Hacker News Reader

Comment by hagbard_c | Hacker News Reader

Don't go there. One of the things separating functional states - warts and all - from failed ones is that the populace does not turn to deadly violence to settle disagreements and griefs. Yes, there are people who shoot/stab/${kill_method} other people but they are prosecuted as criminals, i.e. the opposite of those perfectly healthy, reasonable armed people you mention.

Increased acceptance of political violence begets more political violence which in turn seems to increase its acceptance, see e.g. the killing of the healthcare CEO and subsequent arrest of the killer which significantly increased "democrats" support for political violence [1] so be careful what you ask for.

[1 https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/poq...

View on HN

> Yes, there are people who shoot/stab/${kill_method} other people but they are prosecuted as criminals

Ideally, yes, but what is to be done when we're in the situation where people get to actively harm others, but are immune from consequences just because they're wealthy, powerful, and/or executives of corporations?

OK, cowardly down-voter, please explain why you think I'm wrong here instead of just hiding behind that button. This is a discussion site, not a Party Congress, we're here to discuss things. As it stands now I can only assume you want more political violence. Do you? If so, why?

> This is a discussion site, not a Party Congress

> Don't go there.

Which is it? Discuss or don't go there.

Please explain what it is that you did not understand since your reaction does not make sense. Discussing does not mean you have to agree and can include telling people 'not to go there', meaning 'this is not the direction in which you want to steer the conversation'. Did you really not understand this?

I have issues with you calling «criminals» «the opposite of... perfectly healthy, reasonable [people]», and with the apparency of an assumption that a legal judgement of "criminal" would be a settlement on the case.

Sure violence is "a problem" - it is also a symptom that something is wrong in the context which created it. With the conflation of "reasonable" and "non criminal", or "non reasonable" and "criminal", you went into bad waters.

> cowardly down-voter

You have to understand that we sometimes downvote and then go composing instead of "I'll compose now and downvote later", for practical reasons. So, while potentially unnerving (especially from the frequentistic expectation in a forum full of snipers), you have to give it some time.

My core objection you received almost immediately.

I can't speak to the person who downvoted you, but one possibility is that they see that political violence is already common; the only thing that has changed recently is that it is becoming more evenly distributed. Queer people, protesters, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, etc. have long been subject to various forms of harm by those in power. All that has changed is that those in power are now also experiencing harm.

Good that you respond, better than pressing that stupid button. Having said that:

> Queer people, protesters, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, etc. have long been subject to various forms of harm by those in power

That sounds like something taken straight out of a 'progressive' party program.

If anything those groups receive preferential treatment, at least where I live (Sweden, Europe). State subsidies, positive discrimination, hiring quotas, publicly funded facilities and festivals and more. Far above average representation in public media and culture.

> All that has changed is that those in power are now also experiencing harm.

'harm' is also a word often seen in 'progressive' discourse where it seems to serve the purpose of enabling those who use it to equate minor inconveniences like dirty looks to physical and (in this case) lethal violence. In the current discussion on public executions of 'AI' (etc.) execs I don't think the term is applicable.

What's the alternative? The system is completely nonresponsive to the poor and oppressed. Right or wrong, it is only natural that people turn to violence when they have no other option.

The American state is the most militaristic and violent state on the planet today, and the American people are the most armed in human history and regularly experience mass shootings and even school shootings.

> separating functional states - warts and all - from failed ones

Systemic failure triggers the parasystemic shortcuts. Lack of justice and fairness has grave consequences - they must be curbed with justice and fairness (and their roots) exactly.

Any formal objection to the general principle above, current-snipers? Some states are already failed states, where justice is simply not there. At that point, the "at least it is not anarchy" that I myself have heard does not sound right. The reply below from hagbard_c is not sufficient: it is not a matter of slow justice but of clogged justice, and AI is not really relevant here.

What systemic failure? That term, 'systemic', is used rather often without explaining where things actually go wrong ('systemic racism' etc.) and keeps on being used after the supposed 'systemic failures' have been proven to be incorrect. That the wheels of Justice move slowly does not imply 'systemic failure', it is inherent to the institution when confronted with a fast-moving development like 'AI'. Move fast and break things works in software development and rocket science but it is anathema to the system of justice. If it weren't many of us would have been imprisoned already for supposed 'crimes' just because some activist cobbled up a new law under which to prosecute us. That might be fine for the parasites/lawyers but it would be the end of public trust in the system of justice which in turn would bring the acceptance of mob justice closer.

I don't think it is black and white. There's a difference between the reasonable need for justice to move slowly and moving so slowly that it effectively never materializes for those being hurt. Relief is not useful if you are long dead before it arrives.

Is it possible that you might be in a bit of a bubble? At least in the community that I live in there is already virtually no public trust in our "justice" system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com