I didn't mean to imply that you thought Aaron "got what he deserved."
Just that you took the most pro-government position I've seen anyone on HN take, both recently and in that (regrettable) thread six months ago.
Perhaps you don't see yourself as pro-government, and it's just been a string of articles where you think the people are in the wrong, not government. That's fine, I'm just trying to understand why you comment the way you do.
UPDATE: I think I see now what my issue is. Whenever the goverment does something wrong, you tend to do two things:
1. You write many, many lines where you point out how great the government is, what a good job they're doing, etc. It's all very "pro-government" and mostly, actually, off topic.
2. You then, at the end, or frequently in some later comment, claim you disagree (sometimes even in ALL CAPS) with the thing the government actually did that was wrong that everyone else is talking about.
So, when people are upset with the government for, say, civil forfeiture, you don't talk about that. Instead, you talk about everything else you can come up with to make the government (or in this case, Ortiz) look good.
I guess that's why I see you as "pro-government" with your comments. Perhaps others do too, and that might be good enough reason to consider toning back the gov-love?
I'm definitely more pro-government than most people on HN.
What happened to Aaron was a travesty. In fact, it's even more a travesty from my vantage point, because it strikes directly at the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The only reason the operators of a flophouse hotel that concealed meth labs and multiple retail heroin dealing operations could possibly appear sympathetic on HN is because the US Attorney's office in Boston poisoned their reputation by threatening Aaron Swartz with a multi-year sentence and 13 felony convictions.
[later]
I reject entirely the idea that the comment to which you're responding is "pro-government". My comment is anti-flophouse. That's not remotely the same thing.
You post is essentially rubber-stamping the government's civil forfeiture laws when it's against someone you (and the government) don't like, like this motel.
That's not justice, and frankly, no one should support the government's use of civil forfeiture, ever, for any reason, full stop.
Civil forfeiture is so abused by the government today as to be evil in and of itself. No "ends justifies the means" argument applies when it comes to civil forfeiture, in this case, or any other. It's that bad.
Of course, the government disagrees, as do you: that's what makes you "pro-government" in this case.
Ridiculous. You could use the exact same logic to call me "pro-government" in supporting the government for suing to shut down a factory that pours mercury into a river.
What the fuck does "pro-government" even mean? What an asinine line to argue. I'm anti-flophouse, like the government. I'm anti-military-occupation, unlike the government. I'm anti-copyright-infringement, like the government. I'm anti-patent-system, unlike the government. I'm anti-meth-lab, like the government. I'm anti-marijuana-prohibition, unlike the government.
Do you want me to go on?
Are you pro-abortion-clinic-bombings? You must be pro-government. Are you anti- workplace- race- discrimination? You must be pro-government. Are you uniformly against every intervention the government pursues? Is that the ideological line I to which I have to hew to meet your approval? I guess I'll have to do without that, then.
Man, you don't understand. They're like, "the establishment" man! You have to oppose everything they're in favor of. And be in favor of everything they oppose. Fight the power!
What would a cheap place do that would prevent such things? Strip search all their customers to make sure they did not have enough heroin to overdose on?
The hotel isn't spawning this sort of shit, it is just attracting it by virtue of being cheap enough for low-lifes to afford. The local authorities are the ones that failed, not the motel.
Just that you took the most pro-government position I've seen anyone on HN take, both recently and in that (regrettable) thread six months ago.
Perhaps you don't see yourself as pro-government, and it's just been a string of articles where you think the people are in the wrong, not government. That's fine, I'm just trying to understand why you comment the way you do.
UPDATE: I think I see now what my issue is. Whenever the goverment does something wrong, you tend to do two things:
1. You write many, many lines where you point out how great the government is, what a good job they're doing, etc. It's all very "pro-government" and mostly, actually, off topic.
2. You then, at the end, or frequently in some later comment, claim you disagree (sometimes even in ALL CAPS) with the thing the government actually did that was wrong that everyone else is talking about.
So, when people are upset with the government for, say, civil forfeiture, you don't talk about that. Instead, you talk about everything else you can come up with to make the government (or in this case, Ortiz) look good.
I guess that's why I see you as "pro-government" with your comments. Perhaps others do too, and that might be good enough reason to consider toning back the gov-love?