Gdanning
9mo ago
The song is about shooting rioters.
The music video notwithstanding, the lyrics don't mention rioting at all:
Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk; Carjack an old lady at a red light; Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store; Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like; Cuss out a cop, spit in his face; Stomp on the flag and light it up
Gdanning
6mo ago
Now someone may counter by saying that it doesn’t matter how much material prosperity you may have if you don’t have political rights and “freedom”, defined in some nebulous way that aligns with how westerners think of it. Except that empirically, people behave in the complete opposite way, gladly sacrificing those things for higher prosperity.
Except that empirically, many people also gladly sacrifice prosperity, or even their lives, in an effort to obtain or preserve civil rights and, more importantly, the dignity that recognition of rights entails. Your analysis is way too neat; it fails to explain, among other things, the actions of the Hamas fighters who died in the attack; surely, if they valued prosperity above all things, they would be pushing for the recognition of Israel's right to exist, or staying home playing video games, or doing anything other than risking their lives. It also fails to explain why people ever quit jobs when they are treated in a way which they consider unjust. Nor even why people will often refuse to patronize a store with the lowest prices, but rudest employees, in town. Nor why some people choose to sacrifice income and comfort to live in rural areas where they are left alone.
Not all actions are instrumentally rationality; there is such thing as value rationality as well ["Value-rational behavior is produced by a conscious “ethical, aesthetic, religious or other” belief, “independently of its prospects of success.”6 Behavior, when driven by such values, can consciously embrace great personal sacrifices. Some spheres or goals of life are considered so valuable that they would not normally be up for sale or compromise, however costly the pursuit of their realization might be."].
Bottom line: Whether Arabs in Israel are "better off" overall simply because they have greater material comfort is a normative question that has no single correct answer.
The point is that there is all sorts of protected speech that increases the likelihood of criminal activity. Flashing gang signs, for example, as well as all sorts of advocacy of crime. As well as, possibly, sharing animated pictures of fictional children having sex with adults [edit: I say "possibly" because I don’t know if that actually encourages recipients to share actual child porn]. Heck, even agreeing with another person to commit a crime is generally not itself a crime; more is usually needed.
Nevertheless, attempting to censor those typs of speech is "addressing criminal activity," specifically, it is an attempt to reduce the incidence of crime, which is why social media companies do not allow it, and why many other countries censor or punish that type of speech.
Hence, preventing govt from notifying a social media company about speech which is both protected speech and which increases the risk of crime X does indeed hamper the govt's ability to address crime X. Please note that I am not advocating that the govt should do that. To the contrary, I believe that social media companies should be forbidden from censoring users' speech which is protected from govt censorship. But I am not going to pretend that such a policy would not make crime prevention more difficult.
Gdanning
6mo ago
And what of all the similar conflicts which were resolved without engaging in full-throated war? Northern Ireland is an obvious example. More importantly, this claim:
you cannot expect certain groups to coexist in the same space peacefully for long
Is empirically false, because violence between such groups is the exception, not the rule
an atrocity in the present may prevent a greater atrocity in the future.
That is a great argument for assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, but not so great for killing all 2 million residents of the Gaza Strip, "everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers," in order to avoid 600 deaths of Israelis, or even 60,000. Because the latter is not a "greater atrocity" than the former.
Gdanning
5mo ago
takes shots at carjackers
If the car was unoccupied, it was not a carjacking, which requires the threat or use of force against a person. It was merely an attempted theft or auto burglary.
Link includes a photo of him sitting around with an embarrassed smile on his face while Kessler is splayed out on the pavement waiting for an ambulance.
An ambulance which, according to the sheriff, he himself called. I don’t know exactly what happened nor what exactly this guy's level of moral culpability is (though he probably is guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter, but if his post-crime conduct is to be used to assess that culpability, then all of conduct should be included, not just some of it)
I think if you consult the linked source, you will find that a 7.5% unemployment rate for African Americans is in fact quite low in historical terms. The data starts in 1972, and from then until Jan of 2017 the African American unemployment rate had almost never been below 7.5%, and then only very briefly.
More importantly, the issue is not whether Obama is a good guy, or did a "good job." It is whether OP's specific empirical claim is correct, and it does not seem to be.
Gdanning
10mo ago
The footnote says:
The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.
No cynical take is needed. The Court spent pages and pages on whether the interests served by affirmative action at regular universities are substantial enough to survive strict scrutiny. The interests of military academies might well be different and hence might survive strict scrutiny,and the issue was technically not before the Court, so it makes sense to leave that question for another day.
Gdanning
11mo ago
Rather than relying on memory, it is easy enough to google the case and discover that they were in fact selling coffee hotter than the norm, that they had previous injury complaints, and that the jury took into account the plaintiff's own negligence and found her 20 pct responsible.
Whether damages were excessive is a separate question, but she did have to undergo skin grafting and was hospitalized for 8 days.
Gdanning
7mo ago
Why does the employer not simply fire the people doing the organizing?
Because it is illegal
Are the people running factory machines inside of Ford and GM (or starbucks, or a hollywood writers room) really that highly skilled?
Autoworkers and screenwriters? Yes. Baristas? Not so much. Which is why unions have historically been more successful in skilled trades than in nonskilled trades; it is difficult for employers to simply fire skilled workers because it is difficult to replace them. More importantly, if it is more expensive to replace them than to give them a raise, well, that answers your question about why employers do not simply fire them.
Gdanning
5mo ago
the Iraqis and taliban helped them come to their senses with a firm and proper lessons in not sticking one's nose where it doesn't belong
Yeah, the Iraqis did such a great job teaching that lesson that they are still using the constitution that Americans wrote for them. Let's be clear: the Iraqi "insurgency" was not some sort of anti-Imperialist endeavor; it was a civil war. That is why the "insurgents" killed vastly more civilians than they did coalition troops.
And the Taliban was so good at teaching that lesson that they killed all of an average of 100 US servicemen per year
Gdanning
6mo ago
I'm pretty sure OP isn't proposing the killing of literally every Palestinian in Gaza,
I'm pretty sure OP is proposing precisely that, since OP said, "But if Gaza had been erased from the world years ago, everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers, you would not have this problem."
Gdanning
10mo ago
Hm, Germans electing a leader whose policies destroyed his country? Nosiree, can't think of a single historical example of that!
Gdanning
5mo ago
Muslim immigrants from where? India, home to about ten percent of the world's Muslims? Indonesia? The Balkans? Even Trump's original "Muslim ban" did not apply to 90% of the world's Muslims.
Gdanning
7mo ago
Here is the problem with advocating censorship of "bad" ideas: If it is permissible make rules about what ideas can be expressed, then someone has to make those rules. And who will that be, people with power, or people without power. Obviously the former.
Btw, I am referring to censorship of ideas, not obscenity, not child porn, and not any of the 1000 other things that those who favor censoring ideas they don't like want to conflate therewith.
Gdanning
10mo ago
But I was struck by a particular take on the religious freedom in commerce case that I saw popping up in a few places today.
303 Creative is a freedom of speech chase, not a religious freedom case.
But taking CNN's "just asking questions" article at face value, it makes me wonder where all the real gay people are, and why we can't seem to get a gay rights case in front of SCOTUS with parties who aren't being puppeted, Chicago-style. Okay, that's a bit of hyperbole, but still, two points form a line.
There is only one point in the line. You seem to think that 303 Creative was an enforcement action brought by the state of Colorado against the company. It wasn't. It was a lawsuit brought by 303 Creative and its owner, for an injunction, because she planned to enter into the wedding website business, but had not done so yet, because she feared that she would get embroiled in an enforcement action. From the Supreme Court decision:
For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. Id., at 1172–1175. The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her. Before us, no party challenges these conclusions.
Note also that the fact that the standing issue was not disputed before the Court means that the whole issue of whether or not anyone asked for a wedding website is essentially a red herring.
Gdanning
10mo ago
And Eugene Volokh seems to think it applies only to flags flown on city flagpoles rather than a ban on people carrying the flag on city streets, in parks, etc (such a ban would almost certainly be unconstitutional).
Gdanning
5mo ago
Attempted murder in CA requires the intent to kill. The vast majority of people who punch others in the face do not intend to kill.
Murder does not require the intent to kill, but even someone who forms the intent to kill during an altercation is often guilty only of voluntary manslaughter.
But most accidental deaths resulting from a simple assault are involuntary manslaughter.
Gdanning
7mo ago
And I believe this is the part pertaining to SOL
That provision has nothing to do with the statute of limitations. CA Penal Code sec 1385 simply permits the court to dismiss charges or enhancement allegations "in the interests of justice." The relevant CA penal code section re statutes of limitations is Section 799, which states that prosecution for rape "may be commenced at any time."
what was the evidence against Masterson? Near as I can tell none. There were 3 victim testimonies,
That is enough, if the jury believes them.
All we're left with is he said/she said,
That is very common in criminal trials (as well as civil trials). And determining who is lying and who is telling the truth is what juries do. The unanimity requirement (and CA uses 12 jurors, unlike some states) and beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof hopefully provides some protection for defendants; that being said, I share your criticism of lengthy or nonexistent statutes of limitations. I am merely describing the law and explaining how the conviction happened, not defending it.
Gdanning
7mo ago
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that (idea) censorship, as a technique, is inherently bad - even if its being done on behalf of your in-group in order to suppress the out-group. . . . But as suppression techniques go, censorship is rather underrated:
You do not understand me correctly. It is not the technique of suppression that I object to, but the suppression itself.
And, while I suppose it is true that censorship of dissidents is better than murdering them, it is also true that some techniques of murdering dissidents are better than others because of the lower risk of collateral damage, if we are discussing "what it the best method of silencing those with whom we disagree," I think perhaps we have taken our eye off the ball.
If you genuinely believe that all criticism of Jews is unfounded in reality and that allowing such ideas to exist in the mainstream could lead to a 21st century Holocaust, then why shouldn't you stop these anti-Semites from trying to prosecute such a wantonly cruel agenda?
- Because some principles, such as freedom of conscience, are so intrinsically valuable that instrumental concerns are not particularly relevant. See discussion of value rationality here
- I will defer to Justice Holmes on this one: "Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
It’s never exactly been a secret that you can’t really fail out of university
That doesn't seem to be consistent with the high dropout rate, the fact that low GPA is the best predictor of dropping out, and that apparently 1 in 6 first-year students are placed on academic probation
Gdanning
11mo ago
The entire internment camp story appeared out of no where 5ish years ago
Perhaps because that is when the camps were opened?
And note that China has not denied the existence of the camps but of course claims they are "vocational centers."
And see here
Gdanning
11mo ago
It is clearly ignorance of what the term means. It is used as a synonym for greed, or the profit motive. There are similar idiocies on the right, of course.
Gdanning
8mo ago
Yes, and DNA if the frisk leads to an arrest on a lesser crime. That is a big part of why police do stop and frisks. See the oral argument in Maryland v. King, which okayed taking DNA from arrestees, where the Maryland AG said, "Since 2009, when Maryland began to collect DNA samples from arrestees charged with violent crimes and burglary, there had been 225 matches, 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions, including that of Respondent King." King's crime was rape FWIW.
PS: Note that this not meant to be an argument in favor of stop and frisk, which is far too subject to abuse.
In Georgia, a "terroristic threat" has little to do with terrorism; it includes includes a threat to commit any crime of violence with the purpose of terrorizing another, and is a misdemeanor unless the threat suggests the death of the threatened individual.
More options
Context Copy link