5 ms·

First, flattened "cheating on your spouse" to "salacious lies" because they failed at it. Now, flattening "doing bad things is bad" to "supporting police entra

First, flattened "cheating on your spouse" to "salacious lies" because they failed at it. Now, flattening "doing bad things is bad" to "supporting police entrapment." Beginning to think this is trolling.

jollyllama 2y ago
I'm sorry it comes off that way. I genuinely think these are interesting distinctions. If I had to make an analogy, I would react differently if I found a bag of weed in a kid's backpack vs a bag of oregano that the kid was fooled into thinking was weed.
- pc86 2y ago
  Somewhat related but if you're selling either one the court (in the US at least) will treat them the same. If you tell an undercover cop that you have cocaine and you sell them a baggie of baking powder, you'll get arrested and charged with selling cocaine.
- LeFantome 2y ago
  To be fair, the additional distinction here is that you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. Obviously nobody was meeting with these chat bots physically. Real or fake, that is an important distinction.
  - dwighttk 2y ago
    >you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. And that they gave money to someone for what they thought was weed
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  I guess the question there is "what are you punishing"? If it's your kid and you don't want them smoking weed, they clearly went out for weed. Are you punishing the act or the intent? Which is the disappointing bit?
itishappy 2y ago
That's way reductive. Is that really what you think they're trying to say?
- refulgentis 2y ago
  It's what they said: as written, it generates a high volume of replies saying the same thing, namely, that the posts are extremely reductive. But do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, curious for your thoughts.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    It's not actually what they said as written though. Your quotes do not come from their post, they reflect your own interpretation. I'm suggesting that this interpretation differs from my own and what I assume is the original posters intent. (FWIW, they say the same thing.) I also don't interpret the other replies here to be saying the same thing as you. They're discussing the idea that getting caught trying to have an affair (that happens to be fake) has interesting parallels with getting caught trying to buy drugs (that happen to be fake). You're accusing the poster of trolling.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      I appreciate the feedback. Looking at the other comments for a 3rd time, it's clear I'm not the only one expressing skepticism. I can't find any more to discuss here, it would feel awkward sitting in a side thread, where no one else is engaging, scrapping over how to sort other people's comments. ex. people saying the follow up analogy is flawed doesn't say "I agree with jpohhhh", so someone looking to police here should feel they can validly. And I don't like arguing with the cops, never goes well afaik :)

jollyllama 2y ago

I'm sorry it comes off that way. I genuinely think these are interesting distinctions. If I had to make an analogy, I would react differently if I found a bag of weed in a kid's backpack vs a bag of oregano that the kid was fooled into thinking was weed.

pc86 2y ago
Somewhat related but if you're selling either one the court (in the US at least) will treat them the same. If you tell an undercover cop that you have cocaine and you sell them a baggie of baking powder, you'll get arrested and charged with selling cocaine.
LeFantome 2y ago
To be fair, the additional distinction here is that you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. Obviously nobody was meeting with these chat bots physically. Real or fake, that is an important distinction.
- dwighttk 2y ago
  >you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. And that they gave money to someone for what they thought was weed
SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
I guess the question there is "what are you punishing"? If it's your kid and you don't want them smoking weed, they clearly went out for weed. Are you punishing the act or the intent? Which is the disappointing bit?

itishappy 2y ago

That's way reductive. Is that really what you think they're trying to say?

refulgentis 2y ago
It's what they said: as written, it generates a high volume of replies saying the same thing, namely, that the posts are extremely reductive. But do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, curious for your thoughts.
- itishappy 2y ago
  It's not actually what they said as written though. Your quotes do not come from their post, they reflect your own interpretation. I'm suggesting that this interpretation differs from my own and what I assume is the original posters intent. (FWIW, they say the same thing.) I also don't interpret the other replies here to be saying the same thing as you. They're discussing the idea that getting caught trying to have an affair (that happens to be fake) has interesting parallels with getting caught trying to buy drugs (that happen to be fake). You're accusing the poster of trolling.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    I appreciate the feedback. Looking at the other comments for a 3rd time, it's clear I'm not the only one expressing skepticism. I can't find any more to discuss here, it would feel awkward sitting in a side thread, where no one else is engaging, scrapping over how to sort other people's comments. ex. people saying the follow up analogy is flawed doesn't say "I agree with jpohhhh", so someone looking to police here should feel they can validly. And I don't like arguing with the cops, never goes well afaik :)