This. Thank you for presenting your argument in a much less combative way than I would have.
There are basic survival and social pressures at play, protection from harm and corrupt law enforcement is a primary motivator for people to join gangs. Drugs are a means to an end in terms of literal survival, ie having a roof over one's head and food on one's table. Isolation from society due to social, economic and logistical/geographic factors is isolation from the things that society tries to offer: protection from harm and ability to make a living.
People in gangs are under no illusion that they might be on the path to great wealth through their actions, because they understand the state of their community and the status of their senior members: poverty ridden/unsafe/neglected and in jail/dead/still in the same place they've been.
It seems as if this author has some preconceived notions of the motivations behind gang membership and decided to regurgitate them.
Disable the legal apparatuses that these institutions derive the legitimacy of their actions from so we aren't enabling the next set of abusers after we take the current one out. That means stricter regulations of privacy and information security in both public and private sectors, along with transparency reforms.
This is a salient manifestation of the patronizing view we hold when it is even suggested that we are in some way beholden to someone else.
"If they're getting MY pennies, well then they should be micromanaged to fit my stringent moral standards."
I think it's a kneejerk reaction in response to being unable to hold a certain population of society as full adults like themselves, and this time it really shined through.
If you blank out the subject involved in these posts and fill them with [social boogie man du jour] its horrifically on point with the argument Grandpa will be using to lambast them this Thanksgiving.
It's cute that Reason is choosing to co-opt the narrative so as to define it within the narrow scope of their ideology. Whose interest is it to publish articles like "Shaming Non-Voters Has No Place In a Free Society," and this?
Nice first troll, but we troll about 2 irony-levels deeper around here. Establish a persona and then slowly interject believable bait for maximum care responses.
Do you have a link to the Reddit post? I'd like to have a look.
I agree that there definitely should either be some combinations of education, regulations and resources for parents who find themselves in this situation. There should also be strict enforcement of current laws with severe punishment for trading children online.
Care to expound? If men with guns routinely harassed, assaulted, kidnapped, killed and ruined the standing of your community and every legal avenue of prevention was exhausted it is the victims' right to do whatever necessary to protect themselves from their aggressors.
The only way this will ever stop is if people stop romanticising law enforcement and vanquish the tyranny it has over ethnic communities.
Look around the system that enables this behavior. The department itself, his peers, the judges he stands before regularly, the thin blue line, his constituency, and you'll see that even if the officers in question knew they didn't have legal impunity through their unions the same bullshit would happen with the same results.
The system of checks and balances ensures that its executors have covered their ass and their friends' asses before justice is 'served'.
Yes, because the motivations behind money laundering are driven almost exclusively by crime. For purchases you wish to remain private, such as personally embarrassing products, there are 'anonymizing' but traceable services for you to save face with.
There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions.
Money laundering is the process of concealing sources of money. If the IRS found out Western Union was trying to cover it's tracks of who sent/received money they would be investigated immediately. Laundering implies you have something to hide, most likely tax dollars or ill-received profits.
Given the US's covert and not so covert operations in Latin America, this comes as no surprise. Just because our goons are aren't over there making sure our economic interests are enforced doesn't mean we gave up on our stronghold.
BaynesianWitch - The company that used the word 'tranny' in an A/B tested public statement intended to incite and offend their audience. Stay classy, BaynesianWitch.
There are basic survival and social pressures at play, protection from harm and corrupt law enforcement is a primary motivator for people to join gangs. Drugs are a means to an end in terms of literal survival, ie having a roof over one's head and food on one's table. Isolation from society due to social, economic and logistical/geographic factors is isolation from the things that society tries to offer: protection from harm and ability to make a living.
People in gangs are under no illusion that they might be on the path to great wealth through their actions, because they understand the state of their community and the status of their senior members: poverty ridden/unsafe/neglected and in jail/dead/still in the same place they've been.
It seems as if this author has some preconceived notions of the motivations behind gang membership and decided to regurgitate them.