3 ms·

I think Scott just expected a different kind of interaction from a civil society. But he isnt living in a civil society, his is living in a place where the only

I think Scott just expected a different kind of interaction from a civil society. But he isnt living in a civil society, his is living in a place where the only connection between people is the free market. Even the smallest break in the only code they have must be met with extreme measures. Its the only thing keeping it together.

pdabbadabba 8y ago
Huh? This is a story where Aaronson (accidentally) stole someone's tips but was nonetheless not arrested due to the employees' reluctance to press charges. These same employees also graciously refused to accept the $40 he offered them as some sort of recompense. But yeah, the cops were a little rude to him I guess...
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  Criminal actions require intent. Do you think there is criminal negligence causing theft?
  - pdabbadabba 8y ago
    Look, it's clearly a minor offense at most. And maybe his actions were sufficiently reasonable that he could have defended himself in court, if it had absurdly come to that. The point is, he took someone else's money, and all that ultimately happened was that he received a stern talking to. Seems pretty contrary to your narrative that "Even the smallest break in the only code they have must be met with extreme measures."
    - petermcneeley 8y ago
      He didnt actually break the code. It only looked like he did. So cops were summoned and he was placed in handcuffs all over $3 dollars. Had he actually stole the money (in the criminal sense) he might have faced the full force of the law. To me the word "extreme" fits when a reaction to an event is in significant excess of the infraction.
      - pdabbadabba 8y ago
        I see. I have some sympathy for the view that this sort of intimidating interaction with the police and possible arrest is disproportionate when the offense is the theft of a mere $3. Then again: 1. It's not my $3. For some, the theft of $3 would be significant. How should law enforcement handle this? 2. I wonder if it really is true that if you steal $3, you're likely to face the "full force of the law." I would think that many people would just look the other way rather than involving the police. A lot would depend, I suspect, on their prior disposition towards you (which, of course, can be problematic insofar as it provides a vector for racism, etc. to influence policing).
        petermcneeley 8y ago
        I think thats kinda the point, law enforcement likely wouldnt be involved in this situation in a civil society. The manager might have taken the loss or he might have spoken to scott directly. Living in a civil society is about deescalation and assuming good intentions of those around you. Again the main mistake Scott is making is not his absent minded stumblings (note his bomb squad story) BUT his lack of recognition that he is living in a society where many minor errors are considered criminally hostile behavior.
        pdabbadabba 8y ago
        Does it make a difference to you if (as seems like might be the case) smoothie bar employees did attempt to speak to him directly (though not in especially calm or lucid ways, as Aaronson describes it) but, at least from their perspective, he just walked away mid-interaction?
        petermcneeley 8y ago
        Yes it does improve the situation and maybe if scott was less absent minded he would have snapped out of it and realized wtf was happening. However at the end of the day you have scott misunderstanding this as demanding a tip and the employee then misunderstanding this as brazen petty theft. Both reach these rather hostile assumptions quite quickly which causes escalation of a rather ridiculously silly situation.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Criminal actions require intent There are both crimes with lesser mental states than intent, and crimes of strict liability. So let's not engage in inaccurate unnecessary generalizations. But the usual required intent for theft was not present if you accept Aaronson’s account, though the external evidence was certainly enough to provide an external observer a reasonable basis for believing that intent was present.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think Scott just expected a different kind of interaction from a civil society. Did he? Seems to me that he outright admits that both the actual encounter and his mental picture of it are shaped by strongly by his strong internal expectation of persecution based on his “nerdy outsider” status, and saw everyone—starting with the smoothie worker trying to inform him that the money he had just picked up was from the tip jar—as being aligned against him because of this status. It seems like he got what he expected, largely because he expected it so much that it blinded him to what was actually happening.
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  I consider this to be his conclusion: "Again and again, I screwed up. Again and again, though, the airport personnel responded to my honest mistakes with a maximum of cold bureaucracy rather than commonsense discussion: the booting from the flight, the bomb squad, the handcuffs."

pdabbadabba 8y ago

Huh? This is a story where Aaronson (accidentally) stole someone's tips but was nonetheless not arrested due to the employees' reluctance to press charges. These same employees also graciously refused to accept the $40 he offered them as some sort of recompense. But yeah, the cops were a little rude to him I guess...

petermcneeley 8y ago
Criminal actions require intent. Do you think there is criminal negligence causing theft?
- pdabbadabba 8y ago
  Look, it's clearly a minor offense at most. And maybe his actions were sufficiently reasonable that he could have defended himself in court, if it had absurdly come to that. The point is, he took someone else's money, and all that ultimately happened was that he received a stern talking to. Seems pretty contrary to your narrative that "Even the smallest break in the only code they have must be met with extreme measures."
  - petermcneeley 8y ago
    He didnt actually break the code. It only looked like he did. So cops were summoned and he was placed in handcuffs all over $3 dollars. Had he actually stole the money (in the criminal sense) he might have faced the full force of the law. To me the word "extreme" fits when a reaction to an event is in significant excess of the infraction.
    - pdabbadabba 8y ago
      I see. I have some sympathy for the view that this sort of intimidating interaction with the police and possible arrest is disproportionate when the offense is the theft of a mere $3. Then again: 1. It's not my $3. For some, the theft of $3 would be significant. How should law enforcement handle this? 2. I wonder if it really is true that if you steal $3, you're likely to face the "full force of the law." I would think that many people would just look the other way rather than involving the police. A lot would depend, I suspect, on their prior disposition towards you (which, of course, can be problematic insofar as it provides a vector for racism, etc. to influence policing).
      - petermcneeley 8y ago
        I think thats kinda the point, law enforcement likely wouldnt be involved in this situation in a civil society. The manager might have taken the loss or he might have spoken to scott directly. Living in a civil society is about deescalation and assuming good intentions of those around you. Again the main mistake Scott is making is not his absent minded stumblings (note his bomb squad story) BUT his lack of recognition that he is living in a society where many minor errors are considered criminally hostile behavior.
        pdabbadabba 8y ago
        Does it make a difference to you if (as seems like might be the case) smoothie bar employees did attempt to speak to him directly (though not in especially calm or lucid ways, as Aaronson describes it) but, at least from their perspective, he just walked away mid-interaction?
        petermcneeley 8y ago
        Yes it does improve the situation and maybe if scott was less absent minded he would have snapped out of it and realized wtf was happening. However at the end of the day you have scott misunderstanding this as demanding a tip and the employee then misunderstanding this as brazen petty theft. Both reach these rather hostile assumptions quite quickly which causes escalation of a rather ridiculously silly situation.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Criminal actions require intent There are both crimes with lesser mental states than intent, and crimes of strict liability. So let's not engage in inaccurate unnecessary generalizations. But the usual required intent for theft was not present if you accept Aaronson’s account, though the external evidence was certainly enough to provide an external observer a reasonable basis for believing that intent was present.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I think Scott just expected a different kind of interaction from a civil society. Did he? Seems to me that he outright admits that both the actual encounter and his mental picture of it are shaped by strongly by his strong internal expectation of persecution based on his “nerdy outsider” status, and saw everyone—starting with the smoothie worker trying to inform him that the money he had just picked up was from the tip jar—as being aligned against him because of this status. It seems like he got what he expected, largely because he expected it so much that it blinded him to what was actually happening.

petermcneeley 8y ago
I consider this to be his conclusion: "Again and again, I screwed up. Again and again, though, the airport personnel responded to my honest mistakes with a maximum of cold bureaucracy rather than commonsense discussion: the booting from the flight, the bomb squad, the handcuffs."