YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
The urge to create this in Sora is strong...
This is what I am talking about. In the OPs metaphor, Kirk is analogous those middle-school mean girls who go spread rumors, sick the teachers on you, maliciously turn people against you. All without actually personally inflicting violence on you. Their motives are to get fame, popularity, social cred, friends, all very banal human things. Are you the sort of person that when someone fights back violently, for being bullied, you punish them because those mean girls weren't physically violent? Or are you the adult that "plays dumb" because those mean girls need to face the consequences of their social violence?
If you are the former, then a lot of people on the right complain about this zero-tolerance fighting problem and how it punishes people for standing up for themselves. If you are the later then the Kirk situations is just that scaled up with far deadlier consequences.
Then the state should not have a monopoly on violence.
If you keep talking like that I might just vote you into political office.
This is an isolated demand for competence.
It is not, I demand competence from all government agents who exercise that monopoly of violence. Sword of Damocles, or "With great power comes great responsibility" take your pick. If you can't remain calm under stressful situations that you have no right being a ICE agent, Police, Law Enforcement, etc. If your negligence or incompetence leads to someone dying you should be punished for manslaughter.
If we applied this logic to the Babbitt shooting,
Acceptable, put Lt. Byrd in a trial and determine if he was negligent in shooting when he did.
she also bears a lot of responsibility for putting him in a difficult situation.
Morally yes, and Pretti bears responsibility for putting himself in these situations, As does Rittenhouse, and so on down the line. Legally no, we don't punish the woman for dressing skimpily walking through the ghetto even if common sense should dictate that is a dumb idea.
Unfortunately, I suspect that is the ulterior motive behind these argument. If you can demand infinite competence from law enforcement
My agenda is that I think our current elites are grossly incompetent and attempting to hold them accountable for their fuck-ups, mistakes, and errors is how we get more competent elites. Apparently that is a radical idea. But I guess the tribal instinct to protect insiders from the consequences of their mistakes is too strong to have functional governments.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
"One was killed advocating and coordinating political action to remove the individual liberty and bodily autonomy of minorities while the other was executed in cold blood trying save a woman who was pepper sprayed and protect his neighbors from a violent authoritarian regime"
The inability to exercise some cognitive empathy or minimally some epistemic humility is a sign of being a tribal partisan.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
Sounds like as a radical centrist my productive choice would the extermination of everyone that's a knuckle dragging ape who thinks we are in a civil war and can't get along.
Just looked out my window, I currently don't see a war going on. My left and right wing coworkers seem to get along just fine, as do my friends of various political persuasions. The only people who seem to think we are at war are the terminally online, mentally ill folks.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
Devils Advocate:
Can't we apply this to other killings? Charlie Kirk was engaging in calls to coordinate state violence against his out group (ie running on political issues that would negatively effect the alphabet folks). He was destroying the fabric of our society for profit and fame. He technically is allowed to do that by the first amendment, but it is rules-lawyering. We as a nation should "just play dumb" when his outgroup coordinates violence directly against him in response, because influencers profiting on division and tribal polarization of our society is bad. Let the adult children face the consequences of their rhetoric.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
It was not an execution.
By definition it was an extrajudicial summary execution, as it was a killing that was not sanctioned by the court and he was killed without the benefit of a free and fair trial. He was killed while restrained by multiple government agents.
It was a panicked split-second decision that proved fatally mistaken
This is just an attempt to spin a narrative to defend the in-group. Government agents killing people in "panicked split-second decisions" does not make it not an execution and does not engender the levels of competency that should/is required by agents of the state. If ICE agents cannot act competently in high stress split second situations then they shouldn't have guns and the power to exercise the state's monopoly on violence.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
You interact with a lot of moderates at work and in your personal life? You know the type that aren't terminally online? Most people are moderates, they are not the crazies posting for visibility on twitter.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
Social Libertarianism, which feels like a weird way to say the left-most of the rightwing libertarians. My runner ups were Libertarian Distributism, Liberal Conservatism, Georgism, of which Georgism is the only one I've actually ever heard of.
I mostly consider myself a classical liberal.
Yes and nobody who is politically aware and independent/moderate gives antifa any respect. We all know they are violent hypocritical thugs. The right won that moral high-ground. Now the right can throw away that hard fought and sacrificed hill for some cheap shots at the other side. On the mistaken belief that everyone is already on one side or the other. but it is frankly a very narrow black-and-white view of the world.
Being a knuckle dragging ape when it comes to politics might feel good but it is giving into the basest and worst impulses of humanity. Some of us want to aspire to a more evolved human species without such primordial tribal bickering. Returning to dunbar number-capped polities is not the goal.
EDIT: edited to be less curmudgeonly, I seem to only comment when I am grumpy enough get past my threshold against posting things online
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
Just wait till its the Department of Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion Enforcement, and they are executing chuds on the street to applause. One can't decry the viciousness and hatefulness of ones foes if you are in the pigsty rolling in the same mud with them.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I'm sure lefties will also find a convenient limiting factor for escalation to death. Probably something like: "Acting like a Nazi" to justify their future extrajudicial killings. Swell...
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I believe this video changes everything and ICE is very much not shooting first.
It is a completely different day. Just because you know someone is a bad actor doesn't mean you get to execute them when you get a chance. I'm not sure normal folks ever thought the guy was a saint. But he is an American citizen and extrajudicial killings of disarmed and restrained protestors by CBP is a violation of all of our rights.
I am very much on the side of just shoot them
When righties whine about lefties cheering on Kirk's death, I'll point them to your comment.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I'm slightly confused on what your argument is, so lets pump the breaks and make sure we both understand what the underlying disagreement is.
It sounds like to me, your general argument is: The claim that governmental action is always backed up by an implicit violence, is bad because every interaction with any other agent is also backed up by implicit violence based enforcement. So government action being so, is not unique and thus calling it out is not special.
Did I get that right? If not please correct me.
Considering my office doesn't have food, my badge is disarmed and there is limited cell signal, eventually I will need to leave. Combined with needing to make payments for life needs and am not being paid, I could maximally wait around until I am destitute, homeless, with no food or money in a stubborn attempt, but I doubt my job will care. They literally can just wait me out. My computer requires credentials to login, The SCIF has no bathroom, and needs a badge to get back in. Once I leave the building I won't be able to get back in, frankly once I exit the elevator I can't get back in.
So essentially 3 days of hobo-ing it at the office.
Maximal-Opposition isn't a required assumption. The Government doesn't describe arresting law breaking citizens as "Maximal-Opposition" and my parents very much spanked me as a kid and I doubt they would consider corporal punishment as "Maximal-Opposition" in respect to defiance either.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
If anything the parent x child interaction is very similar to the government x citizen one. I don't think the violence based enforcement holds for every other domain.
It appears to me that for voluntary contractual interactions, violence is not the fundamental enforcement mechanism. Take your job, if you don't wish to do something you can leave, if you boss wants you to do something and you refuse, they can stop paying you. No violence needed. Friend group social situations: no violence either. Generally, voluntary contractual interactions are enforced by reputational damage, trade/compensation, or right to association.
The parent x child much like the government x citizen is one of forceful unchosen hierarchy, in the sense that it is forced upon you and only through extreme measures, at great personal costs, can it be severed. And since you did not chose to participate the really only enforcement mechanism that is available for the government or your parent is to threaten you with further violence if you refuse to comply.
It would be different if we were still a tribal society and people could just leave society, go out on their own if they did not wish to engage in the social compact. However, the edges of the map are gone, and there isn't really anywhere people can leave to. Just merely exchanging one tyrant for another.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I'd disagree with the original poster that all state actions are definitionally violent. Like providing permits or ID cards. However the police are the agents of the state empowered to carry out it's monopoly on violence. The police do not issue you the ID card or the driver's license, that is done by different agents of the state that are not empowered with its monopoly on violence. All enforcement of the laws of a state by police are violent explicitly or implicitly and the job of the police is the fundamentally the enforcement of laws. What jobs done by the police do you think are non-violent?
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
If you forgo the drivers license, and still drive on the road, the state will fine you. If you refuse to pay the fines, eventually the state will arrest you, if you refuse to come quietly because you don't recognize the authority of the state, the state will inflict violence on you until you comply. Your drivers license is the state's permission to drive without falling afoul of the state's monopoly on violence. Whether this is the non-central fallacy or not, it is practically how society works. We just abstract much of the unpalatable stuff away behind a veneer of civility so we don't need to remind ourselves of how violent the world is and how fragile peace is.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
Considering I literally answered your question and you continue to claim I didn't, I'm going to say calling it evasion is just being deceitful. Answering in weird twisting logic to try and mime some Fae approach to argument is definitely a style.
Here is my answer again: This requires you to know ahead of time whether evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, are you able to predict the future? If not, then removing evidence is just you being biased towards one outcome. All data is evidence.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
It hasn't descended, pointing at the crazy insane partisan hobo on the street is no more indicative of the local communities culture than an indictment of what is considered mainstream.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
You do seem pretty insistent on avoiding a rather foundational question that should do the opposite of stir an emotional response. Speaking clearly, this is likely because you recognize that answer it directly will either make your first attempt to ignore it in favor of passing judgement come off as bad faith, less than competent, or both.
But thats not actually what you did, rather than discussing my idea you started discussing me. That is the definition of ad-hominem. Claiming you aren't in an attempt to score points with an external audience is precisely what I mean when it comes to "waging the culture war" you aren't here to discuss ideas, you are apparently here to look good. I'm not going to answer your leading question, just because you stand past a pit of spikes and taunt me. If you have an actual argument you'd like to make I am all ears, but this "¡Andale, toro!" like I'm some bull that you get to use for entertainment with the crowd is tiresome. It is the definition of troll behavior.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
This requires you to know ahead of time whether evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, are you able to predict the future? If not then removing evidence is just you being biased towards one outcome. All data is evidence.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
So definitely a bad faith troll, trying to elicit an emotional reaction. I do always fall for it.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
The fact that we need to hope for body cam footage, is the really cursed part of this. I hope its not a cell phone with one hand again, that did not make the agents look competent.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
However, I'll settle for the first one you avoided.
I'm not avoiding, you launched in to a low effort attack on me rather than a discussion of my ideas. I can answer yours with the same level of effort you put into answering mine.
Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?
They were considered.
Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?
Aye.
Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?
Sure.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
I believe speaking plainly is a rule on this site, stop trying to lead me into the alley, I'm just not interested.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?
Are you non-tribal, non-partisan enough to judge the actions of your in-group as they affect the out-group> Do you consistently fall to one side of each scissor event?
Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?
Are you competent enough to speak on any of this, let alone judge my competence?
Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?
Are you anymore competent in engaging in discussion around ideas than you are in waging the cultural war?
I'm not disputing the details of a premeditated assassination vs a spur of the moment decision.
I'm arguing the meta level lens of the metaphor around turning a blind eye to immature child-like behavior in adults when it has deadly consequences and how it applies to both sides evenly in ways that gore both sides sacred cows/martyrs.
More options
Context Copy link