources", whose primary job is to minimize damage to the company, not bring justice to the aggrieved party.

Angry mob doesn't work in case of bad cops(and many more) because it's not that angry and definitely not that big. And there is also a very happy mob that is happy about bad cops and think they work as intended. Because sacrificing few people from minority groups is a price they are wiling to pay for their safety.

Because upholding status quo is something people are willing other people to die for.

I think that in most scenarios it's fair to assume that public servants (especially those wielding force) should be held to higher standards.

This is what so many people miss.

Any time you have power over the public (e.g., a cop), or present yourself as an expert in a way the affects the public (e.g., a medical doctor, civil engineer, politician) then by default you should be held to a much higher standard than the general public. There should be very little room for error or mistake and all errors/mistakes should be scrutinized for malpractice. The burden should be on the expert to prove they are qualified and should be allowed ("licensed") to hold the position.

If you can't handle that then find another profession.

Seems like there are many parallel universes.

In one of them, people who do bad things or even crimes, may be forbidden to do certain kinds of jobs, but the generally agreed-upon ethical framework says that discrimination is only permissible when the crime or malfeasance directly relates to job responsibilities.

For instance, it might be considered too risky to hire someone with a history of DWIs as a driver, or someone convicted of embezzlement to work in finance.

In that universe, there are even laws against discrimination that is unconnected to the offense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com