4 ms·

Back in my day, this type of thing would land you in juvenile detention. You wouldn't be released until you passed a psychiatric evaluation, which was no simple

by AmVess 7y ago

Back in my day, this type of thing would land you in juvenile detention. You wouldn't be released until you passed a psychiatric evaluation, which was no simple task. Perhaps we need to return to the days of removing very clearly troubled people from circulation until they aren't a danger to others.

squirrelicus 7y ago
It's almost like exclusion, not inclusion, is the process by which you create quality communities. Of course, redemption should always be on the table. It's worth the risk.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  >exclusion, not inclusion Why not both? Why generalize to all scenarios at all times?
  - squirrelicus 7y ago
    Because inclusion is trivial. Everyone is welcome. The process of exclusion is what causes you to define the borders of acceptability, and allows participants to have a clear understanding of when they're at risk of being excluded. Then they'll weigh their wants vs the rules and make a decision about whether they value their ideas over the group membership. Then what you are left with is people who want to be in the group more than they want to follow their whims against the group's rules.
coldtea 7y ago
>Back in my day, this type of thing would land you in juvenile detention. You wouldn't be released until you passed a psychiatric evaluation, which was no simple task. Back in my day this type of thing would end with a talk with a local policeman, and maybe a smacking from your parents. Psychiatric evaluation, police involvement, the media covering, etc, for a BS death threat by a 14 year old is quite a new development (of course "back in my day" teenagers also didn't regularly take guns and mass shoot people). >Perhaps we need to return to the days of removing very clearly troubled people from circulation until they aren't a danger to others. Yeah, that attitude worked great for the US and its harshest penalties, highest in the world incarceration rate, and record high recidivism. No murder capital of the western world, no mass shooting capital of the western world, no dangerous loony capital of the western world, etc... /s

by AmVess 7y ago

squirrelicus 7y ago

It's almost like exclusion, not inclusion, is the process by which you create quality communities. Of course, redemption should always be on the table. It's worth the risk.

happytoexplain 7y ago
>exclusion, not inclusion Why not both? Why generalize to all scenarios at all times?
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  Because inclusion is trivial. Everyone is welcome. The process of exclusion is what causes you to define the borders of acceptability, and allows participants to have a clear understanding of when they're at risk of being excluded. Then they'll weigh their wants vs the rules and make a decision about whether they value their ideas over the group membership. Then what you are left with is people who want to be in the group more than they want to follow their whims against the group's rules.

coldtea 7y ago

>Back in my day, this type of thing would land you in juvenile detention. You wouldn't be released until you passed a psychiatric evaluation, which was no simple task. Back in my day this type of thing would end with a talk with a local policeman, and maybe a smacking from your parents. Psychiatric evaluation, police involvement, the media covering, etc, for a BS death threat by a 14 year old is quite a new development (of course "back in my day" teenagers also didn't regularly take guns and mass shoot people). >Perhaps we need to return to the days of removing very clearly troubled people from circulation until they aren't a danger to others. Yeah, that attitude worked great for the US and its harshest penalties, highest in the world incarceration rate, and record high recidivism. No murder capital of the western world, no mass shooting capital of the western world, no dangerous loony capital of the western world, etc... /s