Hacker News Reader

Comment by simplicio | Hacker News Reader

"we shouldn't lock people up for non-violent crimes except for ones similar to the one I was a victim of" seems like kind of a..limited view?

I don't think there's anything particular about SBF that makes him more likely to re-offend (And even if he wanted to, one would hope he'd have a hard time convincing folks to hand over another 8 billion for him to embezzle a second time).

Which isn't to say that I don't think he should go to jail (he definitely should!), just that I don't think he's any more jail worthy then people who engage in other forms of non-violent theft and/or fraud.

View on HN

Well, I mean, that's why I admitted my bias. I do think I'd have the same position even if I weren't a victim of a crypto scam, but I felt it important to disclose potential conflicts in what I'm saying.

SBF went on many podcasts and interviews, and instead of showing even the slightest hint of remorse, he instead denied everything, blamed everyone but himself, then pleaded ignorance, all while also claiming that he probably won't be charged with any crimes. I recommend looking at CoffeeZilla's coverage on this.

We can find plenty of examples of convicted conmen that manage to get funding again. Off the top of my head, the wolf of Wall Street himself, Jordan Belfort, was convicted of securities fraud, spent almost two years in jail, was banned from any kind of stock trading, but now promotes all kind of cryptocurrency and multilevel marketing scams.

“I don't think there's anything particular about SBF that makes him more likely to re-offend”

No? Not the alleged (and very convincing) parent involvement? The total lack of remorse and continued denial? The latter is typical for fraudsters, but the former is pretty particular to SBF, and definitely would incline someone to be a repeat offender imo.

I think I would more easily be convinced that Madoff deserved rehabilitation than SBF.

There are certain behaviors in fraudsters that make me think they are psychopathic fraudsters and really incapable of dealing with the world without deceit. That naturally overlaps other dark triad traits that make it hard but not impossible for someone to put aside deceit and allow some deflation of their ego, etc.

Can you say this with a straight face while seeing so many people over and over pay Donald Trumps legal fees by donating to the latest cause.

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump at all, but he's never actually been convicted of fraud has he?

I'm not disputing that he's committed fraud, but I think that a lot of his followers can do a lot of mental gymnastics and convince themselves that he never actually did anything illegal, in no small part because he's never directly been convicted.

> he's never actually been convicted of fraud has he?

His corporation was given the death penalty for wildly overstating the value of assets.

Isn't he banned from operating a nonprofit in New York now, and didn't Trump University get a civil judgement (I'm aware you might not call that a fraud conviction) that disbanded it? That's just from memory - if not technically a criminal, he's quite certifiably crooked, but people will still throw money at him, and I'll never understand people.

The other figure that comes to mind is Adam Nuemann (and I'm not alleging anything criminal against him), but apparently he just has a personality that draws VCs with dumptrucks full of money like moths to a flame.

Clearly people just have tons of money they don't need these days.

In regards to Trump University, I think it was technically settled [1]. I think in that particular case, people argue he had plausible deniability because it was just a bad branding deal, and that he wasn't directly involved in anything crooked. I don't remember the outcome the Donald J Trump foundation embezzlement scandal from a few years ago, but I'm sure his followers would just say NYC is a crooked liberal state and it was rigged against him anyway. In fact, because it's rigged against him, that's why he needs donations!

Just to be clear, I think he's a moron and a fraudster; even if you could prove that Trump University and the Donald J Trump Foundation and the hoarding of classified documents and the collusion with Russia was all hogwash, the fact that he didn't divest himself from his businesses after assuming power should be a bright red flag to people.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/federal-court-a...

Wasn't there a survey showing that his followers now trust him over their religious leaders? Which I guess says it all.

He used blatantly demagogical language throughout his entire campaign and presidency, and basically claimed that "he alone" knows how to fix every problem.

I tend to be pretty far-left (at least by American standards), but some of the "Bernie Or Bust" rhetoric has gone a bit crazy sometimes; I don't think Bernie Sanders is nearly as horrible as someone like Donald Trump (I voted for him in the primary in 2016), and I certainly don't think he's an outright fraudster, but I do feel like he (and his followers) kind of cozy up to demagogue-adjacent language as well.

I think people really really like the idea that one magical person can and will solve all their problems.

But that's about as far as I'll go towards partisan politics since I don't want to get hellbanned.

I suspect we're ideologically fairly close though I did not vote for Sanders in the primary, I believe I actually skipped 2016 then voted for Warren 2020, but I'd have been fine with Sanders though I agree he did have a fanatical contingent that was a bit off-putting. I don't think he actively encouraged that either.

I've long worked with and even dabbled a bit in sales (which would have shocked a young hotpotamus to learn - it's basically the opposite of my natural inclinations). I was quite bad at it myself - I would often try to explain nuances to people and how they need to invest in their own skill as well as buying a good product. Salespeople who promised them simple solutions that would solve all their problems were far more successful, which was a bitter early lesson for me.

What rankles though is that Trump is so transparently a buffoon - I can't believe it works for him.

> I would often try to explain nuances to people and how they need to invest in their own skill as well as buying a good product.

Yeah, this is (partly) why I was not a good professor/teacher. I don't think I was horrible at it, but I have a very strong compulsion to mention every bit of nuance in what I'm talking about. Sometimes that can be a good thing, but when a student is trying to learn introductory programming, getting into the weeds about how the textbook is "basically right but kind of simplistic because in this case..." really is not the right approach for teaching freshman students. I grew a new respect for teachers who learned to suppress those instincts and teach the simplified stuff.

I almost think that Trump being an idiot works to his advantage. He's so utterly stupid that I think he's completely unburdened by any kind of nuance, and as a result it's very easy for him to speak authoritatively about everything, no matter how wrong he is.

He's currently on trial for fraud. Among other things wildly overstating the value of his assets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com