Involuntary circumcision of nonconsenting children, for one.
It should fall under “I can’t believe people were this barbaric” along with virgin sacrifices and other practices that seem inconceivable now, but were sanctioned by pseudoscience and public approval just as this is.
Killing someone is in the same inconcievable category as a procedure that on average helps as much as it harms, by any statistical measure? By that measure, feeding your child meat also fits, as does refusing to feed your child meat.
The US, maybe? It remains very common (over 50%). Or some country in Africa / Middle East / Southeast Asia where it’s done for religious reasons. If you go back a few decades it was also quite common in other places like Australia and Canada.
I can think of several, but stating them publicly would lead to social shaming and loss of employment in the current dominant ideology of the tech world.
The poor guy was mentally ill. I believe he went on a murderous rampage and nearly killed his brother and did kill some of the royal attendants. He also led a huge invasion of Italy which ended up in defeat for the French.
If you want to bring this up, you should be blaming MIT rather than JSTOR.
"Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not." [0]
What "signing off" could MIT do? They weren't the victims of any crime, they were merely the venue. "MIT didn't sign off" was just Ortiz's excuse to not stop pursuing Swartz.
