5 ms·
The cards have a human-shaped shooting target on the back. The platforms did absolutely the right thing here.
by idlewords 2y ago
The cards have a human-shaped shooting target on the back. The platforms did absolutely the right thing here.
- ceejayoz 2y agoIt's not like they came up with the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_cards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_card...
- stickfigure 2y agoTwo considerations make this different: * The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp. * The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians.
- Miner49er 2y ago> The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians. It's violence either way, you just find it a more acceptable violence.
- carlosjobim 2y agoThose military targets on the cards were fully expected to do their greatest effort to kill or neutralize the card issuers and the card holders. Should I expect these CEOs to do the same thing?
- ceejayoz 2y agoStatistically, denials of medical care are highly likely to have killed more Americans than the ~2k Americans killed in Iraq by enemy fire over a ~20 year period.
- tptacek 2y agoBy that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people. Further, under the zero-sum logic you offer here, every doctor that has ever overbilled RVUs is an accomplice to murder.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> By that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people. Probably, but motive matters in “killed” versus “murder”. I’m much more inclined to be mad about profit-driven medical decisions of this nature.
- tptacek 2y agoIf motive matters, none of these people have killed anybody.
- ceejayoz 2y agoI’m… not sure we agree on that.
- tptacek 2y agoThis doesn't seem like so much a difference of opinion as of fact; when an insurer denies someone coverage, they aren't motivated to kill that person, nor is that their intent. Like health insurance administrators in every system in the world, they're required to make decisions about who gets what, and that implies that some people won't get what they want. In fact, by the logic you're using, administrators in the NHS are far more culpable than US insurers, since they issue categorical denials they know with certainty are going to result in preventable deaths; an insurer can at least tell themselves they're conditioning coverage situationally and based on effectiveness. Would you like some specific examples? I think this "health care" "murder" thing is just a really bad analogy and people should stop using it.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp. Whole bunch of "captured + executed/died in prison" on that list. The goal wasn't to give them a hug. > The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
- stickfigure 2y ago> The goal wasn't to give them a hug. Just because we sometimes execute criminals doesn't mean there's something wrong with WANTED posters. > Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents? If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward. Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
- ceejayoz 2y ago> If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward. Throughout the Iraq and Afghan wars, we deemed combat actions by insurgent groups to be terrorism, even if entirely against military targets. Hell, the guy who threw his shoe at Bush got three years in jail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_i... > Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up? I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr.
- stickfigure 2y ago> I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr. You are naive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volo... Considering how famously paranoid Putin is, I doubt the Ukrainians get much opportunity. There's not a doubt in my mind they would take it if they could. What are the Russians going to do, invade?
- spencerflem 2y agoWhat do you think they WANTED to do to them?
- undersuit 2y agoWhat do YOU think they wanted to do to them?
- idlewords 2y agoThe back of the most-wanted Iraqi playing cards showed desert camouflage. They were issued to US troops to aid in the identification and capture of prominent enemy leaders in an armed conflict.
- ceejayoz 2y agoIf we're highlighting small differences between the two scenarios, I'd note that the US DoD gave out free lethal weaponry to the same folks to whom they gave the cards.
- tptacek 2y agoThe people on those cards were, overwhelmingly, not killed be the people carrying the cards. This is easy to look up.
- jldugger 2y agoThis was also done in the late 90s against abortion clinics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley#The_%22Nuremberg_Files%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley#The_%22Nuremberg_...
- pavon 2y agoAnd in that case: > Horsley was named as a co-conspirator in a successful civil suit, Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists,[5] filed by Planned Parenthood over the information compiled by him and "Unwanted Posters" of doctors, which was judged by the court to constitute a threat of violence, even without an explicit call to violence. > The case was reheard en banc, and the court determined that the files constituted "true threats" that are not constitutionally protected. These cards are really pushing the boundary of what is legal, and I have no problem with platforms choosing not to do business with him.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago[flagged]
- stickfigure 2y agoAgreed. The guy had a lot of choices; he could have used a silhouette behind prison bars, or a stylized monopoly-man, or even peasants with pitchforks. But a shooting target is waaay too close to an explicit call for murder.
- Blackthorn 2y agoBeen to a shooting range lately? Extremely common.
- idlewords 2y agoWell, you know, context matters. If ten days after a CEO is shot in the street you announce a card deck of CEO portraits with a shooting target on the back, and you post to your Instagram that "the CEO must die", then people are going to draw certain conclusions. Fortunately in this case some of those people were site moderators.
- undersuit 2y agoSo when is it contextually OK to print a shooting target with a US President's face on them?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stickfigure 2y agoThat's easy: When you think it's ok to call for the murder of a US President. You'd better be very sure about that. The Secret Service doesn't find that kind of thing funny.
- undersuit 2y agoI'm not worried, there's enough gun wackos with actual malice in their hearts making a living off of selling these targets.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 2y agoCrosshairs are a normal part of American political rhetoric that's consitutionally protected when done by Republicans. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-focus-gabrielle-giffords-debate/story?id=12576437 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-f...
- DFHippie 2y agoDidn't you hear? Those weren't crosshairs. Those were surveyor's marks. /s
- tptacek 2y agoThe Constitution binds the government, not private entities, who make calls to block content that would violate 1A if done by a state all the time.
- hiatus 2y agoWhat do we do when the primary mode of monetary transaction is not strictly mediated by government (in contrast to the historical use of government-issued hard currency)?
- eggnet 2y agoYou realize that functional governments won’t let this happen.
- hiatus 2y agoWhich governments are those?
- tptacek 2y agoI don't care, I'm making a narrow point about the applicability of the First Amendment to private businesses. The most important part of that point is that while stories like this are what make the news, every major social network every day filters all sorts of crazy shit that nobody wants to see (if they did, Gab would have been a success), all of which has the exact same (nonexistant) free speech implications.
- brohee 2y agoOK. The question is now why is it such a rare instance of doing the right thing. Facebook was the engine of the Rohingya massacre and did absolutely nothing. Some lives are clearly more precious than others.
- ycombinatrix 2y agoBut the “Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards” were okay?
- tptacek 2y agoYes. Also OK: wanted posters, and the FBI 10-most-wanted list.