Disappointed? Huh? What on earth are you talking about?If I refer to someone as a sad little man, it's a fair call that I could be described as disappointed in them, if I misunderstood your position on that I apologise.
Or perhaps did you wake up, find the story about Aaron on HN and become an instant, just-add-hyperbole overnight crusader?
Not exactly, I've always been of the opinion that the state doesn't need to be reformed so much as dismantled, but in terms of being unaware of the situation; no. That's why I've always been of the opinion that the state ought to be dismantled, the constant pain and misery they have historically inflicted on those they are charged to protect and/or represent.
As for: aspects of the modern world which could fairly be described as diseases.
Can you elaborate?
I mean basically the things which he spent his life fighting against which ultimately resulted in his tragic end. The way in which he and I differ is that he was an activist that wanted to see institutional reform whereas I do not care to risk anything for anyone and simply wish to see those same institutions entirely dismantled and will absolutely not risk myself in any way to do so precisely because those that do often end up casualty statistics in one way or another.
I don't believe in fighting for humanity, personally I just route around the ridiculousness as much as possible and tolerate and/or divest myself as totally as I am able with regards to the rest. But those are simply two negative views and approaches on situations which as I said can fairly be described as diseases.
It was a clear cut case of a social power deciding to restrict free speech to prevent an idea from even being thought about.
You mean like completely out of proportion prosecutorial aggression to address an issue that the state would instead not like you or anyone else to think too closely about? I disagree, I think they're trying as hard as they can to clamp down on certain ways of thinking, it's precisely the same thing in a different setting.
It is only when he crossed the line into illegal behaviour that he was prosecuted
You say this as if legal and illegal is a meaningful distinction these days, once again I disagree with that, I think it's beyond obvious that there are a very large amount of very stupid laws on the books in a very large variety of countries and I hold no innate respect for any such laws above that which I would hold for rules arbitrarily foisted upon me by a violent and erratic overseer.
- according to open, democratically-developed laws and prosecutorial guidelines - all subject to normal processes of democratic oversight.
Which is, as demonstrated by the magnitude of the horrendous nature of all the things which have been created in precisely the same vein, clearly useless.
The world needed changing then, and it needs it now. Dangerous language in my opinion. Nothing "needs" anything. Deciding that the world "needs" changing means you set up a very rigid condition for success.
Not particularly, I don't care if the world changes or not at the end of the day, That I see things are broken and that I see they are in many ways simply getting worse is more an indication that I should not bother myself with engaging with such a clearly broken system than I should fight harder against it at any risk to myself. That doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade.
Aaron could have done with a bit of that perspective I reckon. How about you?
If the perspective is that he shouldn't have bothered and shouldn't have put himself at risk to fix the injustices of a people largely foisted by themselves upon themselves, I entirely agree. If the perspective is that one should simply accept that things are all roses and we should simply fall in line and to the best of our ability follow the instructions of our rulers because although they may be flawed in a great many ways, we are responsible for them because we are part of a population which has en masse been stupid enough to allow the situation to develop, I couldn't disagree more.