6 ms·

>Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be ha

by daenz 5y ago

>Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.

dragonwriter 5y ago
There is no debate that Disney is worse off with the action, so it is harmful. Even your argument upthread is that this is an adverse change that Disney deserves for other reasons than the actual motivation, not that it is not an adverse change.
- daenz 5y ago
  You're finally understanding my point. Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. Put it another way: Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Yes, so (independent of whether the status quo is just or not) the act is: (1) harmful to Disney, and (2) motivated by Disney’s exercise of its first amendment rights. > Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. No, it doesn't. It makes it harmful in a way you believe is warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation. But the fact that an adverse government action would be warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation does not make taking the same action in retaliation for exercise of Constitutional rights permissible.
    - daenz 5y ago
      I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment. While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.
        daenz 5y ago
        The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
        daenz 5y ago
        Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Our different philosophies flow from our different perspectives of that definition.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.” Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
  - Volundr 5y ago
    > Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they? Sure. Slave-owners were also harmed when the slaves were freed. The fact that a harm is just does not make it not harm. Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed? In most cases it's going to be pretty clear they were, yet it can still be just for the sake of protecting others.
    - daenz 5y ago
      Kudos for answering, I think the person I was replying to is worried about making a similar response, although it is consistent with their other statements. I disagree that it is harm. >Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed? How is that the same? In my example, I was removing an exclusive and special benefit. I don't see how putting someone in prison is removing an exclusive and special benefit, unless your view is that the default state is everyone should be imprisoned.
      - Volundr 5y ago
        > I disagree that it is harm. Well, let's actually try to apply your scenario and actually make it analogous to the Disney scenario for a moment. Imagine said law exists. Now imagine "Joe" speaks vocally against a law proposed by the "FiFi" party, which currently happens to hold the majority in the legislature and executive branch office. Now the "FiFi" party is suddenly pushing to remove the discount from "Joe" and no one else. THAT is what's happening here. Disney is hardly the only business which has negotiated preferential treatment. Stadiums and factories are the two most common examples, but there are plenty of examples of States including Florida providing tax breaks and other special treatments to a variety of businesses. But now it seems you can only negotiate with them if you tow the party line. Disagree and any special treatment you've negotiated will be revoked, while everyone who stayed silent gets to keep theirs. Now, is "Joe" harmed by losing his discount while everyone else gets to keep theirs? Can you really argue that the above isn't the government suppressing free speech?
- colburnmh 4y ago
  And the counties and their taxpayers, as well.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful. Retaliation is about the why, not the what. Retaliation is me doing B because of A. def: Retaliation: The act of retaliating, or of returning like for like; retribution; now, specifically, the return of evil for evil In this case, it's about Disney acting in a way that pols don't like. "But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." - FL Rep Randy Fine
- daenz 5y ago
  >Retaliation is me doing B because of A. No, and you're twisting what you know retaliation to be, to pretend that is merely "cause and effect." That's very deceptive, because I think you know that it doesn't make much sense to say "He gave me a nice gift, so I retaliated with my own nice gift."
  - Volundr 5y ago
    retaliate: intransitive verb to return like for like especially: to get revenge transitive verb to repay in kind retaliate an injury Words have dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and connotations (note: the especially). Your usage above is consistent with both the dictionary and legal definitions of retaliate, but would be confusing to most English speakers because of the connotations.

by daenz 5y ago

>Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.

dragonwriter 5y ago

There is no debate that Disney is worse off with the action, so it is harmful. Even your argument upthread is that this is an adverse change that Disney deserves for other reasons than the actual motivation, not that it is not an adverse change.

daenz 5y ago
You're finally understanding my point. Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. Put it another way: Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Yes, so (independent of whether the status quo is just or not) the act is: (1) harmful to Disney, and (2) motivated by Disney’s exercise of its first amendment rights. > Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. No, it doesn't. It makes it harmful in a way you believe is warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation. But the fact that an adverse government action would be warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation does not make taking the same action in retaliation for exercise of Constitutional rights permissible.
  - daenz 5y ago
    I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment. While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.
      - daenz 5y ago
        The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
        daenz 5y ago
        Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Our different philosophies flow from our different perspectives of that definition.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.” Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
- Volundr 5y ago
  > Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they? Sure. Slave-owners were also harmed when the slaves were freed. The fact that a harm is just does not make it not harm. Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed? In most cases it's going to be pretty clear they were, yet it can still be just for the sake of protecting others.
  - daenz 5y ago
    Kudos for answering, I think the person I was replying to is worried about making a similar response, although it is consistent with their other statements. I disagree that it is harm. >Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed? How is that the same? In my example, I was removing an exclusive and special benefit. I don't see how putting someone in prison is removing an exclusive and special benefit, unless your view is that the default state is everyone should be imprisoned.
    - Volundr 5y ago
      > I disagree that it is harm. Well, let's actually try to apply your scenario and actually make it analogous to the Disney scenario for a moment. Imagine said law exists. Now imagine "Joe" speaks vocally against a law proposed by the "FiFi" party, which currently happens to hold the majority in the legislature and executive branch office. Now the "FiFi" party is suddenly pushing to remove the discount from "Joe" and no one else. THAT is what's happening here. Disney is hardly the only business which has negotiated preferential treatment. Stadiums and factories are the two most common examples, but there are plenty of examples of States including Florida providing tax breaks and other special treatments to a variety of businesses. But now it seems you can only negotiate with them if you tow the party line. Disagree and any special treatment you've negotiated will be revoked, while everyone who stayed silent gets to keep theirs. Now, is "Joe" harmed by losing his discount while everyone else gets to keep theirs? Can you really argue that the above isn't the government suppressing free speech?
colburnmh 4y ago
And the counties and their taxpayers, as well.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful. Retaliation is about the why, not the what. Retaliation is me doing B because of A. def: Retaliation: The act of retaliating, or of returning like for like; retribution; now, specifically, the return of evil for evil In this case, it's about Disney acting in a way that pols don't like. "But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." - FL Rep Randy Fine

daenz 5y ago
>Retaliation is me doing B because of A. No, and you're twisting what you know retaliation to be, to pretend that is merely "cause and effect." That's very deceptive, because I think you know that it doesn't make much sense to say "He gave me a nice gift, so I retaliated with my own nice gift."
- Volundr 5y ago
  retaliate: intransitive verb to return like for like especially: to get revenge transitive verb to repay in kind retaliate an injury Words have dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and connotations (note: the especially). Your usage above is consistent with both the dictionary and legal definitions of retaliate, but would be confusing to most English speakers because of the connotations.