3 ms·
I was talking about ethical frameworks, not laws. There are established ways of thinking about civilians and police officers, and about armed conflicts between
by jltsiren 4y ago
I was talking about ethical frameworks, not laws. There are established ways of thinking about civilians and police officers, and about armed conflicts between legitimate groups of combatants who generally respect the rules of war. When you are dealing with a situation that is not a good fit in either framework, things become ambiguous and political in an ugly way.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> I was talking about ethical frameworks, not laws. The broad structure of the laws we have reflect a (very rough) consensus reification of ethical frameworks. You might prefer to the ethical framework you are describing, but it is by no means a common one when it comes to the subject matter, and it is, I would argue, one that for all its abstract cleanliness at a 30,000’ foot view (e.g., without any definition of what is criminal vs. armed conflict, only the idea that those are the two exclusive and non-overlapping categories of bad behavior) not one which admits of any reasonable application to reality.
- jltsiren 4y agoLaws are temporary opinions that vary arbitrarily across jurisdictional boundaries. As an international service, Twitter needs a more universal basis for acceptable behavior than the laws of any single country. Such a basis exists for old-fashioned wars between sovereign states, and for crime and police activity. At least as far as Western countries are concerned. With "terrorists", "heathens", and "heretics", things become ambiguous. Whatever Twitter chooses to do, it becomes political in an ugly way.