Why Are People Against Personal Accountabilty For Individuals Who Behave Badly?

[Baffle]

Which kind of gets to one point "The Anti-Authoritarians" is missing, or completely ignoring. These incidents are not the norm. Police do not always shoot suspects. Airlines don't always overbooked and kick passengers off of planes. I can go on, but I leave it at that.

I think you really should go on, because 'Police don't always shoot suspects' is a terrible defence. I don't always beat up old ladies, but if I did it a few times I'd probably get a reputation for being the sort of guy who beats up old ladies.

I know a lot of people are looking at this as "Authoritarian" vs "Anti-Authoritarian". I am not for "Authorities". I am for accountability. What I am seeing a lot is calls for accountability for certain people. While ignoring and excusing the blatantly atrocious behavior of the people they are defending.

Last time of asking, what exact behaviour are you referring to? Provide examples (something I can read elsewhere I mean, not personal anecdotes).

 

[RunsWithBears]

Holding people accountable for their actions is in direct conflict with the concept of equality.

 

[Baffle]

So, it's really stupid to pretend that the police have some kind of shoot first, ask questions later attitude as a institution. Not to mention that individual officers are also just people, no amount of training will ever prepare someone for every situation.

Didn't actually say that though, eh? (Top tip, read the posts). Do I think the US police are overly gungho in their willingness to shoot people, and needlessly aggressive in dealings with members of the public? Yes, absolutely. There's been far too many police shootings to suggest otherwise. Do I think they shoot people as a first order of business? No, then there'd be even more shootings.

Edit: since you didn't like my old lady example, what about, say, UKIP? Are all members and followers of UKIP racist? No, I don't think so. Are enough members of UKIP openly racist that a common perception of UKIP is as a racist party for racist people? Yes.

 

[RunsWithBears]

Holding people accountable for their actions is in direct conflict with the concept of equality.

No.

It really isn't.

But go ahead and explain how so.

Equality says that unfavourable outcomes must be caused by unfavourable circumstances, or something other than the person itself (otherwise that person wouldn't be equal to those who did achieve a favourable outcome).

Accountability dimisses this notion, as the circumstances aren't blamed, but the person is.

 

[Baffle]

I didn't say that you said that. I said that you are pretending that is the case with what you wrote

I didn't pretend that at all. You are literally (new definition) putting words in my mouth.

I don't care what you think.

Yeah you do.

I took issue with the stupid, nonsensical comparison you gave whilst calling someone's defense "terrible". Maybe you shouldn't make dumb comparisons while calling others peoples arguments "terrible" if you don't like being called out on that, huh?

Ah, my reference to beating up old ladies didn't clue you in on me not being entirely serious. Thought it was obvious.

 

[Baffle]

If you insist. Now, instead of pretending something nonsensical to make a (bad) point, now you made a bad point out of ignorance I guess. You know, since you compared yourself and something you'll never have to do to a institution and something that said institution will have to do on occassion...which is what happens, sometimes people get shot, most of the time they don't, to suggest that the institution as a whole has deserved a bad reputation for doing what it's supposed to do. It's not my fault there was no nuance to your comparison.

I don't care what you think.

Yeah you do.

I really don't. You are some random person on the internet, there is nothing involving you that I care about. I cared to point out that your comparison was dumb. And I even only did that for my own personal amusement, I don't even really care if you acknowledge it or learn anything out of it. It was just fun to laugh at what you wrote and let you know that I was laughing at what you wrote. It's also fun to tell you just how little I care about you or anything you think or dream or care about. You are nothing but entertainment and as far as I'm concerned you could cease to exist the moment I close this Tab and I wouldn't care about that either.

I could tell you to go on about how much you think I care, but I don't even care to know why you're self-important enough to think I'd automatically care about anything involving you Mr. Internet Rando.

I took issue with the stupid, nonsensical comparison you gave whilst calling someone's defense "terrible". Maybe you shouldn't make dumb comparisons while calling others peoples arguments "terrible" if you don't like being called out on that, huh?

Ah, my reference to beating up old ladies didn't clue you in on me not being entirely serious. Thought it was obvious.

Oh I got the sarcasm, what you don't get is that being sarcastic doesn't make your point not-stupid.[/quote]

Yep, loads of not caring going on there. Keep up the good not-caring work.

 

[RunsWithBears]

Holding people accountable for their actions is in direct conflict with the concept of equality.

No.

It really isn't.

But go ahead and explain how so.

Equality says that unfavourable outcomes must be caused by unfavourable circumstances, or something other than the person itself (otherwise that person wouldn't be equal to those who did achieve a favourable outcome).

Accountability dimisses this notion, as the circumstances aren't blamed, but the person is.

Yeah, I figured the issue is that you don't actually know what equality is. The concept of equality is not the concept of equal outcome. That is the conclussion of a person that thinks people are literally the same. Equality is for equal treatment of people. It is entirely possible to treat people as equals whilst holding them accountable for their actions.

Any concept of equal treatment does not make sense if you do not believe people aren't the same.
You don't treat a criminal in the same way you treat a doctor, because you believe one to be more valuable for society than the other. The criminal is held accountable for being worth less to society and thus punished, whilst the doctor is worth to society and is rewarded. They are both held accountable for their actions and not treated as equals.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Any concept of equal treatment does not make sense if you do not believe people aren't the same.
You don't treat a criminal in the same way you treat a doctor, because you believe one to be more valuable for society than the other. The criminal is held accountable for being worth less to society and thus punished, whilst the doctor is worth to society and is rewarded. They are both held accountable for their actions and not treated as equals.

If I may, the sentiment is about Race, Creed, Gender, and the like. Equality is about the human, not society.

I understand a person's desire to rate a criminal differently than a doctor. One complicates human lives, one saves them.

But when the Department of Justice prints out an article stating that courts give harsher sentences to blacks than whites for the same crimes and the same circumstances, that's a call for a miscarriage of Equality. One segment of the population is being treated harsher than the other, when all over factors but race are accounted for (this link is a pdf done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics [https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512.pdf], whose summation is that there is a disparity for harsher sentencings for blacks even if there are no solid reasons why, given the crimes and conditions being the same).

Even Criminals themselves aren't treated equally. That's the problem. If all Criminals got the same punishment for the same thing, that's justice. If one side gets harsher treatment for such a non-reason as color, then there's something going on.

Are you guys really engaging with the account which was made today and is obviously trolling?

It's Sunday morning. What else is there to do?

 

[Baffle]

Are you guys really engaging with the account which was made today and is obviously trolling?

I'll have you know I made my account ages ago.

 

[Elijin]

It's Sunday morning. What else is there to do?

Find chocolate. Gorge on said chocolate.

Anyone who doesn't enjoy a well crafted easter egg hunt is a goddamn monster.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

It's Sunday morning. What else is there to do?

Find chocolate. Gorge on said chocolate.

Anyone who doesn't enjoy a well crafted easter egg hunt is a goddamn monster.

Grr. Argh.

I don't like chocolate. I prefer fruit and sorbet.

... and Twizzlers. but I can't eat those any more because I have a problem.

 

[EbonBehelit]

Equality says that unfavourable outcomes must be caused by unfavourable circumstances, or something other than the person itself (otherwise that person wouldn't be equal to those who did achieve a favourable outcome).

Accountability dimisses this notion, as the circumstances aren't blamed, but the person is.

You're confusing Equality of Opportunity with Equality of Outcome. The former is equality. The latter is utopian nonsense.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

[
You don't treat a criminal in the same way you treat a doctor,

I do if they've both paid for whatever I'm selling and they aren't doing anything illegal at the moment.

I'm hardcore capitalist like that. Punish people for breaking the law, then after that they get to be normal folk again. That's how it's supposed to work. None of this permanent branding shit.

 

[runic knight]

Holding people accountable for their actions is in direct conflict with the concept of equality.

No.

It really isn't.

But go ahead and explain how so.

Equality says that unfavourable outcomes must be caused by unfavourable circumstances, or something other than the person itself (otherwise that person wouldn't be equal to those who did achieve a favourable outcome).

Accountability dimisses this notion, as the circumstances aren't blamed, but the person is.

Yeah, I figured the issue is that you don't actually know what equality is. The concept of equality is not the concept of equal outcome. That is the conclussion of a person that thinks people are literally the same. Equality is for equal treatment of people. It is entirely possible to treat people as equals whilst holding them accountable for their actions.

Any concept of equal treatment does not make sense if you do not believe people aren't the same.
You don't treat a criminal in the same way you treat a doctor, because you believe one to be more valuable for society than the other. The criminal is held accountable for being worth less to society and thus punished, whilst the doctor is worth to society and is rewarded. They are both held accountable for their actions and not treated as equals.

Equality does not mean ignoring the actions of other people, it means ignoring the aspects of it not related to the content of their character or that would otherwise not be relevant to their worth as human beings. Things like race, gender, being a blonde, or being left handed would be things that equality applies to in ignoring.

Someone's decisions in the past being used to judge them currently, such as choosing to commit a crime, or choosing to tough it out through med school is actually relevant. While not nice, certainly, it is not a violation of the concept of equality that someone's own actions are looked at in judging them. Now, supposing the person has served their time as a result of their criminal act, I think they should be viewed the equivalent of any other citizen as a result of going through a system that rehabilitates people into working members of society again. Being more a realist than that, however; I know the prison system doesn't give a fuck about rehabilitation currently, so I can't exactly fault other people for looking at prior criminal behavior with some worry. will say that when it comes to rights, all people deserve them regardless of anything they do. Not that their actions don't come with consequences, but with regard to things like rights to speech, trial, and fair treatment, all should certainly be treated equally, though this is bit off tangent here.

Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity. Giving all people regardless of race, gender, sexuality, and left-handedness a fair shake is equality of opportunity. Expecting people that are unique individuals with unique skills, talents, motivations, moralities, and personalities to result in equality of outcome though is absurd. You will never obtain that, and pursuit of it itself in the past has been misguided at best.

Holding all people accountable for their actions though IS equality. It is letting their actions determine how they are responded to, and under a well-oiled system, would result in the same response for the same actions each time. Current system is not great at that, but that is the very goal of functional equality. Hell, civil rights activists pushed to be judged by the contents of their character solely to summarize this notion. And how one acts is probably the best way to gauge the actual content of their character.

What you seem to be hinting at here though sounds like some sort of social communist thing, where all people are treated identically by society regardless what they do. That isn't really equality though, as the people who are acting as unmitigated assholes sure as hell aren't equal to those who aren't acting in that fashion, and they are not contributing the same amount to society in order to create the value society would view in them. They are still getting equal response though, meaning that there is reward for being an asshole while nothing rewards those who are not. That isn't a fair system in the least. Also would very, very quickly destroy itself as the assholes, having no incentive to do anything, would simply leech, while those that don't bare to let themselves be such assholes, leave. When nothing but assholes left, nothing gets done.

 

[RunsWithBears]

Equality says that unfavourable outcomes must be caused by unfavourable circumstances, or something other than the person itself (otherwise that person wouldn't be equal to those who did achieve a favourable outcome).

Accountability dimisses this notion, as the circumstances aren't blamed, but the person is.

You're confusing Equality of Opportunity with Equality of Outcome. The former is equality. The latter is utopian nonsense.

I don't agree that equal opportunity is equality.

Equal opportunity is roundabout term for 'Don't discriminate', which is fair enough, but that doesn't mean people are equal. If everyone'd be equal, we'd all be paid the same amount and live under the same circumstances. We don't, because some people live under more favourable circumstances or are more talented than others. It's really the use of the term "equality" that I'm taking issue with.

If I may, the sentiment is about Race, Creed, Gender, and the like. Equality is about the human, not society.

I understand a person's desire to rate a criminal differently than a doctor. One complicates human lives, one saves them.

But when the Department of Justice prints out an article stating that courts give harsher sentences to blacks than whites for the same crimes and the same circumstances, that's a call for a miscarriage of Equality. One segment of the population is being treated harsher than the other, when all over factors but race are accounted for (this link is a pdf done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics [https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512.pdf], whose summation is that there is a disparity for harsher sentencings for blacks even if there are no solid reasons why, given the crimes and conditions being the same).

Even Criminals themselves aren't treated equally. That's the problem. If all Criminals got the same punishment for the same thing, that's justice. If one side gets harsher treatment for such a non-reason as color, then there's something going on.

People being subject to the same laws isn't the same as equality, though. The law is bottomline of behavior that we tolerate. Go below the line and you get punished. If some people get punished more harshly than others, that's discrimination, but it's nothing to do with inequality. Nothing in the world is equal.

 

[Dwarfman]

Snip

You appear to be asking three separate questions.
1)Why do people defend stupid people.
2)Why do people want institutions to be accountable over the actions of others in place of self-accountability
3)Are the opinions of those who disagree with you based upon hysteria (ie feelings and knee-jerk reactions)

My answer to question 1).

Because something that may seem stupid to you, isn't necessarily stupid to others.

When it comes to many issues, perspective and the information you have available will always guide your opinion. If something like this occurs again, take a step back and look at the incident from a different perspective. Do the people defending this person or action know something about what happened that you don't? If they do, is that information relevant? How does that information effect your opinion, assuming it should? Does the person or action even require your vocal ire in the first place?

Answer to question 2).

Short answer. They don't. Long answer, is that everyone is ultimately responsible for their actions, however in many places there is a thing called Duty of Care. Duty of Care basically means that whilst you are within or apart of an institution - business, home, where ever really - the people running the show have a duty to ensure your safety. I don't know where you live, but where I live this duty of care is legislation enforced by the law. ( Person A did something stupid and hurt themselves. Did the business they worked for give Person A all the necessary information/tools/guidelines/supervision/training etc, to reduce the chance of this happening? If the answer is no, then the business must be prepared to take a portion of the blame).

Are there people who take advantage of this. Naturally. But there's a whole bunch of other people out there who are protected because of it.

Answer to question 3).

Possibly. But ultimately most opinions and actions - including your own - are based upon the universal maxim of "It seemed like the right thing to do at the time". The reactions people have to something are very rarely based upon logic or wisdom, especially in regard to an immediate response. Yes these two things temper a person's reaction and guide their opinion - as stated in answer 1, along with information - but they aren't the basis of it. Many factors from adrenaline, moral outlook, mental stability, upbringing, where you live, what you've experienced in life and whom you associate with, will ultimately formulate your response to something before logic, wisdom or even the truth do.

In this regard you also need to take into account Herd/Pack mentality. If a large group of people are doing something silly, others will join in because that's what everyone else is doing.

 

[EbonBehelit]

Equal opportunity is roundabout term for 'Don't discriminate', which is fair enough, but that doesn't mean people are equal. If everyone'd be equal, we'd all be paid the same amount and live under the same circumstances. We don't, because some people live under more favourable circumstances or are more talented than others. It's really the use of the term "equality" that I'm taking issue with.

Yeah, I suppose I understand where you're coming from. I mean, it's pretty much a given that making everyone totally equal is not feasible, nor is it actually all that desirable. There's always going to be a hierarchy - hell, humans tend to gravitate towards social/power hierarchies anyway due to our collective desire for order and security. However, having that hierarchy be based on a true meritocracy is the best way we can go about it.

As I said before, equality of opportunity is a fine ideal to work towards: people should all be given the same chances to succeed. Whether they rise to the top or squander those chances, however, is up to them. In this sense, we allow fruitful competition by giving all parties a shot, without subsidising failure.

Having a gap between the top and bottom rungs of society is fine - the issue comes when that gap becomes unfathomably huge. We've seen this happen many time throughout history: all it takes is the bottom rung getting big enough - desperate enough - and the proverbial nobility will literally be put to the sword.