3 ms·

People are consistently surprised when the government doesn't operate exactly according to the letter of the law. There are ample opportunities to learn this be

People are consistently surprised when the government doesn't operate exactly according to the letter of the law. There are ample opportunities to learn this before you get to this point. Jaywalking may be illegal but people do it right in front of a cop and get away with it. Likewise plenty of things that are perfectly legal attract law enforcement attention. If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble. And yes, I'm victim-blaming, because the victim is partially to blame.

OutOfHere 4mo ago
That may be so, but it's unlikely that a jury would find him guilty. Moreover, those 5-10% would probably not be able to narrow or support their allegation if probed.
ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
> If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble Something is "asking for trouble" if a tiny minority think it is? I think not. That would be extreme minority rule, not democracy. If you ask 100 reasonable people if that letter constitutes a threat, and 90-95% say "no", then the remaining 5-10% should accept that their opinions are unreasonable, and defer to reasonable people, and drop the matter.
- tpoacher 4mo ago
  Black people constitute 13% of the US. Should opinions exclusive to black communities be ignored and dismissed as unreasonable?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - OutOfHere 4mo ago
    Minorities often seek to engage in witch hunts. Opinions should never matter when it comes to law enforcement. The facts and logic should. The fact is that even if a minority assert the email to be a threat, upon probing there is no way they can explain why or how it is threat. An objective analysis should be sought. You can read one by cgpt in its shared conversation ID 6a46a4f2-82fc-83ea-89bf-de6e6108070c which clearly determines it is not a threat.
    - blooalien 4mo ago
      > Minorities often seek to engage in witch hunts. Some minorities sometimes seek to engage in witch hunts. Many others either don't care to waste energy on such pettiness, or simply have better things to do with their time. To be fair, there's a lot of messed up "Karen-types" among the non-minority groups that engage in witch hunting of various kinds as well, so... Yeah. Some humans are just messed up I guess...
      - OutOfHere 4mo ago
        Sorry, by minorities I didn't mean non-whites. I literally meant small groups.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
    Could you be more specific? Which opinions about what could cause trouble, held exclusively by black people, are you referring to?
    - tpoacher 4mo ago
      Do I need to be "specific"? You made the general claim. I'm pointing out that the general claim when applied to a different minority population suddenly does not sound as reasonable, and could easily cause distress and discussions of persecution and discrimination. Pivoting to wanting to exceptionally examine an exact opinion for this particular minority is simply Special Pleading. The point stands that, no, people should not be expected to shut up and "defer to reasonable people" just because their opinions and interests are in the minority.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        > Do I need to be "specific"? Only if you want to make a coherent point. It sounded like you wanted to come up with a counterexample, but stopped halfway through finding one, and thus stopped halfway through making your point, hence my asking. Given that you instead wrote 3 paragraphs about why you shouldn't explain what you're talking about, I don't think even you can think of a counterexample, so I don't see this conversation going anywhere productive with regards to your point. > I'm pointing out that the general claim when applied to a different minority population suddenly does not sound as reasonable Hard to "point out" something that isn't true. It could sound reasonable, it could sound unreasonable. You haven't explained what you're actually talking about here, so impossible to judge so far. Feel free to contribute a nonzero amount of evidence towards your case here, and try to convince folks you're right. Remember, the topic is not people, but opinions of the form 'doing X is asking for trouble, and should be interpreted as a threat'. On the other hand, if you want to come up with bigger and better reasons why you shouldn't explain what you're even talking about: I'll pass, and my point stands even stronger than ever.
        phendrenad2 3mo ago
        I see what you're doing and it's brilliant. 99% of people probably understand tpoacher's point perfectly, but you're pretending not to in order to be the 1%, and daring him to counteract his own point by ignoring you. Bravo.
TheCoelacanth 4mo ago
People who are empowered to enact violence on behalf of the state must be held to a higher standard than random citizens. Anything other than absolute adherence to the letter of the law is completely unacceptable from any part of the government.

OutOfHere 4mo ago

That may be so, but it's unlikely that a jury would find him guilty. Moreover, those 5-10% would probably not be able to narrow or support their allegation if probed.

ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago

> If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble Something is "asking for trouble" if a tiny minority think it is? I think not. That would be extreme minority rule, not democracy. If you ask 100 reasonable people if that letter constitutes a threat, and 90-95% say "no", then the remaining 5-10% should accept that their opinions are unreasonable, and defer to reasonable people, and drop the matter.

tpoacher 4mo ago
Black people constitute 13% of the US. Should opinions exclusive to black communities be ignored and dismissed as unreasonable?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- OutOfHere 4mo ago
  Minorities often seek to engage in witch hunts. Opinions should never matter when it comes to law enforcement. The facts and logic should. The fact is that even if a minority assert the email to be a threat, upon probing there is no way they can explain why or how it is threat. An objective analysis should be sought. You can read one by cgpt in its shared conversation ID 6a46a4f2-82fc-83ea-89bf-de6e6108070c which clearly determines it is not a threat.
  - blooalien 4mo ago
    > Minorities often seek to engage in witch hunts. Some minorities sometimes seek to engage in witch hunts. Many others either don't care to waste energy on such pettiness, or simply have better things to do with their time. To be fair, there's a lot of messed up "Karen-types" among the non-minority groups that engage in witch hunting of various kinds as well, so... Yeah. Some humans are just messed up I guess...
    - OutOfHere 4mo ago
      Sorry, by minorities I didn't mean non-whites. I literally meant small groups.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
  Could you be more specific? Which opinions about what could cause trouble, held exclusively by black people, are you referring to?
  - tpoacher 4mo ago
    Do I need to be "specific"? You made the general claim. I'm pointing out that the general claim when applied to a different minority population suddenly does not sound as reasonable, and could easily cause distress and discussions of persecution and discrimination. Pivoting to wanting to exceptionally examine an exact opinion for this particular minority is simply Special Pleading. The point stands that, no, people should not be expected to shut up and "defer to reasonable people" just because their opinions and interests are in the minority.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
      > Do I need to be "specific"? Only if you want to make a coherent point. It sounded like you wanted to come up with a counterexample, but stopped halfway through finding one, and thus stopped halfway through making your point, hence my asking. Given that you instead wrote 3 paragraphs about why you shouldn't explain what you're talking about, I don't think even you can think of a counterexample, so I don't see this conversation going anywhere productive with regards to your point. > I'm pointing out that the general claim when applied to a different minority population suddenly does not sound as reasonable Hard to "point out" something that isn't true. It could sound reasonable, it could sound unreasonable. You haven't explained what you're actually talking about here, so impossible to judge so far. Feel free to contribute a nonzero amount of evidence towards your case here, and try to convince folks you're right. Remember, the topic is not people, but opinions of the form 'doing X is asking for trouble, and should be interpreted as a threat'. On the other hand, if you want to come up with bigger and better reasons why you shouldn't explain what you're even talking about: I'll pass, and my point stands even stronger than ever.
      - phendrenad2 3mo ago
        I see what you're doing and it's brilliant. 99% of people probably understand tpoacher's point perfectly, but you're pretending not to in order to be the 1%, and daring him to counteract his own point by ignoring you. Bravo.

TheCoelacanth 4mo ago

People who are empowered to enact violence on behalf of the state must be held to a higher standard than random citizens. Anything other than absolute adherence to the letter of the law is completely unacceptable from any part of the government.