4 ms·

> Not only is shoplifting not legal on a broad scale, but it's a very disingenuous interpretation. Disingenuous? You mean intentionally deceptive? https://w

> Not only is shoplifting not legal on a broad scale, but it's a very disingenuous interpretation. Disingenuous? You mean intentionally deceptive? https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-shoplifters-theft-walgreens-decriminalized-11634678239 https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-shoplifters-theft... The subtitle says "Walgreens has closed 22 stores in the city, where thefts under $950 are effectively decriminalized." Refusal to arrest or prosecute, which is the reality on the ground, is de facto legalization. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not very helpful to say "no, that's disingenuous, you and I both know it's a harlequin mallard."

jjulius 4y ago
... completely ignoring the part where I highlighted that GP said "shoplifting is now legal" in a broad sense, and I then specified that that is, in reality, limited to a handful of cities. It would be obvious that San Francisco is one of them, and that I never argued that it wasn't de facto legal there. Hence the phrase, in the part you quoted, "on a broad scale". Bailing from one city is not a broad scale - I'm sitting in the parking lot of a busy Walgreens in a different state waiting on food truck tacos as I edit this.
magicalist 4y ago
I mean, while we're talking "intentionally deceptive"... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shopli... https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Is-shoplifting-forcing-Walgreens-to-cut-back-in-16536960.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Is-shoplifting-forcin...