Hacker News Reader

Comment by yndoendo | Hacker News Reader

People are easily disgusted by violent acts and yet they often only harm a single individual directly and few indirectly.

People that commit fraud are more welcoming to the public but they are the ones that harm the most people.

Example: Brett Farve, a millionaire, is still likable while at the same time he stole from a welfare system that was designed to help the poorest in the state of Mississippi. He is directly responsible for harm enumerable number of people.

I am more disgusted by the fraudsters of the world than people like Luigi Mangione. I wish more people would realize that corrupt wealthy individuals cause the most harm against humanity than those that commit singular violent acts.

View on HN

So what do you think we should do if we catch a murderer? Should we let them go? I just don’t get the angle here at all. It sounds a bit like we’re talking about apples and you’re telling people we should care about motorcycles. Sure we can like or dislike both, but’s what’s the connection though?

I don't necessarily agree with the parent comment, but I think the angle might be one of utilitarianism, i.e: when caught, both should be put on trial and punished if found guilty, but the current focus of society to put more energy into catching one type over another is misguided as far as what will be best for society in general. Again, not saying I agree with that philosophy, but the logic is valid.

I never said that. Only was pointing out that society treats those that harm more will less punishment. How many people are being harmed with fraud like crypto-currency scams or stock pump and dumps or wage theft vs violence?

If society believed stabbings and other close personal attacks were the only real acts of a murderous personality you would be OK with a sniper who kills hundreds getting probation as a normal person who just lost their way because that's like apples to motorcycles?

Violence ripples out. It’s never just one person. Living in a violent society has huge costs on all of us.

You're right, but that doesn't discount the point about fraud, especially the "mega"fraudsters like favre and trump and friends.

It's not just the literal stealing, it is, as you point out, the ripple effects of destroying trust in society/government/etc.

"Civil" violence also ripples out.

Right, so we need to utterly destroy people doing civil violence, or it'll ripple out quicker.

Lets just cull the bottom 2% of offenders this decade, and see its long term effects.

There is already a named concept for it, you were probably looking for "social murder"

I chose not to use that term, in this case, because it bears the wrong connotation to the uninitiated.

When health insurance companies withhold care and cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people, that certainly ripples out.

When profits of insurance are more important than people being able to get care, that directly leads to the situations that lead to violence. Poor, desperate people commit crimes, especially violent ones at a higher rate.

That statement can be made about fraud too. More people are hurt via fraud than violent crime because it can reach into generations of people. It can escalate to whole communities.

The only time whole communities are harm via violence is mainly during a war or ethnic cleansing.

Yes, obviously the statement can be made about fraud, because you already made it. I was pointing out that the effects of violence are not as simple as hurting one person as you said. Then you replied by repeating yourself. I am so tired of talking to people like you.

This is literal whattaboutism. We can be disgusted by violent acts and fraud. This post reads like you're trying to excuse the violece.

what the person is criticizing is that fraud gets way less recognition as being disgusting than one-on-one violent crime. not trying to excuse the violence

How is this whataboutism? Whataboutism tries to turn two wrongs into a right.

I've notice more people lack optics with one vs the other. One is easy to understand the other is hard, takes more time, and does more damage which takes more time to see the effects.

Odd you should pick Favre. How about Elizabeth Warren, who cheated deserving minorities out of benefits, then going on to be fabulously wealthy as a modestly paid public servant? Does she trip your rage trigger as well?

Favre was picked because he did not receive any jail time. Elizabeth Warren did receive at least some. Both are harmful to a civil society.

Elizabeth Warren is a US senator. Never received any jail time, nor is anyone thinking that she will, ever.

Sorry, my brain shorted to Elizabeth Holmes, another fraudster. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes

There is just.. so many.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com