No one lost their lives... this time. If I fire a bullet into a crowd and it doesn't happen to hit anyone, does that mean I didn't do anything wrong? Of course not, and I suspect that that basic reality has more to do with the motivations in this case than petty desires for revenge.
Not surprised. This is perfectly consistent with my theory above that this is motivated by a desire to suppress ideological competition rather than the more traditional commercial variety.
The context you're missing is that there is no "context" that makes the violation of the right to Due Process acceptable. There are people today trying to get To Kill A Mockingbird taken out of schools specifically because it flies in the face of the ideology of always believing the victim. And that's precisely why it needs to stay, and not be messed with by people trying to dilute its message!
It's not the "only takeaway" by any means, but it's the part that's really relevant today. The story has the ring of truth because it is true; the stuff that happened to Tom really happened to a lot of black men in the Deep South, and it's very disturbing to see old, historically racist tactics repackaged and deployed by people who make a big deal of being opposed to racism.
This is disturbing news. In this time of allegations of sexual misconduct running rampant, and powerful movements to uncritically believe the accusations in the absence of any proof, To Kill A Mockingbird is perhaps more relevant today than it's ever been. When this classic story is being suppressed in favor of a modern adaptation where Sorkin freely admits he took liberties with the characterization of the main characters because in the original they were the wrong kind of liberal, does anyone else get the feeling that maybe this isn't being driven by a desire to suppress monetary competition, but rather ideological competition?
Whatever happened to "satire, parody, and commentary are protected as fair use" anyway?
We've all heard the controversial notion that "too big to fail is too big to exist." It seems like it should be a bit less controversial to state that too big to succeed is too big to exist.
Quick markdown hint: the brackets go around the plain text, and the parens go around the URL.
Either way she is about to have a bad day.How bad? Like, on a scale of 1 to Nuremburg, much trouble is she in?
Not necessarily. Right around 85% of people are basically honest and decent in general, with the rest being willing to commit dishonest acts to further their own interests. Which suggests that California police are... well... basically normal human beings.
'There's a lot of cops total, therefore you'd expect even a small fraction to add up to a large number' kinda misses the point I was trying to make, in that the public is told again and again that police corruption isn't really a problem worth dealing with because it's only 'a few bad apples', yet twelve thousand is anything but 'a few'.Isn't that the whole point of the fallacy, though? That when you consider absolute numbers rather than relative population sizes, what might intuitively look like "anything but a few" can actually turn out to be a statistically irrelevant percentage?
Wow. Whatever happened to "destroying evidence of a crime is a crime"?
But laws like this don't make them accountable to the President; they make them accountable to the people, by way of the courts.
Remember this rule of thumb: any definition given by a specific individual or group of "hate speech" (or similar things such as "hate crimes," "hate groups," etc) can be best understood by prefixing the term with "I-" or "we-".
Given the presence of the "find" command in a browser, he has already satisfied that requirement.
Fun fact: when Shakespeare wrote it, the word didn't mean "attorney;" it meant "lawmaker."
Even well-intentioned laws meant to tackle hateful views online often end up hurting the minority groups they are meant to protect, stifle public debate, and limit the public’s ability to hold the powerful to account.
Those first few are valid points, but the last one feels like doublespeak. Laws created to help "hold the powerful to account" will limit the public's ability to do so?
The only way that makes any sense is if you're coming at it from a twisted viewpoint in which "the powerful" only means government entities and does not apply to any other form of easily- and frequently-abused power, such as the corporate variety.
They say everything is bigger in Texas. Apparently this includes the mistakes!
Re: Re: Re: Define 'harm'
Not in general, but considering the nature of this particular leak, and the careless, reckless manner in which it was published, it's a valid metaphor. It could easily have caused some very real harm, and the fact that it didn't doesn't mean anything other than that we got lucky.