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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

>>> "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

Also, by the way, threatening speech is technically protected under the first amendment [1]. Dunno why you brought up the government/public opinion topic.

Here's a lawyer, something I am not, on the matter, although I think we're devolving from my initial point: [0] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne... [1] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...

To address my empathy comment, I think it's in very poor taste to declare someone "sociopathic" (i.e. shades of mentally ill) if you're not a doctor, close friend/family member, or otherwise licensed professional. Doubly so to make such a judgement based off a small sampling of online commentary. We should all strive to be empathetic and employ a principle of charity when making such judgements, especially before we know the facts.

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.

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

What makes you think he's a good guy? All the evidence points to the contrary, both morally and apparently ethically and legally based on this indictment.

"I can do better as a human being with empathy towards someone who is broken; sad and probably doesn't understand why people hate him."

If we ever want to stop hatred, if we ever want to stop violence, if we ever want to fundamentally stop the same alienated people who turn to mass violence as their destructive outlets, we have to do it with empathy.

This article is great, and I post it every time the gun control argument comes up after every mass shooting that comes up:

http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

Empathy is the only thing that will save us. It might not save us all, but we have to try.

Interesting analogy, and I'm glad you pointed this out. I was disgusted by Wolf of Wall Street, and even more disgusted by how exalted Belfort became after. So many friends and acquaintances admired and aspired towards what they saw in the film - that was the worst part of it for me. I just can't relate.

Parker said that he resolved after that not to use violence in a film in that way again.

Edit: tried to take, because it's still hard to assimilate

Boiler Room is also a favorite, which of course is related to Wolf of Wall Street.

It was great inspiration for me to hope that one day I could hope to take a bunch of SSRI drugs and go on a murderous rampage in some random Wall Street hedge fund office!

(I'm mostly kidding)

>People who say those kinds of things are no better than him. Possibly worse.

If wishing bad things would happen to someone who has done bad things and actually raising the price of AIDS drugs fiftyfold to get rich are anywhere near each other in your moral calculus, I'm terrified of your moral calculus (especially that it may be common.)

But I just imagine that. It's not like I would ever attempt to actually set up such a thing.

Or I imagine that he goes in, and most everyone is kept segregated under extremely high security, with leg shackles and spit masks. He is put into a cell, and his cell mate has a horribly scarred face, but a bright, friendly grin, insomuch as the scars allow it. That night, he wakes up, unable to move, as the razor blade digs into his face. "I used to have that pretty face. Why should you get to keep it?" The next morning, his cell mate is taken away to solitary. A few weeks later, after his wounds heal, he gets a new cell mate. Lo, it's Martin Shkreli! So he flashes a bright, friendly grin as he thinks about his hidden razor blade. Rod Serling narrates us out, talking about the prison where all the other prisoners are copies of you.

We need to imagine prison as a terrible place, where bad people get punished as they rightly deserve, because we need to believe that putting people inside actually somehow serves justice in a useful way.

He won't get beat up in jail because he deserves it, but because he will find no one inside willing to watch his back, and the other inmates will attempt to extort some of that pharma-CEO cash out of him while he is within their reach.

I assure you, I am well aware of the boundary between fact and fiction. I am actually a bit worried that you find words and imagination to be cause for concern. That fear leads to censorship, which is far worse than any of the fantasy blurbs I have ever written.

My real-life hope for Shkreli is that he will be very, very bored for about three to four years (if convicted), and that all the folks he (allegedly) defrauded are able to get some restitution. He doesn't even need to be beaten with meaty thug fists. He just needs to be kept away from productive workers and other people's money. And maybe also the cocaine.

The reason there's so much antipathy lately toward white-collar criminals is backlash against judges and prosecutors being sympathetic and lenient toward their fellow clean-cut professionals. That antipathy has only manifested in angry protests and op-eds by the powerless, not the prosecutorial and judicial decisions that Shkreli is in the hands of now.

You could say we're all good guys on some kind of path. The typical third-world warlord is 'just being "successful" as it was always defined to him.'

Everyone should get society's best attempt at impartial justice and a compassionate, non-violent, and restorative treatment. But poor folks like Eric Garner are the ones who've been lacking this justice. Shkreli will probably get probation, a fine, and some community service like the handful of executives offered up after the last financial crisis.

According to this piece, they feel guilty about it,

Former Drone Pilots Denounce 'Morally Outrageous’ Program | NBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ1BC0g_PbQ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

(Assumes cardinal utility, but it still works.)

In the 'even the worst guy in the world is a good guy once you look past what ever issues result in them being evil' way?

>He's just being "successful" as it was always defined to him.

There are SO many ways I could run with this.

Honestly, I think one could try to make the argument that there are no evil people, just broken ones. Is that what you are trying to say? If not, I find it hard to justify this guy as a good guy otherwise.

Like most businesspeople he probably adopts the ethos of getting away with what he can within the law, and possibly bending the law where he can get away with it. Google's offshore profit laundering system is an example of a similar approach.

I think it's a mistake to believe this guy is all that different from average in his moral behavior. Most of us never get the opportunity to price pharmaceuticals, but chances are most business owners don't simply give away the product to those who want it.

Differentiating between customers wanting and needing a product is a slippery slope.