so here's the paradox: you ban people so that they can't cause trouble, correct? so, they come back on an alt and don't cause any trouble, but you discover that they're a "banned user," so you ban them again. but wait, why ban them if they aren't causing trouble? and why are they even a "banner user" if they aren't causing trouble?
i think that permanent and even simply long bans are illogical because at some point in a ban someone will inevitably reach a point where they stop bothering to cause trouble. otherwise they could just use vpns forever. really, banning serves only to inconvenience people who are least dedicated to causing trouble and challenge (unsuccessfully) those who aren't
so we should abolish banning users for longer than a month and exterminate the concept of a "banned user" which is redundant considering once an alt starts causing trouble you can ban them on that premise anyway so why does it matter
Apparently half of the people serving time in prisons are for drug related offenses said here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Drug-related_crime . It might be going a little off topic, but in this instance, perhaps rehabilitation can help for most people charged of drug offenses. As I said earlier, the light offenses could be worked around with rehabilitation.
The issue lies more with the serious crimes. How can we fix it? Do we continue with life in prison or death penalty? Or could we adopt a system found in other countries where it's a minimum of say 20 years where a parole board decides if it's safe to release one who committed an act such as murder back into society.
In that case, my thoughts are rehabilitation for lesser sentences and punishment for the more serious offenses.
Although I think it would be much more difficult to introduce in America due to the size of the country along with other factors. Examples of rehabilitation are usually listed in Norway, which is a mostly homogeneous nation.
Could it really work? I don't think that it could the same way that other countries do, but I do believe that our prison system should be far less strict then it currently is.
our prison system doesn't focus on rehabilitation, it focuses on punishment, which is my point: people are less receptive to punishment, hence in countries with harsher systems relapse is common
to rehabilitate, you must first begin rehabilitation
I think that the need of theft and the suiciding because they believe the actions against them were unfair are certainly points, but usually not the things that I was mainly trying to address.
In the case of those commiting crimes, I was more referring to the more heinous crimes, such as murder. Even with those commiting crimes, acts of recidivism are unfortunately quite common. A person commits a crime, is let free, then does another crime after being released. Sure there's people who murder another person for something such as cheating, but you also get people who murder simply because they can.
On the internet side, the banned users who have been banned more than once know why they were banned and how not to do it, but the repeat banned users do it anyways. It's not intentionally malicious, but users such as abc do what they know is against the rules on purpose because they can or because it aggravates others, maybe some of both.
To chromosome or others, can a banned user who has been banned more than once truly be a normal EM user, because it seems like these users in particular seem to come back and do the same things that they were banned for in the first place.
deletedover 7 years
no one who you are punishing needs saving or rehabilitation
i think when it comes to breaking rules on the internet, like the opi rule here, people just don't understand why it's serious, which is easy to do on the internet: it's all fun and games until you swat someone and they actually get killed
i don't think it's that people are evil i think they just don't understand that people on the internet aren't npcs in a game
i think people have reasons for their actions, even if those reasons are misguided
most commonly i think breaking rules comes from a sense of need, such as petty theft most often committed by the poor
sometimes out of a sense of justice, which is what you get with grs here: people sui because they think it's unfair they're being lynched or something, and they just don't understand others' reasoning for suspecting them because they're failing to place themselves in that position of not knowing since all they know is they're clear
very rarely a sense of malice, but even then i think those people find a way to justify it to themselves. murder is most often seen as righting a wrong, like if you catch someone cheating on you or something. obviously it's a bad justification, but it's not altogether senseless.
rarest of all are cases of actual psychotics who just do it out of some twisted desire not for justice or need but for the act itself, those people i think can't truly be reformed except maybe a very small few although i think a few others can learn to suppress that urge. still yes there are a small, miniscule number of people who are beyond saving but that's an almost invisible minority nothing like what we have in the US
Some people can't be saved. No amount of rehabilitation can change certain individuals.
Maybe you can relate that back to banned users as well. I think most are good people who can change for the better, perhaps they just made a string of mistakes and said the wrong things. Repeat offenders usually don't change. They might be given chances, but in the end, they'll just continue to do what got them banned in the first place.
If you believe otherwise, i'd love to hear your thoughts.
old country is a dying genre i think new "pop" country is growing slowly
deletedover 7 years
guys like john moreland and jason isbell are signs of a reemergence so no sad cowboy songs arent dying
deletedover 7 years
i guess when you look at art through the lens of stuff like the song on your profile that's had tens of thousands of hours of radio play it gets down to stats but i think most people have a little sense to put into their perspective
whatre the stats for people that do listen to country these days ? is it a dying genre
deletedover 7 years
do you think that johnny cash and dan reeder and john prine and johnny cash and waylon jennings and george jones and hank williams and merle haggard and kris kristofferson and guy clark and townes van zandt are flukes and none of them make good music and people just listen to them because they dont have a choice?
