If they were arrested then statistically speaking they are far more likely than the average person to be criminals.
I feel like one of the ultimate sources of tension in western society today is that one side puts far too much faith into the good in people, a perspective that can only come from ivory tower privilege. This comment is a perfect example.
Sure, those who disagree will claim that the real problem is the opposite, but my point is that the side of the protestors lacks nuance in their worldview; often people are bad and you can't just blindly blame society for every criminal.
>Jack Dorsey's been pretty active on the podcast scene recently, and I feel it's harder to fake your personality in multiple long form conversations. I never got a hint of arrogance from him
I do this all day, every day at work. Pretty sure most of us do to some degree. It's really not hard to put on a near perfect professional mask for extended periods of time, though it can be exhausting for some people.
It's offensive to see this valid point of view dismissed with such shallow accusations of privilege.
The point in bringing up trivial issues like moving monitors is to emphasize the greed and absurdity that ensure that even simple, quick tasks become cash sinks and long term blockers, directly because of common union practices. This is the inefficiency that unions tend to breed, and it is a direct consequence of their purpose: protect members even at the expense of nonmembers and the rest of the corporate collective.
No one is complaining that they aren't allowed to move their own monitors. We are explaining that these ubiquitous policies in sum do more harm than good to greater modern society.
>kind of thinking reminds me of biotruths, eugenics, social Darwinism, and other authoritarian concepts which seek to explain why it’s okay to have inequality between and within countries.
I don't know where to start with this comment. Perhaps you should stop grouping arguments by stereotype.
At an individual level, different people require different interventions, because they have different personalities. Some people can handle responsibility. Some people need financial motivation. Some people respond to love. Others best learn through violence or fear (I was far too smart to listen to my parents until they threatened a spanking, for example).
If you take all of these different personalities and force them to live under together under a single set of rules, regardless of whether their needs are met, they will compete, if not for resources them for social clout. It is human nature. Particularly in a universe where resources are scarce and time is short.
Though large scale human interaction has a normalizing effect, within the high dimensional space of human belief and behavior there is ample room for these same micro behaviors to be reflected by macroscale cultural trends. And, similarly, because the "ideal" form of government depends ultimately on widely varying beliefs, forcing multiple peoples with significant cultural distance will inevitably lead to inequality and clash - this is not a statement of superiority, sand though it can be used as part justification for some of the antisocial beliefs you raised, that doesn't mean it isn't untrue or that these real problems that we are seeing emerge across the world will simply go away if we ignore them. This pattern has been repeated across time and space and is an unnecessary source of unacknowledged strife in the modern world.
What's sorely missing from this discussion is the understanding that different cultures are differently suited for each system of government. There's simply no reason that what works in Sweden will work in the US, or China, or Zimbabwe, etc.
The last two generations of western civilization were raised, out of good intentions, to be culture blind, and now with what's happening in the country we are seeing the result.
> There’s no moral quandary in closing the door to abusers
Doesn't necessarily apply to this conversation, but the moral mistake that people (and societies) frequently make is underestimating the nuance that should be exercised when identifying others as abusers.
>without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources
Are you disputing that the protests have been filled with people yelling about dismantling the system? Have you seen the BLM website? Do you deny that these same people have commandeered an area in Seattle?
Which of these facts is incorrect? And if they are correct, let's look at the definition of terrorism:
>he use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
>Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.
You think the police left peacefully? You think business owners weren't coerced after seeing businesses burned and looted all over the country, including in Seattle by people chanting the same slogans of this movement?
If you've only seen portrayal on the news, I'm sorry that you did not witness the violence on the dozens of livestreams from the first week or so.
It's surreal to see this downvoted to -4 given all I did was rightly point out that the actions of the protestors fall under the definitions of "criminal" and "terrorist".
I've been coming here for some 4 years now and never have I seen this place so unnecessarily partisan. Perhaps a reflection of the current state of society.
They chased police out of a section of the city under threat of violence, with the explicit goal of dismantling the local (and national) police force and upending governed rule of law. They're also armed (video of Raz with an AK variant on site, and public announcements of the gun club being on-site and armed "for their protection") and, of course, making demands.
This objectively meets the definition of both terrorism and criminality. Now, you may agree with their cause, and even their methods, but if we want to document and discuss exactly what's happening, we need to start by calling spades spades.
If they were arrested then statistically speaking they are far more likely than the average person to be criminals.
I feel like one of the ultimate sources of tension in western society today is that one side puts far too much faith into the good in people, a perspective that can only come from ivory tower privilege. This comment is a perfect example.
Sure, those who disagree will claim that the real problem is the opposite, but my point is that the side of the protestors lacks nuance in their worldview; often people are bad and you can't just blindly blame society for every criminal.