• @pingveno
    link
    31 year ago

    Why do you always assume that I am either acting in bad faith or stupid? I saw something that is objectively false and corrected it. Simple. As. That.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      11 year ago

      It’s because you’re incapable of acknowledging basic facts about the nature of the empire. The tweet is objectively correct. You could argue it’s not nuanced, but it’s simply a fact that Swartz committed suicide as a result of being prosecuted by the US regime.

      • @pingveno
        link
        21 year ago

        I’m not nitpicking. It’s simply objectively incorrect to say he was sentenced (he wasn’t) or that it was 35 years (off by 70x compared to the plea deal). Could you argue that a six month plea deal was itself too much? Absolutely, and I would agree with that, especially given that MIT never asked for charges. But you can argue that plenty well with the facts and not resort to repeating lies.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          11 year ago

          Sure, he likely wouldn’t have got the maximum sentence, but that’s just distracting from the point that prosecution by the regime was what led to his suicide.

          • @pingveno
            link
            -11 year ago

            Okay, so where am I wrong? And I’ve been avoiding saying this so far because it feels disrespectful towards the dead, but his suicide was not a foreseeable consequence of being prosecuted. Most people don’t react to the prospect of time behind bars by killing themselves. So saying that his prosecution led to his suicide is a stretch at best. It would have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              31 year ago

              You’re not wrong that he wasn’t convicted when he committed suicide. I’m just saying I don’t see why you think that’s the relevant part of the story. We don’t know what the details were or why he chose to commit suicide as a result of this prosecution. Saying most people don’t react that way just serves to deflect the blame from the state. He reacted that way, and if the state did not choose to attack him then he would’ve very likely been alive today. This man is a victim of the US regime plain and simple.

              • @pingveno
                link
                -21 year ago

                I’m just saying I don’t see why you think that’s the relevant part of the story.

                I’m not talking about the story as a whole. I’m talking about this particular tweet. And this particular tweet has a substantial piece of it that is outright false.

                He reacted that way, and if the state did not choose to attack him then he would’ve very likely been alive today.

                Maybe, but that was not foreseeable. He likely had an underlying condition that they did not know of. I don’t see grounds to blame the state for his death when they had no idea that he would commit suicide in response. There are obviously greater systemic problems with the US’s prison system and treatment of people post-prison, but millions of people go through that ordeal without committing suicide.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  41 year ago

                  You’re correct that the tweet gets the part about him having already being sentenced wrong, but as I’ve explained I don’t see that as the key point.

                  Meanwhile, victim blaming is a really low tactic. Your state has a history of aggressively prosecuting and harassing people to make examples of them. Two examples are Assange and Manning being tortured with solitary confinement. It’s almost certain that Swartz was put under psychological duress that led to his suicide. US is particularly sadistic when it comes to political dissidents.

                  • @pingveno
                    link
                    -21 year ago

                    You’re correct that the tweet gets the part about him having already being sentenced wrong, but as I’ve explained I don’t see that as the key point.

                    I feel like saying he had already been sentenced and overstating that sentence by 70 times is a major factual error, but maybe that’s just me.

                    Meanwhile, victim blaming is a really low tactic.

                    I’m not victim blaming. I’m pointing out that prosecutorial decisions shouldn’t be criticized based on factors that are unknowable. I’ll put it this way. Put yourself in the prosecutor’s shoes, deciding whether to prosecute. Would you have ever consider possible suicide as a top factor? And if you say yes, when should anyone ever be prosecuted?