ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
As Corvos pointed out, it's actually far from instantaneous. Either way a lot of time passes between seeing something, interpreting it, making a decision and reacting. Also this situation was dyanmic, he wasn't observing a still picture in a museum. You're expecting literally superhuman performance, as far as I can tell.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
How do you know that?
You can see him getting pushed back through the force of the car in one of the videos. He also suffered from internal bleeding as a result.
You don't seem to grok the concept of probabilistic beliefs.
I grok it, I just don't think the idea is particularly useful in the situation. Many suspects don't telegraph their bad intentions, and as a result, doing the kind of analysis you describe is just an easy way to get yourself killed when doing police work.
We don't live in a world where cops are killing people who have lost control of their cars for medical reasons
Because most of those people don't happen to lose control of their car when police are nearby, and when the car is posing obvious danger to them or others.
No, he does have to guess about her state of mind.
No, he doesn't. It's literally irrelevant whether the driver is coming at him with murderous intent, or with nothing but love and all the warm fuzzies in the universe, he can die either way, and has a right to protect himself in either scenario.
You seem to be arguing that a police officer standing in front of a car whose driver is having an involuntary spasm, and consequently driving towards him, is justified in shooting the driver.
Yes, but that does not imply the self-defense case is weaker.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
This whole thing happened in seconds. You're the one acting like the guy could see everything in slo-mo, and from multiple perspectives, because that's how you got to see it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
In general, yes. But given that she was in the process of turning away from him in order to drive away, it's very unlikely she would hit him unless she had done it deliberately.
Countered by the fact that she did, in fact, hit him, and by the fact that the car was delayed by the wheels spinning on ice.
The fact that you can come up with a scenario in which there would still be a threat even without the intent to do harm doesn't prove that intentions don't matter.
That's quite literally what that means. Conversely, having murderous thoughts does not justify shooting, if someone is unable to act on them. Intentions are irrelevant.
Her intentions determine the likelihood of her hitting him with her car.
The trajectory of her car is what it is regardless of her intentions. Many drivers miscalculate what their car will do. You are also still ignoring the fact that he has no way of knowing her intentions.
By the way, I think this example is illlustrative as almost a reductio ad absurdum. I think most people would find the ideat that, had she had an involuntary spasm, he would have been justified in shooting her, to be ridiculous.
I think you're wrong, and the people who would think that are simply refusing to out themselves in the position of the cop for ideological reasons. All the cop sees is a car driving at him, he has no way of knowing whether it's because of a spasm or deliberate action with the intention to do harm. He has to react to the material facts available to him from his perspective, not guesses about the state of mind of the suspect.
and I think the fact that your argument justifies shooting people who have involutarily lost control of their vehicles shows how weak this self-defence claim is.
I have no idea how this follows from anything you said.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
The fact that she wasn't trying run him over means that it wasn't an imminent threat
It is, in fact, possible to run people over without deliberately trying to, and thus being an imminent threat regardless of intentions.
The fact that he should have known that she wasn't trying to run him over.
That is not a fact, it's just your interpretation of the events, and a pretty dubious one at that. The police can't read minds, and even for us, with all the videos after the fact can't say for sure what she was trying to do.
Intentions absolutely do matter. If you knew with absolutely certainty that he would not pull the trigger, then you would not be justified in shooting him.
They don't. If they were going through an involuntary spasm that would result in them pulling the trigger, you would be justified in shooing no matter what they intended. And you keep ignoring the fact that in the real world we can't read each other's minds, so the amount of justified scenarios is even higher.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
The only war that was existential for the US that I can think of is the Civil War.
This should be an ugly reminder for people. Self defense is a personal right, but the government will not help you secure that right.
If all they did was not help people secure that right, that would be not ideal, but tolerable. They actively prevented people from securing it.
No I don't concede that the state should be invited into all our homes to prescribe to us the standard of care under pains of imprisonment.
It's precisely how we avoid inviting the state into our homes. You're not being watched 24/7 but if you starve your child you get criminally charged. The people who want to flood the streets with CPS and social workers sound a lot closer to your idea of "It's not like I'm opposed to other solutions or repercussions" than to me, in my opinion.
To boot, it's a slippery slope. Next people will move on from children and start insisting that we should imprison those who are unwilling to charge into gunfire!
Nonsense, such a thing would be unthinkable.
I agree it creates the obligation. I disagree failure to meet the obligation justifies imprisonment of this police officer.
If there is no penalty for not meeting the obligation, then there is no obligation.
I don't think it's terribly productive to add to the tragedy of a passed child by dragging the parents into prison, no.
It's not much of a tragedy if they do it knowingly, and it's productive to deter other parents from acting the same way.
Child handcuffed to her bed and starving to death? Sure send the boys in to liberate her. Is handcuffing inaction?
How about a child that's simply too young to leave on their own? Or even one that leaves, but just ends up being more abused by people they encounter on the streets?
I just think bringing the physical force of the law to bear on those who decline to do things is obviously wrong.
And I'm saying you're obviously wrong. There are cases were people are obligated to act, under penalty of law, that's a good thing, and this case should obviously be included.
Did the parents have legal access to the property?
The access not being legal just confirms my point that the state was preventing parents from entering. In itself that's not wrong, but in doing so, the state assumes responsibility for what happened in the area they restricted. This is exactly what creates the obligation for the police to act against the shooter.
If they did, did the police batter the parents to keep them out?
Yes, they were tackled, handcuffed, and pepper-sprayed.
If they did, were battery charges brought against any police?
I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Why would they? The police are generally allowed to batter uncooperative people in order to detain them.
If there were, I don't think my statements about inaction would apply. Do you agree?
I don't. I think you these questions are completely irrelevant to what you said about inaction.
As a reminder, here's the comment I responded to originally. It in turn is responding to "Is the binary really criminal or national hero?" and "But convicting them of a crime seems too far."
Your comment was so extreme that whatever you responded to doesn't really matter. Again, you said: "It should never be a crime to not act", twice.
Central examples of criminal neglect usually refer to reckless driving or a doctor incompetently misdiagnosing a patient to catastrophic effect.
Central examples of criminal neglect are parents refusing to feed or otherwise take care of their children, or generally speaking - people refusing to take care of others who are under their custody. You could probably also find examples of neglecting the maintenance of buildings and machines being criminal.
What? I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the Uvalde shooting response
Uh... then maybe lower the levels of confidence with which you are speaking?
Did he turn his gun on his colleagues and order them to stop?
It wasn't just him, the entire police force deployed to the location was forcefully preventing parents from entering the school to save their children. Some of the parents were armed, so they could have taken on the shooter.
Though I think one officer who wanted to enter was also prevented from doing so.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9hr ago
No, it should never be a crime to fail to act
So... abolish "criminal neglect" as a concept?
Also does the combination of refusing to act, while also forcefully preventing others from acting not strike you as deeply perverted?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The "European blue tribe" invariably tends to mean ca 80 % of (voting) Europeans here, though
Tribes are not about party allegience, so no. Even if the right-wing parties end up with egg on their face, that won't make people magically support infinity immigrants, gender self-ID, and all the other stuff pushed by the Blues in Europe.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Yeah, what I meant is, isn't there some wisdom to it, given how abruptly this particular drama has come to a close? I can understand the point of your other chinaposts, and find them quite interesting myself, but I don't think much will come out of analyzing the screetching of western elites in response to the latest thing Trump said will take us to any interesting conclusions.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Any update on your opinion of this forum not following geopolitics?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I am fairly sure you are Indian and not native
He's Russian, with pretty strong opinions on India.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
And if they course-correct, then career trajectories for apparatchiks change robustly. They've already been course-correcting thanks to Russian threat, militarizing (Americans may not understand that they're both paying for the war now and ramping up production), changing attitude.
Trump isn't going anywhere within the next 3 years, most likely. Plenty of time to fix Europe.
If things go as well as you say, ironically I think we'd be obligated to build a statue to Trump for waking us the hell up.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The Red Tribe basically won politically.
Oh, please. Even on the domestic front they're not really getting what was promised to them, and the international front is neither here nor there for them. They're giving Trump a permission slip to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't fuck up, but that's not the same as him implementing their agenda(plus, he's kinda fucking up).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
"I'm so enlightened I don't even care about my people's extinction" is what the kids would call "a weird flex". Also, it's not just an American phenomenon, or else there wouldn't be so much gnashing of teeth over "misinformation", the rise of the far right, etc.
I moved around from one to another, in a never-ending "Red Queen's Race" between advertisers and ad-blockers.
What? I've literally never seen an ad slip through a blocker.
But then they abruptly removed it from Chrome.
And at this point I'm so tied into Chrome
Then use Brave. It's Chrome, but based (has it's own integrated blocker, supports uBlock, and has a host of other QOL features like vertical tabs).
What's up with all this technological learned helplessness? People used to find and flock to alternatives at light speed.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
No, I'm sorry, miss, we're deporting you back to whatever fantasy fanfic you crawled out of.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Of course all politicians have a strong ego, but I do not think hers was pathological. I can not imagine Merkel watching the Tagesschau, noticing that she was not mentioned once, and deciding to do something about it.
Yeah, and I don't think that's how Trump operates either. Ages ago, when everybody and their dog was opening startups, before Trump got into politics, I watched a video from some techno-entrepreneur I can't even recall. He was talking about the different motivations for starting a company. Money was the obvious one, he brought up one or two more that I can't remember, but the one that stick in my head was "legacy". He gave Trump as the example for that one, as he was willing to forgo profit, just to put his family name on top of buildings. For me this continues to be the best explanation for his behavior. It's probably the whole reason he ran for president, because now his name will have to recorded in history books.
Getting rid of nuclear, and letting in refugees, and dismissing all concerns with a one-liner, shows the same kind of obsession with how history will remember you, in my opinion.
Of all the honors Obama received, the Nobel is the one he deserved least, and one of the weakest Nobels awarded...
Sadly, Trump severely lacks awareness of how the mind of the Nobel committee works....
...At this point, he would have to persuade the Middle East to live in harmony and friendship, negotiate with Russia and China for a treaty which reduces nuclear weapon stockpiles by 90% and be hailed as 'The Peacebringer' by archangels (or equivalent) representing at least three world religions before he had a shot at getting his own instead of a hand-me-down like Goebbels or Infantino's sad participation trophy.
That's a lot stronger condemnation of the Nobel Peace Prize, and the entire social class responsible for it's stewardship, than it is of Trump.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
In accordance with Nobel's will, the (Nobel Peace) prize is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway unlike all the other awards chosen by the Swedish Nobel Committee.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Is your contention that these discussions are predicated on “full automation” scenarios while you think that there aren’t any obstacles stopping an AI-powered tyranny from happening now?
Sort of. My contention still boils down to "under-discussed", that the issues that are more likely to happen take up less focus than ones that are less likely to happen. The "full automation" thing is an example of this - AI developing to the point where it replaces literally everyone / the vast majority of people can happen somewhere down the line, but a scenario where everybody still has a job, because it makes more sense to let AI specialize in data professing, while humans focus on menial jobs is more likely, and unpleasant enough to warrant discussion.
I only had a skim of the essay you linked, and it's indeed more like what I'd like to see, but not quite there yet.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
on something you don't even seem to think AI is needed to make happen.
Huh? No, AI is necessary to make it happen, but the current version that we have is sufficient. Like you point out, it would make no sense for me to bring it up in an AI conversation otherwise.
Their most famous proponent, big yud wants to nuke the AI datacenters.
Yes, because he's obsessed with fantasy doomsday scenarios, rather than far more realistic ones. That's my criticism.
And as an aside, all the thinkers I've read that you would consider AI-Safety aligned have in fact voiced concerns about things like turning drones over to AI.
You're just describing a subset of unaligned AI where the AI is aligned with a despot rather than totally unaligned
Everything I saw from the rat-sphere of the subject, including the concept of "alignment", assumes AI will have agency, and goals that it will be pursuing. None of it is necessary for the dangers that AI will bring.
Or, if the general intelligence isn't necessary for this, then it's a bog standard anti-surveillance stance that isn't related to AI-safety.
Again, defining the field in such a way that it ignores the most likely risks, is exactly the issue I have with AI-safety.
The AI-Safety contingent would absolutely say that this is an unaligned use of AI and would further go on to say that if the AI was sufficiently strong it would be unaligned to its master and turn against their interests too.
How is that useful? I don't care about what they call "aligned" and "not aligned", I care about how a given scenario could come about, and how it could be prevented (and no, "nuke data centers" doesn't count). This would be another part of the criticism I have of the entire field.
More like "from the he 1700/1800s onwards"...
They can start any time they want, but actually being for liberty would involve repealing several laws they've passed, and probably prosecuting anyone who voted for them.
More options
Context Copy link