You can call that punitive justice if you want, but arguing that If they never do another crime it’s successful just sounds like another way to say 'boys will be boys, they just made a small mistake".

It’s not that I wanna call it that, it literally is punitive justice. You’re not putting any arguments down for why your approach would make things better for anyone involved other than “the perpetrator should just have been punished more”.

Like I get your point of view, that rapists generally get away with it too often, but that’s kind of immaterial to the argument at hand - this person didn’t just get away with it. They were caught, they were convicted, they served some time, the only issue is that it wasn’t enough time in your opinion and that they returned to a public life. But would more time really have made a difference? It’s arbitrary as hell, since if he had spent 10 years behind bars but never apologized and returned to play volleyball in the olympics, I don’t think you’d view him a lot more favorably. How do you settle on a just time in prison for ruining someone’s life? It’s all either arbitrary or subjective. Some would want him jailed for life, others think 20 years would be fine, other think 7, others want him dead, etc.

I definitely don’t agree with the last point there, I’ve known plenty of violent criminals who have paid their time and were actually remorseful

My point wasn’t that there aren’t former criminals that are remorseful, my point is that the punitive justice system doesn’t care if they are. Reform is not the point and whether they come out a changed person is irrelevant. You serve your time, you get out. And frankly, a lot of the time, prison changes people for the worse. I don’t think you have any data to back up the point of view that more prison time is gonna make someone less likely to commit another offense in the future. If anything, they’re just more likely, since they have a hard time adjusting to life outside after a long time in jail.

Sure, that’s all true. But I can’t imagine seeing her rapist allowed to play in the Olympics after getting a slap on the wrist isn’t going to not be re-traumatizing.

You can’t change the past. If she saw him mopping streets she would probably feel traumatized again, simply because of being reminded of it, not because of anything pertaining to the guy’s occupation.

This isn’t some national hero being cheered by people as he goes. The public hasn’t forgotten. People have been booing him during the game, his face is everywhere online with “rapist” plastered right next to it, negative articles are flowing, this isn’t a victory for him. Idk why this whole thread is pretending like he’s won at life or something just because he gets to be in a competition at the olympics. It’s probably done more to harm his life than if he hadn’t participated. And again, to be clear, I’m not shedding any tears for him over here, but I do feel the very strong tide of sentiment that he should just disappear somehow.

It’s like when people disingenuously say they’s fine with trans people existing but that they should exist elsewhere. You know that you wouldn’t even be okay with this guy serving you burgers. This same crowd would like him fired from any job.

I said in my comment that the justice system probably missed in this case, but I’m not really interested in adjudicating whether it was right or wrong in its result. I’m starting with the premise of the system maybe having done its job, because a lot of people use the fact of the case to beat around the bush and not say what they really mean - that former criminals such as rapists shouldn’t see the light of day in society.

See to me, if one never ever commits a crime again after having previously commited a crime, regardless of the method used, it should be seen as a success. Focusing on the “did the time” is just advocating for punitive justice. You’re saying it’s not possible that he’s changed because he wasn’t punished enough, and should just be punished more regardless of the conclusion the system arrived at. But I wonder if more punishment would really change a person for the better.

The punitive justice system doesn’t care whether criminals do the crime again. It doesn’t matter if a rapist is unrepentant, they serve their 7-14 years or whatever and then they’re free again. In this, I don’t think it’s a more positive outcome than someone serving less time in prison. The punishment amount ultimately doesn’t necessarily serve a purpose other than inflicting harm on the guilty. You don’t believe he’s changed, but neither of us really knows, and we couldn’t really prove that he would change if he spent another 20 years in a cage.

But one thing we do know, based on a lot of research into human psychology and sociology is that if you treat a person like a monster, they tend to become monsters. The more you ostracize someone the fewer options they have, the more they’re pushed back towards being unable to live a normal, lawful life. The US has one of the most punitive justice systems and they have a recidivism rate of like 80% within 5 years of release. Over in incarceration systems like the Netherlands’, it’s about half of that.

There’s really no evidence to support the claim that more prison time = more well behaved citizens after, in fact all evidence pretty much points to the contrary. So I gotta wonder why people would advocate for it. And surely, in this case and other extreme cases, it is because of the crime. Whether he changed or not, whether he ever commits a crime again or not, whether he does feel remorse or not, let’s not kid ourselves that it would matter for most people.

Most of the people here wouldn’t feel differently if he had come out with an apology or something. It’s just a smokescreen for bloodsports, for wanting a bad man punished, not turned into a not-so-bad man. There is something innate in us screaming to have the ill elements of our society tortured, and it’s just an inherently reactionary impulse that we as a society need to work out of our system to actually create a better world instead of just perpetuating a neverending cycle of suffering.

And by all means, hate the guy, for sure. The boos are deserved and all, I’m not saying he shouldn’t catch any flack, but I don’t think kicking him off a sports team or sending him to jail for another couple of years will untraumatize that poor kid he raped, nor will it make him a better person.

You didn’t answer my question. If they can’t go back to a normal life, what’s the point of rehabilitative justice? You don’t want them to offend again, sure, but how do you rehabilitate an individual if you bar them from participating in society?

If he’s free to get a regular job except for some jobs(one that isn’t even related to the crime, he didn’t rape someone while playing volleyball), then he’s just not free. If you want to treat former offenders as second class citizens, then you’re not doing rehabilitative justice.

I mean as much as you hate it, being an athlete is a pretty regular job, especially in smaller sports like volleyball. A volleyball player’s average salary is like 40k a year in the Netherlands, and you don’t really hear about a player unless you’re into the sport, so I really doubt the fame is as big of a factor as you make it out to be. The only reason he’s even this famous to begin with is the news story about the rape.

Your language in rife with disdain for this man and that’s fine, but you’re argumenting from a place of emotion, not reason. Worse even, you’re just not being honest with what you believe. Even if he was some random ass employee at some random ass establishment, people like you would hound him and try to get him fired for this because you ultimately don’t believe he should have a right to a normal life at all - and to pretend like you do but you’re just not okay with him doing this job is just a bald faced lie.

Also, way to strawman your interlocutor as a rape apologist. Go ahead and point out where in my responses I engaged in any rape apologia.

He’s just a douche, playing a sport. I feel like the attribution of what a big honor this is falls kinda flat when nobody really cares about most athlethes, just the countries that take home the prizes.

And while we’re on this, and leaving the question of his rehabilitation aside, if you don’t believe someone who let’s presume has been changed by the justice system and would be a regular member of society going forward cannot be in the public eye, what’s even the point of going through the justice system to reform people?

The stain of past actions surely never goes anywhere, but if people can’t even go on to live a similar life to an innocent, why bother to claim we want to rehabilitate people at all? Serving 30 years in prison wouldn’t unmurder a person, why not just give the guy the chair and be done with it? Not like he can show his face in public or be considered for his abilities ever again, only for his past.

It’s easy to defend a rehabilitative system of justice when the crimes are petty, but one must defend it in equal measure when the crimes are grave, and even when, in my opinion in this case, it kind of misses. Sometimes bad guys get off too easy, but if they never commit such an act again, did the system not do its job?

Kernel level anticheat still can’t stop cheaters? Time for boot partition anticheat, let it run before the kernel ;)

Hell, layer the whole OS on top of anticheat software just to play one game.

“Being forced to work tiled” that’s the main feature of a tiling wm though…

If you tried it for a while, you’d realize just how annoying floating windows really are. All that manual positioning, focus issues, getting them stuck or hidden behind other windows, etc. For big monitors, I would say tiling is just flat superior to floating windows managers.

I remember the days of tasteful ad banners on the internet. Those are long gone. Now everything has to be an obtrusive unskippable autoplay 30 second ad or cover half the screen.

It is not reasonable to browse the internet without an adblocker anymore, regardless of privacy concerns…

To be fair, centrists are really really annoying and more often than not just mean you have reactionary politics that are just a bit less extreme than the right perhaps. You will rarely, if ever, see the right criticize centrists, because they are useful to help them portray themselves as reasonable when championing unreasonable causes. Plenty of obvious conservatives/cryptofascists will claim to be centrists, apolitical, “classical liberals”, etc.

And most centrists just lack awareness of the likes of who they’re choosing to identify with. One could choose to either say they’re liberal or conservative, the moderate sides of either wing, and it would sound a lot more respectable than being a self described centrist.

Removed by mod

I don’t speak for all Linux users, but it’s not like we don’t like the tech or the concept… We don’t like it because a lot of the time it’s just another way for Microsoft to throw around their weight, you need a valid key to sign your kernel images with to be able to boot another OS instead of Windows, and some motherboards don’t support installing your own keys as trusted keys. But usually there are ways around that issue nowadays.

And also it’s not an easy process if you’re not an advanced user of sorts. You have to know what is entailed, what to use, where to store your keys safely, have a script to re-sign the kernel image every kernel update(which happens every week on something like Arch), etc.