philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
A lot of people had to do dumb shit they shouldn't have done for Babbit's death to fall out of it, is what I take that person's point to be.
Pointing out that the police did something wrong doesn't require thinking the rioters were in the right. People have this zero-sum picture of how blame works that just doesn't correspond to reality at all. You see it from the other political direction in "victim-blaming" discourse - "maybe you shouldn't have dressed like that or gotten that drunk" does not mean "the guy who assaulted you did nothing wrong and you deserved it", but when people get emotional common sense gets left behind. In a lot of these situations, a lot had to go wrong, many people contributed to it, some of them doubtless behaved worse than others, but even so, it makes no sense to insist there is one and only party at fault.
philosoraptor
19d ago
April Lavigne
Avril. I wouldn't bother if it was just once but you're both doing it, at least one consistently.
philosoraptor
20d ago
It could have been more explicit but I think the idea was to draw an analogy between the academic journal and insider trading cases, as both being examples of the sort of thing he decries in the first part of the post - dishonorable behaviour being defended or even celebrated.
philosoraptor
23d ago
to which to fatFIRE (or at least chubbyFIRE if I get all-so-tiresome'd out before getting there).
To what?
philosoraptor
24d ago
I can only assume people are wildly misunderstanding what actually happened, though it seems to me the OP explains it quite clearly. There seems to be a lot of projecting of people's vaguely similar hobby horses going on.
Which is it? Either it's an image of her, or it's an AI generated image.
Disingenuous, unless you think the concept of, say, drawing a picture of Taylor Swift is incoherent. You can generally tell whether a picture is of Taylor Swift, and among people who know her the same is presumably true of this girl.
I don't see how having an AI do it instead of a human changes anything morally relevant; at the very least you need to make the case that it does. You seem to just assume it as a default, but I see no reason for doing this.
Well, yes, what else can one do? "Here's my impressions from the video, here's an important question it leaves unanswered, here's the sort of evidence that would change my mind" is perfectly reasonable and I have no idea why you seem determined to describe it so uncharitably. It's more thoughtfulness than you'll see from the vast majority of people on social media.
More options
Context Copy link