4 ms·
> excuse to commit crime When cops break the law, and that's what they're doing here, they destroy faith in the justice system, in rule of law. What's crime?
by komali2 6y ago
> excuse to commit crime
When cops break the law, and that's what they're doing here, they destroy faith in the justice system, in rule of law.
What's crime? Is looting a Target, crime? Sure, according to tons of various laws in the USA, it is. Think about it another way though - there's a pile of food, more food than anybody could possibly eat before it spoils. In fact, lots of it does get thrown away, because it spoils. You're hungry, you walk up, take some, eat it, and leave. Did you just do something unethical? You take a TV, a pure form of entertainment and nothing more. Did you just do something Bad? Hm. Maybe, if I followed a very very long chain of events, I could say that the taking of the TV meant a CEO got to buy 1/100th less TVs for himself, sure, that's kinda bad I guess.
Is it... worst than someone with a state-sponsored monopoly on violence doing, well, any of the following? :
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23373619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23373619
There is no "excused crime" happening here. It's people recognizing that the rule of law is broken, that those with the Most Might are doing as they please, and telling themselves "well fuck it, I'm going to get a TV then."
Expectation of the citizenry to, uh, "respect property rights" (lmfao) is absurd when we don't even expect our police to respect the rights of People to exist without violence being committed against them.
So in short, who gives a fuck if target loses TVs - until we solve police brutality to the point that every cop is held criminally accountable for unethical violence, I say let it all burn, because the harm done by a looted target is immeasurably less than even a single instance of police brutality.
- verdverm 6y agoare you calmer yet?
- komali2 6y agoExcuse me?
- testbot123 6y agoI would not engage with the user "verdverm". They are arguing in bad faith, attempting to put anyone who disagrees with them on the defensive, and attempting to pivot the conversation when they're unable to do so. Below, I had a similar debate with this person. They attempted to get me on the defensive by turning the conversation to the 2014 murder of police officers in New York, and continually bringing it up as a way to deflect from legitimate claims. They are not interested in any kind of meaningful debate -- they are only interested in inflaming tensions through antagonistic language (e.g., "are you calmer yet?") and getting you to a point where you respond in anger. Flag and move on.
- verdverm 6y agoI only have weakly held opinions and many questions to understand better. I believe you are the one to avoid conversing with, to go so far as to make this comment I am replying to. Is the view that much better that from your moral pedestal? The point is to get you to think with a more open mind. Sometimes that takes ruffling a few feathers. I mean you no ill will. It is quite the opposite, if you learn to love without prejudice. This is a very difficult thing that few ever master. I am most definitely not among those who have. You will feel differently and better in time though. How long depends on your reaction, because that is all we can do, react. I cannot make you angry, only you can. This is not victim blaming, this is straight from the Dali Llama's mouth. I experience emotions, and later visit them without attachment and letting them control my condition again. I am a much happier person when I do this well, regardless of the original emotion, and equal treatment for both good and bad emotions. Getting overly enthusiastic is as bad as depression. Again, the only person you can ever hope to control is yourself.
- komali2 6y ago> I cannot make you angry, only you can. Haha, victim blaming at its finest. You remind me of the classic LessWrong post about the irrationality of thinking emotions are irrational. https://www.lesswrong.com/s/5g5TkQTe9rmPS5vvM/p/RcZCwxFiZzE6X7nsv https://www.lesswrong.com/s/5g5TkQTe9rmPS5vvM/p/RcZCwxFiZzE6... This hailing of Spock as the Ultimate Scientist, the Ultimate Humanitarian - he didn't let emotions get in the way of rationality! He was a pure, thinking... uh.. well Machine, but not in the bad way! You can make people angry, and that doesn't make them irrational, and it doesn't make you right. Debate isn't as simple as making the other side feel feelings - all you're doing is hiding your own lack of self reflection behind a psuedo-zen shield. "Oh don't mind me, simple and emotional HN posters, I am merely here to tickle your little ape brains, and challenge you to Be Better!" Thinking yourself Spock on the enterprise over our planet. Come down to Earth with the rest of us. Acknowledge that emotions are rational, and acknowledge the feelings you aren't letting yourself feel are rational too.
- verdverm 6y agoTestbot, you are also relatively new to this community. It is very different and the best experiment into a social comment platform that actually works and brings greater knowledge and understanding to it's members, by it's members. HN is helpful, contemplative, and the best place I know to have civil discussions about the taboo. ( http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html ) PG's essays are highly recommended and his thoughts have to some extent helped define this community. I hope that you continue to return, engage, and grow with us.
- verdverm 6y agothere was a lot of emotion radiating from your writing
- komali2 6y agoThank you, police brutality does upset me.
- verdverm 6y agoFor black on black crime or police assassinations, in what ways do they make you feel the same or different? Since I cannot reply and you flagged because your world view now has internal doubts and you need time to settle down and contemplate these new thoughts... A police officer killing a black person, is a smaller subset of the racial injustices. For example, why does black on black crime happen, why is it strongly geographically correlated to poverty and police brutality, why do we not talk about it when it accounts for more homicides than the police against minorities, how are retaliatory killings for police brutality not related to the discussion? In what way is asking these questions changing the subject? Is it rather an attempt to enrich the conversation's context to move away from biased and blanket statements? The answers highly depend on your willingness to open your mind.
- komali2 6y agoOh, a bad faith, fallacious attempt to change the subject, interesting. What you doing on this website? When was the last time you engaged in self reflection? When was the last time you admitted you were wrong?
- verdverm 6y ago> People are inherently good. This is on your website under the values section. Do you still believe it? Are you singling out a group and saying they are different? --- re: I admit fault and incorrectness all of the time. It's part of being open minded. Look at other comments. --- Love takes patience
- dang 6y agoThat's crossing into personal attack and flamewar. Those things aren't allowed here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting to HN, we'd be grateful.