domain:nunosempere.com
The issue with this is Perry probably did just see the chance and killed him for fun.
He was driving on the road legally at low speed. his car was blocked by protesters barricading the road illegally, who then mobbed his car, while one of their number, armed with a rifle, advanced on him with the rifle raised. In that situation, how does one disambiguate "seeing the chance and killing for fun" from "legitimately fearing for one's life"?
Perry likely knew that the victim was cosplaying revolutionary and wasn’t going to execute him at any high non-neglible probability.
Why do you consider this "likely"? Protestors had been making a habit of attacking motorists for quite some time at this point, if memory serves. Vehicles had been fired upon, and motorists lawlessly threatened with lethal force.
In ordinary life when someone exposes themselves that you can do something bad to them and get away with it we usually choose not to do something bad to them.
This argument applies even better to Foster as well, doesn't it? Perry "exposed himself" by driving on the road; Foster's fellow protesters illegally detained and harassed him, and Foster threatened him with deadly force by pointing a rifle at him. Why should we not consider Perry shooting him in self-defense to not be Foster paying the "asshole tax"?
To what degree did the protestors' tactics of illegally barricading streets, widespread throughout the Floyd riots and a recurring prelude to tragedy, bear responsibility for the outcome?
Close to one hundred percent. The tactic is classic dilemma action, penning people into a position where they must either submit to the intimidation tactics of the mob or become violent against the mob. In either case, the mob organizers like the optics of the outcome - heads they have shut things down and flexed their might, tails and they're the poor innocent victims. No one should ever treat these tactics as "peaceful".
How should we interpret Perry's comments prior to the shooting, or Foster's for that matter?
As I wrote elsewhere:
Allow us, for a moment, to consider that everyone involved here is telling their truth to the best of their ability. Garrett Foster was a good and decent man that lovingly cared for his tragically quadriplegic fiancée. He was at these protests due to a deeply felt conviction that black people are oppressed by the police and was personally invested in the matter because the love of his life is a black woman. He carried a firearm at the protests because this is his constitutional right and he wanted to protect his ingroup from agitators. Daniel Perry was just an Uber driver trying to go about his business. He got confused because BLM protests occupy streets that one can normally drive down, he made a mistake in traffic, and found himself surrounded by protestors. The protestors were panicky because they're familiar with the widely broadcast Charlottesville story. Perry was frightened because many protests have turned violent. Foster attempted to defuse the situation and move Perry along.
If all of that were true (and I don't accept that it is, but let's run the thought experiment), this highlights why I was so goddamned angry at the people that allowed BLM riots to happen. The above all could be true and we would wind up with one good man's life ended and another good man's life ruined because these absolute donkeys running the show couldn't be bothered to stop BLM from rioting. Take away the riots and there's no need for Foster to arm up. Take away the riots and there is no plausible reason for Perry to be genuinely fearful. But no, we got tacit support from leftist mayors and governors around the country and a bunch of people died because of it. I am never, ever going to forgive these people.
Note - I don't really believe that this charitable view of the two men is accurate, but the point is that it could be and the same thing could have happened because of the context.
In explaining what I don't believe:
I don't buy that either man was basically an innocent bystander sucked into an unfortunate vortex. They could have been, but I doubt it. I think the evidence that Perry really, really hated protestors is compelling evidence that he embraced the confrontation. On the flip side, I have an extremely negative view of BLM and basically just don't believe anyone that says they're peaceful - I think all BLM marches are intimidation tactics and are only peaceful to the extent that people are effectively cowed into submission. Doing anything other than submitting will tend to result in very unpleasant outcomes. My model of these clashes is much more of communist-fascist streetfighting in the 1930s than it is sincere misunderstandings between well-meaning people. I think BLM rioters relish the fight and Perry enjoyed killing one of them.
Nonetheless, like I said, I think someone could take the maximally charitable view and have that be consistent with the known facts of this incident.
The answer to, "so now what" is to aggressively enforce laws for blocking streets, for false imprisonment, and so on. These aren't legitimate protest tactics and allowing them gets people killed. I don't care whether Perry was a cold-hearted murderer or an innocent victim of the system, the result was an entirely predictable consequence of BLM tactics that have little to do with the individuals in any specific altercation.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
I haven't seen that fracas, but Louis CK has a similar bit about a woman who was similarly disappointed that he backed down when she pushed him away. As he put it: "are you out of your fucking mind? You want me to rape you, just on the off chance you're into that kind of thing?".
non_radical_centrist
1hr ago
There are a couple levels to explain things on, from neurochemical to evolutionarily. Neurochemically, I couldn't say why two birds would end up mating for life- although I will note a lot of species that ostensibly mate for life also "cheat" on each other a lot. Evolutionarily, it happens because both the mother and father of children get more expected gene-spreading value from raising and investing in their children in the niche that species operates in, instead of the father or even both the father and mother ditching the children after birth.
Is your point that lots of partners early degrades whatever neurochemical method the human brain uses to pair bond, making you unable to fully do so when you'd want to? If so, I just want to see some better evidence of it. A more rigorous neurochemical explanation of how that degradation happens, or good stats about how people who've had many partners early in life are more likely to dislike their spouse later in life.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
1hr ago
I'm old fashioned in that I don't really see a lot of value in a human life until they come a little closer to personhood. I'm the opposite of the "every sperm is sacred" idea. Most children used to die. Other than wasted resources that parents should rightly be upset about dealing with, including pregnancy risk, I think parents should have right to terminate defective or unwanted children for even a bit after they have come to full term. Should we really force a family and society to raise a retarded child that they will neve be free from and that wouldn't even survive without modern medicine anyway?
non_radical_centrist
1hr ago
Someone is trying to market that person to me.
Or she just went temporarily viral, attracted some fans, and now the fans are spreading her work? You're seeing her here because I posted the link. I posted the link because I liked her writing after seeing Richard Hanania endorse her videos debating red pillers.
non_radical_centrist
1hr ago
She is obviously trying to leverage her current fifteen minutes of fame into becoming a political commentator, but that doesn't make her a "grifter". Especially since her comments align with radical feminist beliefs, yet she participates in porn, yet she has done a podcast episode with Richard Hanania. That seems to me the mark of someone who's honestly living their beliefs, not someone trying to tell people what they want to hear in order to scam money off of them.
Lewis2
2hr ago
I don’t know about you, but Budweiser’s a friend of mine.
Possibly, but probably not for posts like this one. "I am angry" is not generally the type of post this place is built to facilitate. "Here is why I am angry" is much better. "Here is the situation, and here is why it is producing anger" is better still. Actual evidence provides much better grounds for discussion than raw assertion.
I greatly appreciated your previous post linking to Derrick Bell as well, in addition to the writeup on the Ctrl-Pew prosecution.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
Greg Abbott figured that out a while ago. He’s also trying to take over the administration of Travis county(where it took place), although it’ll be a while before he gets it done.
07mk
2hr ago
Surely we can develop better norms for [social stuff]
Regardless of the specific issue, I'm rather skeptical of this possibility. Perhaps we could imagine better norms which, if people followed them, would create a better society or a society that at least suffers less from this one particular problem, but that's just a creative writing exercise. Whether we could develop better norms in the sense of actually directing norms and enforcing them in society in general in such a way that they solve the problems they're intended to solve without introducing worse problems (or negating the solution in some other way) is a different question.
100ProofTollBooth
2hr ago
IMHO the man who was menaced in his vehicle by armed protestors, and ran over several to escape at the Virginia Charlottesville riot was railroaded even harder, but I sincerely doubt any governor of ours will have the balls to pardon him.
Is this the James Alex Fields Jr. case? If so, I am genuinely curious to get some non-biased background on it. Wikipedia (yes, I know) lays it out as a cut and dry "domestic terrorist" attack.
urquan
The end desire of the system is Kubernetes for human beings
2hr ago
You know, I used to be one of those westerners staunchly opposed to matchmaking, but the more I read about people seemingly unable to match themselves up, and the more I see how, while compatibility is valuable, love and commitment are choices that can build upon even basic compatibility to build a strong partnership, the more I think maybe my preconceptions on matchmaking were wrong, and having external people you trust provide insight on fundamental compatibility can provide incredible value.
But social trust is really the solution to everything. The solution to getting men and women to think of each other as members of their sphere of concern, worthy of respect and consideration both romantically and more fundamentally, is to put them in a community where they know each other and are embedded in meaningful, integrated social networks. I think there's a weird way in which some past societies were more "gender-integrated" than ours, despite having many single-sex spaces.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
Totally true. But it seems like high social trust environments could swing it- isn’t Japan having somewhat of a resurgence in third party matchmaking(which is in fact a solution to the issue).
hanikrummihundursvin
2hr ago
I see very little of them, especially in the aftermath of Oct 7. I can't say I agree that defenders of past colonialism and the defenders of Israel are basing their arguments on common ground.
Wave_Existence
2hr ago
No the company is not “deep faking” you, you just aren’t actually unique
This really gets to the root of the visceral reaction some people have towards most of generative AI. People view their artwork, their voice, their face, as some of the most personally identifying "what makes me be me" features. The idea that there are literally other people that look and sound just like you, or even worse that a computer can emulate it believably, flies in the face of how some people see themselves.
Kindof understandable, many were told from an early age that they were a one of a kind special little guy, and finding out that it was all a polite fantasy would probably be quite jarring.
gattsuru
2hr ago
Where how unique it is might matter for California's statutory right of publicity, the state's common-law right is far more expansive. I'll point to White v. Samsung, where this was close enough to trigger California's common-law right of publicity.
((Look at the decision itself for even more expansive stuff: "Here's Johnny" alone was apparently enough for the 6th Circuit to find infringement of right of publicity.))
It's an absolute mess of a standard, and celebrities have marinated in it so long that it's water to them.
100ProofTollBooth
2hr ago
Thanks. I'm happy to defer on this one because I wasn't citing stats, I was just thinking in terms of combining two known trends. (TFR, infant death).
sliders1234
2hr ago
The issue with this is Perry probably did just see the chance and killed him for fun. It’s just that the victim was shitting on the commons to an extent that he opened the door for someone to kill him because he didn’t like the victim.
Perry likely knew that the victim was cosplaying revolutionary and wasn’t going to execute him at any high non-neglible probability.
In ordinary life when someone exposes themselves that you can do something bad to them and get away with it we usually choose not to do something bad to them. In this case the victim broke public trust to an extent that people are less forgiving. He paid the asshole tax.
If you want more people 150 years from now you're going to have to grow them in a vat and raise them with a robot. That is just how it is going to be unless you're in some kind of originalist cult in AD 2174.
Well, shit. We agree
Getting pregnant yourself when a machine womb can do it for you will be seen as grotesque and unnecessary.
Yup! And this is why I am Pro-Life on the grounds of future concerns. "My body, my choice" holds some water, but when the robot-womb babies start, there's going to be some portion of the population that wants to reserve the right to unplug (read: murder) because they change their minds 6 months in.
100ProofTollBooth
2hr ago
Surely we can develop better norms for women to filter men for a kind of stick-to-it-ive-ness than creating strategic ambiguity for rape.
I can't find the link, but see a recent Twitter fracas wherein a young lady invited a man to her apartment, told him she wasn't interested in sleeping with him, he respected those wishes, and she then made a TikTok (or other video platform) bemoaning that he didn't "go for it."
I am unclear on what it means to "hold them accountable for crossing various milestones." I agree that women should be more honest with partners, that was my whole point!
Step one would be dating / sleeping with more than one person at one time (for both men and women) is seen as bad behavior.
urquan
The end desire of the system is Kubernetes for human beings
2hr ago
The big problem with modern dating is everyone hates it, sometimes for different reasons and sometimes for similar ones, and absolutely no one, not even one, not a single soul, is willing to work cooperatively to improve it. The only people willing to acknowledge the problems respond almost to a man with attempts to use insights into the situation for personal gain, like the red pillers and FDS people. Few express even a morsel of empathy for anyone struggling on the opposite side of the fence, and everything is framed in a zero-sum, adversarial way. It is no wonder to me that people who think like this don't have any satisfaction in relationships.
Looking at the problems and collectively going, okay, let's improve this, let's make this better, let's build a system in which more people get what they want and are happy is apparently out of the question. It would require too much honesty, too many tough questions, it would threaten people's status. We'd have to be real with each other and also ourselves, and it's simply psychologically easier to become enraptured by hate and contempt. The system of love has been transmuted into a system of hate.
Wave_Existence
2hr ago
Do you expect Blues to achieve consensus that their side was in the wrong
no, but party wide consensus seems to be an ephemeral state for both sides of the aisle these days. Im a red tribeish democrat voter and i certainly think its legit self defense even ignoring where the guys rifle was specifically pointing, and i imagine im not alone in this opinion.
Here's the Hanania piece on it. Paywalled, but the intro paragraphs and link to the video should give you all necessary context
More options
Context Copy link