"I see no situation in which extra-judicial deportation (or extradition!) is the right course of action."
I see one: where the country in which the crime was committed (the "deporting country") considers spending resources to prosecute the offender, indulging him with a court process (including trial and appeal), and then housing and feeding him during his sentence (if he is jailed) not in its public interest.
I say "indulging" because due process is expensive. Why should the deporting country be obliged to spend their taxpayers' resources on this foreign national? Not because deporting their national back to their home country would create "disorder and enemies" due to the harm that such "rattlesnakes" would do in its territory, since (1) that home country would likely welcome the discretion to decide how to deal with its national committing crimes in its territory, (2) it is not likely that the home country would protest that its national was not sufficiently punished by the legal system of another country unaccountable to it and outside its jurisdiction, and (3) in some circumstances the home country can still exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over its national for the crime he committed overseas. The prosecutorial discretion of the deporting country should not be fettered by the home country.
Sorry but I'm struggling to understand how, if we assume that:
1. "Country A is a close ally to Country B and has identical punishments for the crime Alice has committed [...] She will receive identical sentencing",
we can also assume that:
2. "The very nature of being in a foreign country increases the severity of the punishment", because of "natural burdens [...] such as access to lawyers, access to family"?
Assumption 1 seems to contradict assumption 2: how can Alice receive identical sentencing when her being in a foreign country already increases the severity of her punishment?
Further, I disagree with assumption 2 in itself because:
1. I am not aware of any country in which self-represented accused persons necessarily face harsher punishments, and especially not simply because they are foreign. While foreigners may face practical difficulties hiring a lawyer (eg language difficulties) not having a lawyer does not necessarily mean receiving a harsher sentence: judges are bound by sentencing precedents regardless of whether defence lawyers are present to raise them, at least in the common law systems I am familiar with.
2. Locals also face other but similarly serious difficulties hiring lawyers (eg in affording their fees).
3. Having a lawyer does not not guarantee a more lenient sentence. Even less access to family.
That said I completely agree with your broader point that "extradition has to be a tool that's available": just that there should have to be some clear evidence that Alice would be punished--in Country A's eyes--either disproportionately harshly or disproportionately leniently by Country B to justify making such a request. Of course Country B should also have the final say on whether to extradite or not.
> They ask themselves "is this really what I'll want?", as opposed to "is this what the person I'll be after a few years of this will want?" or "will this turn me into a person I want?". By unconsciously taking one's self-image as fixed in that way, it becomes harder to find meaning in work and as a bonus also makes it somewhat more likely that you'll make the wrong decision because your potential future mental state isn't accounted for.
Thank you for this!
I think people overestimate how static the "self" actually is—everyone changes over time, and given how many hours a day you spend doing it, a job would almost definitely change you.
Regarding the "bumping" mechanism and its effect on "normies": isn't almost every forum like this? I can't think of a forum that doesn't shift threads with recent posts to the top. This isn't limited to 4chan or 8chan, so I think it's unfair to single them out as encouraging extreme views.
Regarding anonymity: perhaps anonymity has the opposite effect, allowing people to be more willing to have thoughtful discussions and change their minds, instead of having to stick to their guns for fear of losing face. Perhaps the freedom of anonymity allowed people to say what they always wanted to say but couldn't because they feared for their reputation.
All of which is not to say that 4chan and 8chan don't contain hate speech and other forms of expression deemed unacceptable in broader society. But perhaps the reason people say such things and talk in those ways isn't because of the forum itself, but because of the state that political discourse has devolved to these days. 4chan and 8chan are nothing more than fora at the end of the day; and if they're blocked, people will simply move to continue the conversation (just like they moved from 4chan to 8chan in the first place).
...so why is the right to live an absolute right? What does it mean for a right to be absolute? (e.g. if someone kills other people to save himself, was he entitled to do so on the basis of his right to live?) Who gets to decide what rights are absolute and what rights aren't? Whose responsibility is it to enforce these absolute rights (and thereby to impose corresponding obligations on other people)?
The logic of "absolute" rights requires an over-simplification that doesn't reflect how rights work in practice.
I am thankful for Hacker News. Never before have I come across a community that is as insightful, friendly, and helpful. Thank you, everyone, for making Hacker News the place it is today.
I don't think "差不多" means "Fail Fast, Fail Often".
差不多 literally means "not much difference". It's usually used by Chinese workers to dismiss shortfalls in quality/quantity that are, in their view, inconsequential. I'm also not sure it's prevalent enough to be a "culture", though I remember reading several-year-old blog posts about it.
I agree with this. Some amount of emotional venting is completely healthy but when it gets to the point where someone is unable to deal with any negative emotions on their own, and must rely on other people for support for even the smallest day-to-day mishap, that's their problem, not everyone else's.
And, like what you said, sometimes the solution really is more important than the emotions. This is especially true for the small things, which are the bulk of what we face every day anyway.
I think this is one of the most significant reasons why Japan is the way it is, but one of the most ignored. It's difficult, in today's political climate, to accept that maybe immigration and diversity aren't always good things.
I hope Japan stays the way it is for a long time more.
I see one: where the country in which the crime was committed (the "deporting country") considers spending resources to prosecute the offender, indulging him with a court process (including trial and appeal), and then housing and feeding him during his sentence (if he is jailed) not in its public interest.
I say "indulging" because due process is expensive. Why should the deporting country be obliged to spend their taxpayers' resources on this foreign national? Not because deporting their national back to their home country would create "disorder and enemies" due to the harm that such "rattlesnakes" would do in its territory, since (1) that home country would likely welcome the discretion to decide how to deal with its national committing crimes in its territory, (2) it is not likely that the home country would protest that its national was not sufficiently punished by the legal system of another country unaccountable to it and outside its jurisdiction, and (3) in some circumstances the home country can still exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over its national for the crime he committed overseas. The prosecutorial discretion of the deporting country should not be fettered by the home country.