zlacker

No drug dealer from the Bronx was reviewed by buyers for all to see before making a deal with them. Arguably, a dealer from the Bronx would be on the streets so couldn't make that defense in the first place... so the comparison doesn't hold up.

>It’s a privileged argument and it’s an argument made by one of the privileged

I'm unsure what this is even supposed to mean. I tried searching for a definition of "privileged argument" and found nothing. My search phrase was:

"privileged argument" -white -race -racial -feminist

If someone can explain what was meant by this statement, that would be nice and I'd appreciate it.

>>Nadya+(OP)
I think she meant that we're used to having our drug dealers dark skinned and underprivileged from the Bronx, and it would be much easier to deal with according to precedence if we kept it that way. A sophisticated (though not enough, as it turns out) technological attempt to subvert the status quo is inconceivable.

>>Nadya+(OP)
More quotes from the Judge on this issue:

>“Silk Road created [users] who hadn’t tried drugs before,” Forrest said, adding that Silk Road “expands the market” and places demand on drug-producing (and violent) areas in Afghanistan and Mexico that grow the poppies used for heroin.

>“The idea that it is harm-reducing is so narrow, and aimed at such a privileged group of people who are using drugs in the privacy of their own homes using their personal internet connections”, she said.

Through its drug market Silk Road incentivized (horrific) drug violence across the US and other countries. The best you could say is that they had no effect on it.

The privilege criticism is that Ulbricht wants leniency despite the overall harm reduction being marginal. It might have been safer for him and for the dealers, but not significantly for any other group.