Hacker News Reader

Comment by alt227 | Hacker News Reader

> This feels like one of those USA problems

In the uk rail industry we have people stealing copper all the time. They cut a live cable, attach it to the back of a truck and drive off. Sometimes this can yield them kms of cable.

We also had issues where people would jump over fences into depots, use scaffold boards to build a ramp over the 2.5m fence, and then use forklifts to roll big reels of cable up the ramps and over the fence on to the back of a waiting truck the other side.

Copper cable theft is 100% a massive issue in the UK.

View on HN

> In the uk rail industry we have people stealing copper all the time.

The elephant in the room is naming the group almost exclusively responsible for this crime.

Does it matter? Because if it does, it's advocating for (racial?) profiling and/or singling one demographic out, which is both illegal (maybe not in the UK since it doesn't have a constitution?), amoral, and contrary to one of the core principles of current-day law, i.e. "innocent until proven guilty".

But do tell, what do you think is the group and what do you think should happen?

I'm sure this is exactly the sort of group they meant: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39n19dw1ggo

Or maybe him: https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/cable-thief-ja...

"Almost exclusively" would seem to point in a very home-grown direction.

Thieves. People are afraid to say it but thieves are responsible for almost all theft.

If a certain group of people are the ones constantly causing the majority of the same specific societal issues, why shouldnt they be called out?

You can call out a person. What does it mean to call out a group? That's guilt by association.

OK cool, I look forward to everybody stopping targeting rich white men as the main problem in the world.

There is a difference between punching up and punching down

Oh there are clauses and exceptions to prejudice are there?

So who gets to decide the definition of 'punching up'? When is it ok for me to be prejudice towards a group of people?

Im looking forward to learning where the line is so I can feel safe in my bigotry /s.

Yes, just one, and it's defined in this excerpt:

Don't be a dick.

If you're being a dick, you're at fault, if you're not being a dick, you get a pass.

Excerpt from what?

Its a shame the meaning of language is subjective, or we could all happily live under this banner forevermore.

>When is it ok for me to be prejudice towards a group of people?

When a group acts as a coordinated group. A political party for instance. This is not rocket science. You must link the individual(s) directly to the act, or you’re just stereotyping and making assumptions.

You are asking a lot of baiting questions. We know this isn't an attempt at dialogue, so just state your mind and be done with it instead of continuing of this silly bread crumb game man.

Targeting rich people for being rich is targeting an attribute, not a group. The equivalent would be targeting black people for having dark skin, as opposed to targeting black people for doing crime.

Right, but targeting rich white men is a very specific group. The equivalent would be poor black women, but I'm not really sure why thats important here.

Most rich people in the USA happen to be white men.

Is "everybody" doing that, seems like a stretch? In fact, the current US President explicitly blames immigrants for many of our problems.

The Economy - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/trump-somalis...

Affordability - https://www.pbs.org/video/trump-s-message-1765403127/

Crime - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/29/trumps-hate-...

Benefits - https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/10/24/fact-check-tru...

Its interesting that to argue against my point you use an example of somebody from the very specific group I mentioned.

Of course Donald Trump isnt going to blame rich white men for anything, he is one!

If that's the case, you shouldn't use words like everybody, because you don't mean everybody

The rest of your response can be answered in your own words: Oh there are clauses and exceptions to prejudice are there?

EDITED

Lol you literally have no idea what you are arguing against here.

I didnt think any sensible person would take the word everybody to mean literally every single person in existence. If I could go back and edit the post now I would happily change the word 'everybody' into 'lots of people' to satisfy the semantic pedants.

I dont think I have the energy to correct a random on the internet about exactly what my opinion is, other than to say I very much dont blame rich white men for anything and no I dont think there are exceptions to prejudice. But thats it, you can have the last word I'm out.

No, it was perfectly clear that you simply meant "everybody" that disagrees with you. That said, we know a large percentage of the population agrees with the President's immigrant framing because he was elected President based largely on that premise.

So, lots and lots of people are blaming immigrants for all our problems. I'm not sure rich white men need you to defend them to a random on the internet, they are doing just fine.

No I'm pretty sure by "everybody" he meant a loose quantity as in a large number of people. Of course such a quantity could be constrained e.g. to what can be seen on the news or maybe the local neighbourhood.

When someone says "everyone and their dog", they don't mean that the dogs are also participating.

Basically you failed to charitably interpret the person you are responding to and are now insisting on a reinterpretation that makes you look silly.

I mean think about what he wrote before that. "I look forward to", he is talking about the future in a sarcastic tone so the president being a counter example is his point. You're pinning him down onto the present and that is a strategic mistake.

I think most people would charitably interpret that "everybody" means at least a majority of people. That is what I questioned.

I don't really view internet comments as "strategic" like you. I was simply clarifying that this person's world (social media, news, friends, etc.) may give them the impression that "everybody" is blaming this group, but in reality that isn't true.

You don't need to correct anything, to me your point came across very clearly.

Some cultures are better than others

Arbitrary classification does not make a functional group. There is a distinct difference between a coordinated group and an abstract group that is the result of external parties adding people into named buckets for their own purposes.

Care to give some examples of what you consider to be coordinated groups, functional groups, and abstract groups?

I am assuming that your point is that prejudice is ok to some type of group but not other, but I am inferring that from your answer. Feel free to correct me.

> I am assuming that your point is that prejudice is ok to some type of group but not other

That's a bad inference. I was explaining the distinction that seems to be confusing the issue.

> Care to give some examples of what you consider to be coordinated groups, functional groups, and abstract groups?

You understand plain English well enough.

That's a word salad.

The first sentence is plain English. The second is clarification through example.

Someone who doesn't know what arbitrary or abstract means, or has trouble with context, I'm sure it can seem confusing.

It's an interesting coincidence that in these situations, the same people always blame %vulnerable group%, often going as far as making up evidence. Why do that? I suspect the reason is the vulnerability.

Why would you throw an accusation out like this without providing any evidence of your own?

Who are these people making up evidence about %vulnerable groups% and what are they saying?

Obviously, because then you can focus your attention to that specific group.IE, if cable theft is exclusively carried out by white people from kensington then whenever something is stolen, you can just go there and catch the criminals.

Criminals should be locked up in jail.

men?

It would appear not:

https://www.facebook.com/GladstoneObserver/posts/a-woman-put...

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/two-arrested-over-copper...

The Regan Administration??

> The elephant in the room

People may or may not find it interesting to research the history of this phrase and what it replaced.

Is "800 pound gorilla" the competing phrase? May I ask what you found noteworthy about this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com