Jiro
2hr ago
If ads on twitter offended people, they could pay for whatever it is Elon is calling it now. They mostly don't. Why not?
- They are not technical people and don't understand this well.
- They don't trust the company to be honest with them when they claim "this will get rid of the ads". The company can take it back at any time.
- The company probably won't price the ad-free version in a way proportional to the difference in value. If they make 10 cents from you on ads, the price of the ad-free version may still be 20 dollars more, because they also like to do market segmentation and overcharge less price sensitive people.
- Sometimes people do buy the ad free version. Buying a non-Kindle is a better deal than buying an ad-free Kindle. Of course this is a catch-22--if the customers don't buy the ad-free version you will claim the customers don't mind ads, but if they do buy it you will say that the market is obviously working and therefore there is no need to get rid of ads. (Which violates conservation of expected evidence.)
Once the advertising model breaks down, you get the modern newspaper industry.
That's the newspaper industry breaking down, not the advertising model specifically. And a lot of woke depends on civil rights laws, government agencies, and similar non-market forces.
I'm pretty sure Disney still does a lot of advertising. It hasn't kept them nonpolitical.
Jiro
21hr ago
So they thought: ‘let’s make the antagonist in the game an angry purple-haired e-thot; I mean surely she won’t generate any sympathy among dudes who listen to alt-right vtuber bros, right?’. It does sound like a reasonable assumption at first, if we want to be honest.
I'm not sure they were even thinking that far ahead. It could just have been "draw a girl" and there could have been no reason for even her gender, never mind the purple hair, except maybe a reflexive drive for representation by putting female characters in everything. They weren't trying to make her particularly unattractive (or attractive).
The main point against this theory is that the other characters have normal hair, so the purple hair can't just mean "they are in a bubble where purple hair is normal" or"the corporate art style includes weird hair". On the other hand, sometimes main characters get distinctive features where background characters are more generic, so that isn't a fatal point.
Jiro
1d ago
So why the focus of the cities which voted Harris?
Cities that voted Harris tend to be sanctuary cities. In sanctuary cities ICE has to do more work.
Jiro
1d ago
His administration seems to be on the anti-gun side of United States v. Hemani, though it's on the pro-gun side for Wolford v. Lopez.
Jiro
4d ago
The problem with the idea generalizes though--the problem is that you make ethical behavior dependent on what you can see. So you have fewer ethical requirements if you have unrelated reasons to not see so much.
There are of course situations where a market failure is more likely. If our KKK member has leased the only cafeteria at a workplace, or is the only decent ISP in an area, they might deserve more regulation. (Things get messier if there is a prevailing sentiment of customers distorting the market, like "places willing to serve Blacks are low-class".
Okay, now backport this to your original idea, which is that it's fine to blacklist ICE employees, and to reveal their identities so they are easier to blacklist. What if this makes it hard for the ICE employee to participate in large swaths of society, just like it does in the "KKK members lease everything" scenario or the "customer sentiment" scenario? How exactly is "places willing to serve blacks are low-class" different from "places willing to serve ICE employees are fascist collaborators"?
(Except that you can probably tell who is black without having to reveal their identity first.)
The point of the anecdote is not "never walk past a homeless person" but "never walk past a homeless person just because you screen out their existence as a neutral fact of the universe".
That means that if you never walk past a homeless person anyway, you're exempt from the requirement. All you need is a dual-purpose homeless avoidance so that you can truthfully say you have a reason to do it aside from just avoiding the homeless.
There should not be greater moral requirements on people who walk instead of drive and as such inherently pass more homeless. Or to put it another way, it's a double whammy: the poorer someone is, the more they have to walk and use busses and live where there are homeless around, so the more they have to help the homeless. Being rich doesn't just mean you have more money, it means you have fewer moral obligations.
Jiro
5d ago
If someone wanted to refuse to serve blacks at their lunch counter, would it be okay with you as long as this was not legally required?
Jiro
5d ago
The question "how many candles do I have to buy before I can stop" is not an issue because the answer is zero. Is the answer to "how much do I have to give to the poor and unfortunate to be considered not selfishly evil" also zero?
Jiro
6d ago
But any passing knowledge of America's founders, it's elder statesman, our civic religion more broadly and the virtues embodied therein puts lie to the notion Donald Trump could possible be some avatar of it.
I don't see an argument in this post.
Jiro
6d ago
one third our intentional homicide rate?
How does it compare to the US's homicide rate when broken down by race?
Jiro
6d ago
If they actually grab a knife out of the block and lunge at the officer, then even under strict standards the officer would have good reason to shoot. So the police could shoot.
If the police said "I thought I saw him go for the knife" and shot him while he might have been reaching for the knife or might have been doing nothing at all, I'd be much less inclined to trust the police. But even then, the comparison doesn't work well because there's little reason for the suspect to reach for the knife except to attack the officer, so going for the knife is probably an attack, while in the car the suspect has a pretty plausible reason to drive other than to attack ther officer.
(If he has a knife handcuffed to him, such that any movement looks like he's reaching for the knife, he does of course have a plausible reason to move other than to attack.)
Jiro
6d ago
I think the standards for the officer using the vehicle accelerating into him as a defense to shooting him should be stricter than normal. There is a need for officers to be permitted to make split second decisions, but there's also a need to not let that get out of hand, and officers are known to game confrontations a lot like "honestly I smelled marijuana" or "you looked like you were speeding" or making it unclear whether you are free to go.
It's possible that in this particular case the threat was clear enough that even under stricter standards he had reason to shoot (despite the initial reporting).
Is your claim that anytime a LEO crosses in front of or behind a vehicle with a suspect in the driver's seat they are throwing away any legitimate interest in not being ran-over? That if the suspect decides to flee, it may be unfortunate that they had to drive over an officer to do so, but that that's fundamentally the officer's fault and not a charge the suspect should face?
Well, compare that to the situation where the police handcuffed a knife to the suspect. I think that in that case they did throw away a lot of legitimate interest in not being knifed by the suspect, and they shouldn't claim "he was a threat because he had a knife". If they are actually knifed by the suspect, you can charge the suspect, but the standard for self-defense against being attacked by the suspect should be stricter than it usually is--strict enough that police only handcuff knives to suspects when it's actually necessary, not when the main effect is giving a reason to shoot the suspect.
Of course, walking in front of a car is necessary a lot more often than handcuffing a knife to a suspect. So the standard shouldn't be as bad as it is then. Still, it should be stricter than what it would be if the officer had not walked in front of the car.
In this specific case: While the general principle is very clear and backed by extensive caselaw, the facts of this particular incident are even more damning.
If in this specific case the car did come at him in a stronger sense than just "it looked dangerous and he's allowed to shoot if it looks dangerous", then yes, in this case I will concede. But not in the general case.
Jiro
6d ago
He wasn't putting himself as a roadblock.
If you are saying that he did it but not intentionally, I'd reply that creating an excuse for lethal force unintentionally is jabout as bad as doing it intentionally, and should be discouraged for similar reasons.
If you are saying that he didn't do it at all, has what is known about the incident really changed that much?
Jiro
6d ago
Unless the Shia clerics can drink blood and summon rain, you can't kill your way out of having no water.
North Korea has survived famines without a regime change, and they can't drink blood and summon rain.
The issue is that the police can escalate from one level of force (the level permitted on a fleeing person) to a greater level of force (lethal force, permitted on a threat) by creating a situation where the first looks like the second. The first level of force is not zero, so this doesn't require that the police avoid all physical confrontation. It does mean that sometimes people will flee, but if that's a real problem, then change the standard so that more force is allowed at the first level--don't blur the first and second levels together.
Jiro
6d ago
It doesn't matter if you were "just" fleeing, if you do so by means of driving your car at the police. If you choose to do that, you are putting their life in danger, and they have a right to defend themselves.
In this case it takes two to choose. Unless you're really aiming the car at the police intentionally, I would say that it's not you who are putting their life in danger, it's them, by creating the situation where fleeing can't be distinguished from a threat.
If they handcuffed a knife to your hand almost anything you do would "choose" to put them in danger. Nevertheless, I wouldn't give the police the benefit of the doubt for "danger" when they handcuff knives to suspects' hands.
I am not suggesting that officers can't stop you from fleeing. The problem is that we already have standards of what they are permitted to do to stop you from fleeing, and those standards don't let them shoot you.
Either let them shoot you for fleeing, or don't. Don't say "they can't shoot you for fleeing" and then let them game fleeing into looking like a threat so they can shoot you for that.
Jiro
6d ago
Yes they are, if you floor it at them.
They can shoot you if you drive at them, but they can't shoot you if you are just fleeing.
If you think they should be able to shoot you for just fleeing, make a law that says they can. If not, don't have policies whose effect is that it's hard to distinguish between fleeing and driving at them, thus letting them shoot you for fleeing.
Jiro
6d ago
If they shoot you because you "attacked an officer" and he "feared for his life" then sure, it was set up by the officer. It's a form of the officers gaming the system.
If the officers try to stop you using a level of force that would be justified in a regular arrest of a fleeing person who is not surrounded but who they (for instance) managed to catch up with, then no.
Jiro
6d ago
The police arrests people for non-violent offenses all the time, you still don't get to floor it to get away from them, and flooring your car at them is violent in itself.
The police are not permitted to shoot you if you floor your car to get away. Even though you "don't get to" do it, the procedure the police must follow in that situation is different. They should not be permitted to blur the difference between that and a situation where they do get to shoot you, and then shoot you because they can't tell the difference.
This reasoning violates conservation of expected evidence. You can't have "people avoid ads" and "people don't avoid ads" be evidence for the same thing.
More options
Context Copy link