4 ms·

Big Balls is only 19 and was intervening, unarmed, in a carjacking attempt of a woman by up to 10 people as reported. DC is one of the highest murder rates in t

Big Balls is only 19 and was intervening, unarmed, in a carjacking attempt of a woman by up to 10 people as reported. DC is one of the highest murder rates in the country. Would you have the balls to protect a woman in that situation?

estearum 1y ago
[flagged]
- gottorf 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - estearum 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - 650REDHAIR 1y ago
    Gutting USAID has killed people. There isn’t any other way to look at it.
    - estearum 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - gottorf 1y ago
        [flagged]
        tomhow 1y ago
        > What a ridiculous argument. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        gottorf 1y ago
        You're right, I should cool off for a bit. Names are flying all across the thread, and it's hard!
        tomhow 1y ago
        Understood. Thanks for trying your best.
        estearum 1y ago
        Huge portions of the United States do in fact have a very similar relationship with their water companies, because their water companies are given water rights by the relevant state governments. I think if someone decided to save money by shutting off water to Phoenix or Los Angeles, they will have some portion of the relevant blood on their hands. That's especially true if they did so with zero effort toward a smooth transition.
  - tastyface 1y ago
    You are absolutely wrong. People have died as a direct result of USAID cuts and will continue to die. Here's some reporting on the subject: https://archive.is/YknTv https://archive.is/YknTv There are ethical ways to reduce humanitarian aid. Eliminating it all at once ain't it.
    - gottorf 1y ago
      Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough. I'm not disputing that there exist people whose lives depend on USAID. I'm disputing the claim that there is a direct moral culpability on the part of the people who work for the administration that cut USAID funding, or the American electorate that empowered said administration, for those deaths; and that said moral culpability means it's fine when those people are victimized by criminals. > There are ethical ways to reduce humanitarian aid. Eliminating it all at once ain't it. The nature of government-funded programs is that the actual source of the funding, the taxpayer, has very little direct say in it, and the people who are involved have very little incentive to remove it. Politicians love attaching their names to bigger and bigger budget numbers in headlines, and of course the people whose salaries depend on that budget aren't inclined to make it go away. Every now and then the taxpayer gets fed up and elects some boor to make a hatchet job out of it, and intellectuals remark on how heartless it all is. To me, the true ethical blame is on whoever it is that allowed these millions of people to be permanently dependent on aid.
      - tastyface 1y ago
        Sorry, but no: the person pulling the trigger does not get to shirk ethical culpability, especially if they're sadistically relishing their hatchet job.
        gottorf 1y ago
        There is no trigger being pulled, metaphorically or not. USAID isn't a force of nature that would have continued to flow, as though water going downhill, if only it weren't for those sadistic meddlers at DOGE! It's humanitarian aid funded by the American taxpayer and brought to life by every dedicated worker involved. To choose to stop being a part of this chain of actions is to go from acting on something good to becoming neutral, not becoming evil. What's next, calling someone ethically culpable for quitting their USAID job?
KennyBlanken 1y ago
> DC is one of the highest murder rates in the country If by "highest" you mean nineteeth in this year's tally so far, then....I....guess? https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-city/ https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-... St. Louis, MO's rate was 69 per 100k and DC was 17 per 100k. St. Louis has a murder rate four times DC, yet curiosly no talk of deploying the FBI and national guard there.
- marpstar 1y ago
  Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scenario.
  - abeppu 1y ago
    ... except this president federalized and deployed the national guard in California only earlier this summer, over the objections of the state's governor, so is that rule still a rule?
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      He was able to provide a justification, however thin, which he presumably can't in the case of St Louis. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment. He's only doing this as a political stunt and St Louis wouldn't serve that purpose as well even if he could somehow swing it legally.
      - abeppu 1y ago
        I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere. But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-lawsuit-924491849641549828c4f52a41d54e6b https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-l...
delfinom 1y ago
Red states overwhelmingly have the highest murder rates lmao Widespread poverty and guns.
- rayiner 1y ago
  You mean red states with large blue cities in them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_intentional_homicide_rate#/media/File:Homicide_rates_per_100,000_by_state._FBI._US_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_intenti.... The states with the lowest homicide rates include a mix of very blue (Massachusetts) and very red (Iowa, Utah). The cause is not "poverty and guns," because Idaho, which has a lot of poverty and a ton of guns, has one-third the homicide rate of Maryland, which is one of the richest and most educated states.

estearum 1y ago

[flagged]

gottorf 1y ago
[flagged]
- estearum 1y ago
  [flagged]
- 650REDHAIR 1y ago
  Gutting USAID has killed people. There isn’t any other way to look at it.
  - estearum 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - gottorf 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - tomhow 1y ago
        > What a ridiculous argument. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        gottorf 1y ago
        You're right, I should cool off for a bit. Names are flying all across the thread, and it's hard!
        tomhow 1y ago
        Understood. Thanks for trying your best.
      - estearum 1y ago
        Huge portions of the United States do in fact have a very similar relationship with their water companies, because their water companies are given water rights by the relevant state governments. I think if someone decided to save money by shutting off water to Phoenix or Los Angeles, they will have some portion of the relevant blood on their hands. That's especially true if they did so with zero effort toward a smooth transition.
- tastyface 1y ago
  You are absolutely wrong. People have died as a direct result of USAID cuts and will continue to die. Here's some reporting on the subject: https://archive.is/YknTv https://archive.is/YknTv There are ethical ways to reduce humanitarian aid. Eliminating it all at once ain't it.
  - gottorf 1y ago
    Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough. I'm not disputing that there exist people whose lives depend on USAID. I'm disputing the claim that there is a direct moral culpability on the part of the people who work for the administration that cut USAID funding, or the American electorate that empowered said administration, for those deaths; and that said moral culpability means it's fine when those people are victimized by criminals. > There are ethical ways to reduce humanitarian aid. Eliminating it all at once ain't it. The nature of government-funded programs is that the actual source of the funding, the taxpayer, has very little direct say in it, and the people who are involved have very little incentive to remove it. Politicians love attaching their names to bigger and bigger budget numbers in headlines, and of course the people whose salaries depend on that budget aren't inclined to make it go away. Every now and then the taxpayer gets fed up and elects some boor to make a hatchet job out of it, and intellectuals remark on how heartless it all is. To me, the true ethical blame is on whoever it is that allowed these millions of people to be permanently dependent on aid.
    - tastyface 1y ago
      Sorry, but no: the person pulling the trigger does not get to shirk ethical culpability, especially if they're sadistically relishing their hatchet job.
      - gottorf 1y ago
        There is no trigger being pulled, metaphorically or not. USAID isn't a force of nature that would have continued to flow, as though water going downhill, if only it weren't for those sadistic meddlers at DOGE! It's humanitarian aid funded by the American taxpayer and brought to life by every dedicated worker involved. To choose to stop being a part of this chain of actions is to go from acting on something good to becoming neutral, not becoming evil. What's next, calling someone ethically culpable for quitting their USAID job?

KennyBlanken 1y ago

> DC is one of the highest murder rates in the country If by "highest" you mean nineteeth in this year's tally so far, then....I....guess? https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-city/ https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-... St. Louis, MO's rate was 69 per 100k and DC was 17 per 100k. St. Louis has a murder rate four times DC, yet curiosly no talk of deploying the FBI and national guard there.

marpstar 1y ago
Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scenario.
- abeppu 1y ago
  ... except this president federalized and deployed the national guard in California only earlier this summer, over the objections of the state's governor, so is that rule still a rule?
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    He was able to provide a justification, however thin, which he presumably can't in the case of St Louis. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment. He's only doing this as a political stunt and St Louis wouldn't serve that purpose as well even if he could somehow swing it legally.
    - abeppu 1y ago
      I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere. But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-lawsuit-924491849641549828c4f52a41d54e6b https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-l...

delfinom 1y ago

Red states overwhelmingly have the highest murder rates lmao Widespread poverty and guns.

rayiner 1y ago
You mean red states with large blue cities in them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_intentional_homicide_rate#/media/File:Homicide_rates_per_100,000_by_state._FBI._US_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_intenti.... The states with the lowest homicide rates include a mix of very blue (Massachusetts) and very red (Iowa, Utah). The cause is not "poverty and guns," because Idaho, which has a lot of poverty and a ton of guns, has one-third the homicide rate of Maryland, which is one of the richest and most educated states.