Hacker News Reader

Comment by FLUX-YOU | Hacker News Reader

>Like Morgan on the Walking Dead. I do believe Martin is a good guy on the wrong path.

Not sure how you can defend that with this floating around.

    I’m definitely the real fucking deal. This
    is not a fucking act. I threatened that
    fucking guy and his fucking kids because
    he fucking took $3 million from me and
    he ended up paying me back. He called my
    bluff. He said, “You’re not fucking going to
    go after me.” [I said] “Yes I motherfucking
    will.” I had two guys parked outside of
    his house for six months watching his every
    fucking move. I can get down. I don’t think
    RZA knows that. I think he thinks I’m
    some powder puff white guy CEO that’s
    got too much money. No. No, no, no.

http://mic.com/articles/125657/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-wan...

http://hiphopdx.com/interviews/id.2825/title.martin-shkreli-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10750928

View on HN

Nonetheless, being beat up in jail prior to being convicted of a crime (or after) isn't exactly part of what is supposed to be a fair judicial system.

We ought not to punish people for merely being accused of or indicted for a crime. Today it's this asshole, tomorrow it could be you.

People have really forgotten that its supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty".

Too many people have faith in the judicial system. I wish they would all have to defend themselves, just once, from an unsubstantiated criminal charge.

They would find out, very quickly, just how scary the system can be.

My lawyer friends tell me it is actually "innocent until proven broke" -- lucky for him, this guy has that area covered.

I read this and don't think of Shkreli as a powder puff white guy, but as someone who probably needs to puff a little less of the white powder.

I don't know, I take that as a nerdy white dude who desperately seeks attention trying to impress the hip hop heads out there (that kind of talk is extremely common in the rap game).

I don't know whether he meant that particular statement but if you watch his stream for a while it becomes clear that he is a delusional sociopath.

or, you know, an insulated, spoiled kid. but that would require empathy

He grew up poor.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but point taken

I disagree with this form of dismissal as a rule.

If someone says something and then says "it was a joke", "it was a game", "I was just making a point", that doesn't cancel out the words and their impact - social atmosphere is not an intellectually pristine environment. You will change the atmosphere by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and once it's done, there is no going back.

Likewise, if we dismiss someone's statement because "it was attention seeking", "they didn't really mean it", "something was misunderstood", "it's just part of the culture", that also doesn't cancel it out.

There are plenty of young, impressionable folks who latch on to ideas unthinkingly because they cannot take anything seriously at their age and level of maturity. But that is not usually the case with a 32-year-old adult like Shkreli, or people in hiphop culture, or people in actual street gangs.

Posturing language exists to make a claim to credibility. It serves a real purpose and is used in an instrumental way, for the purpose of conducting business on the terms of those who use it. The people who exploit this language the best contain in their personality some particular combination of motivation and lack of restraint, enabling their threats to be real to some degree.

Shkreli already displays such a personality among multiple facets. There is no reason to deny him the possibility of simply being a bad human being who is in need of careful monitoring by society.

>>> "You will change the atmosphere by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and once it's done, there is no going back."

>>> "Posturing language exists to make a claim to credibility. It serves a real purpose and is used in an instrumental way, for the purpose of conducting business on the terms of those who use it."

>>> "enabling their threats to be real to some degree."

>>> "There is no reason to deny him the possibility of simply being a bad human being who is in need of careful monitoring by society."

Do you realize what you're advocating here? Also, referencing "fire in a crowded theater" is usually looked upon as a canary for those who don't know what they're talking about in regards to free speech

I don't think I'm following, other than the implication that chipsy is ignorant about free speech. For the sake of discussion, why not spell out your concerns?

FYI, the "fire in a crowded theater" phrase comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States[1]. Writing for the majority (actually it was a unanimous decision), Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Many people nod their heads at this example, but they forget that Holmes was using it to justify the imprisonment of a man for leafletting against the draft. Those who earnestly reference "fire in a crowded theater" would likely stop if they knew its history. If anything, it argues against their point.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The idea that the history of a phrase or word dictates its meaning is patently absurd. If that were the case, you would be equally appalled by a man calling himself an "ordinary guy"… which comes from Guy Fawkes, a failed 17th century religious terrorist.

I don't think that's the same at all. I gave an example of a unique phrase where people agree with the original sentiment –even the exact words– of Holmes, only to backtrack when they discover what those words were used to justify. Your example is a single word whose various meanings are now completely disconnected from Guy Fawkes or religious extremism.

Well, no, I was specifically responding to the idea that he's a bad person because he made a few particular comments in a fricken' hip hop interview.

Him being of albanian background, I wouldn't be suprised if he was connected to underground as well, specially seing him threatening people like this. This is definitely their style.

The guy was brought up in the US. Deducing that he's connected to underground based on his parent's origin is mental. If anything, the hyper-macho behavior is result of American upbringing.

He obviously is somehow obsessed with the Wu-Tang Clan, so I'd guess his life philosophy is a based on a combination of rap gangsters and wall street traders. Both very American. Sorry for oversimplifying.

Albanian is tribal organization and no wonder he would find role models in asian gangs. I can't know but seems likely to me that he picked up a lot of this at home.

> Not sure how you can defend that with this floating around.

I bet the author of the parent comment to yours — like myself — was ignorant of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com