zoink
20hr ago
does the state have a legitimate right to a monopoly on violence?
Of course it does, except when it doesn't.
Very few people have anything approaching a coherent political philosophy. I would assert that the vast majority of people never think about the state in terms of the monopoly of violence. Maybe they heard it in school, but they never internalized the concept.
I am and was always skeptical of how Trump would be able to pull mass deportations off because of this. Even if there wasn't actually violence, the media would manifest it like in Texas where they used forced perspective to make it look like the illegal aliens were getting whipped. Law enforcement is inherently violent, and with millions of interactions there was going to be violence, and scissors.
zoink
21hr ago
If we actually have fallen so far we are what you made us, as was predicted:
There’s a term in psychoanalysis, “projective identification”. It means accusing someone of being something, in a way that actually turns them into that thing. For example, if you keep accusing your (perfectly innocent) partner of always being angry and suspicious of you, eventually your partner’s going to get tired of this and become angry, and maybe suspicious that something is up.
Declaring a group toxic has much the same effect. The average group has everyone from well-connected reasonable establishment members to average Joes to horrifying loonies. Once the group starts losing prestige, it’s the establishment members who are the first to bail; they need to protect their establishment credentials, and being part of a toxic group no longer fits that bill. The average Joes are now isolated, holding an opinion with no support among experts and trend-setters, so they slowly become uncomfortable and flake away as well. Now there are just the horrifying loonies, who, freed from the stabilizing influence of the upper orders, are able to up their game and be even loonier and more horrifying. Whatever accusation was leveled against the group to begin with is now almost certainly true.
I would appreciate if people would reply to me with the best quality, most original videos from the original sources.
Angle 1:
Length: 0:38 seconds
Posted: 10:19 PST
Description: Across the street where the shooting happened.
Angle 2:
Length: 2:50
Posted 10:36 PST
Description: "Lady in Pink" angle. On the same side of the street. This video starts the earliest in the confrontation.
Angle 3:
Length: 0:42 seconds
Posted: 11:13 PST
Description: Starts on the opposite side of the street, video moves to being in the street.
Angle 4: [Twiter Link]
Length: 0:33
Posted: 19:18 PST
Description: Inside the vehicle the end of the confrontation occurred in front of.
Aftermath:
Length: 0:53
Posted: 10:56 PST
Image of The gun:
Shout-out to the Nashville officers - Jeffrey Mathes, Rex Engelbert, Michael Collazo, Ryan Cagle, and Zachary Plese - who were true heroes. They went in without hesitation, clearly ready to stop the shooter or die trying, and they earned the Medal of Valor for it. The body-cam footage is amazing. The way Mathes enters is exactly the kind of bravery all men should aspire to. But that's kind of the thing, isn't it? Is the binary really criminal or national hero?
That doesn't seem quite right to me. When someone is given the chance to be a hero and doesn't take it, they should feel deep shame. If it's part of their job, they should be removed from positions that expose them to situations requiring valor, or they should lose their job altogether. But convicting them of a crime seems too far. With this though, if being a hero is not the expectation you are not treated as a hero for just having the job. I have similar feelings about "public-servants".
zoink
11d ago
It's weird but it's a quirk based off of the strip club being a bar. It's state by state but it's not uncommon for employees to be allowed to be under 21. Beyond that there's the even more common carveout for "performers"; granted the law makers probably had musicians in mind.
zoink
11d ago
My friend calls it "exhibiting getting shot behavior", and it's remarkable how bad it is. There's definitely a selection effect because boring stops don't get posted. You've got your freak atrocity's like Daniel Shaver and Philando Castile (granted I've seen people claim they just needed to follow orders as well) but most of the time these people can just not sit still. Or like this guy "Let me reach deep into every pocket" while the cop has his gun drawn on me.
Like everyone around me... Dungeon Crawler Carl. Started after Christmas on Book 5 now. It's fun, and surprisingly not battling the culture war that much.
zoink
13d ago
Trump strong-armed Netanyahu into stopping because he just loves Iran so much?
Why would Trump have to strong arm Netanyahu into stopping if Israel was getting its shit shoved in?
zoink
13d ago
It's kind of inline with some of the zeitgeist of the day.
https://archive.is/JQyEC#selection-561.0-565.189
Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.
"The most relevant evidence" is that after a man was stabbed, he called the stabber a bad word.
I was actually relatively impressed how long the conversation stayed under my initial post, almost exactly 24 hours before the next one. Often I see it happen within hours. I'm sympathetic to starting a new top level when the thread has fallen below the threshold. I'm less sympathetic to starting a new post on the same event when a top level on the event is still the newest.
The takes really are coming from every direction.
Why was he filming with his cell phone if he felt she was an imminent threat?
Dude literally switched his phone from the right hand to the left, just before the lunch comment, so it would be easier to draw and shoot.
So I'm not just calling out one side. What's the best evidence that Renee Good's vehicle actually made contact with Jonathan Ross? This one isn't super controversial but what's the solid evidence that the women filming is Renee Good's wife?
One, not relevant to the point I'm making.
Two, keeping your weapon hand free is one of the most basic LEO practices probably since the concept of LEO and the concept of wearing a weapon came into existence.
zoink
15d ago
To quote my earlier post:
Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence, and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.
I have seen those who want to give the least amount of deference to law enforcement assert that LEOs will place themselves in front of vehicles not just "stupidly" to keep the suspect from escaping, but to manufacture the opportunity to kill the suspect. I think this vantage gives strong evidence that there is little evidence that Jonathan Ross was attempting that. He is filming as he circles the car, he is only in front of the car for a relatively short amount of time, and Ross's position in front of the car is as much Renee Good's doing because she backed up as it is his doing.
zoink
17d ago
Yesterday the narrative for Democrats was that she was a "Legal Observer", what that is I don't know.
Direct to Rep. Ilhan Omar's Tweet.
zoink
17d ago
A woman in Minneapolis has been killed in an altercation with ICE. I don’t really trust any of the narratives being spun up. Here are two three angles:
Angle 3 (Emerged as I was writing this)
This is actually a fairly discussed type of shooting. Law enforcement confronts a person in a vehicle, the LEO positions himself in front of the vehicle, the person in the vehicle drives forward, and the cop shoots the person. Generally, courts have found that this is a legitimate shoot. The idea being that a car can be as deadly a weapon as anything.
Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence, and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.
I have a long history of discussing shooters in self-defense situations [1] [2] [3] and also one of being anti-LEO. However, I’m softer on the anti-LEO front in the sense that within the paradigm in which we exist, most people think the state should enforce laws, and that the state enforcing laws = violence.
The slippery slope for me: “Fleeing police shouldn’t be a death sentence”
“Resisting arrest shouldn’t be a death sentence”
“If you just resist hard enough, you should be able to get away with it”
People really try to divorce the violence from state action, but the state doesn’t exist without it.
zoink
18d ago
Criticizing insider trading in the stock market is one thing but criticizing it in prediction markets is another. Harnessing insider information is a reason Robin Hansen pioneered the concept of prediction markets.
zoink
18d ago
I understand why utilitarian arguments exist against insider trading, but deontologically I'm having trouble getting to it being unethical.
Any regulation can be rationalized. Burqas are mandated to mitigate lusting after women because lusting after women leads to all kinds of untoward things.
zoink
18d ago
Investing wins long term because of overall market growth, not information disparities. Wisdom of the crowds only works in unbiased markets. The famous examples work unless you shove a bunch of lead weights up the cow's ass or put ping pong balls in the middle of the jar of jelly beans. Insider trading increases accuracy, reducing volatility on net, long term. This is good for long term growth.
Prediction markets are zero sum to begin with, so I don't expect them to survive long-term without subsidies
I'll take that bet /s Gambling is zero sum and is one of the most persistent markets that has ever existed.
zoink
18d ago
Does this sound insane to anyone else?
Using congressional insider trading as a rough proxy, the vast majority of people are vehemently against insider trading. People have a knee-jerk reaction to unfairness (caveats abound) and thus insider trading must be prevented. Being a libertarian, I'm much more comfortable with unfairness than the general public.
What is the high agency response? Building a new website after being driven from two consecutive communities seem pretty high agency. Is the high agency response silencing the bad speak?
More options
Context Copy link