Catzilla. Truly a loaf incarnate.

deleted by creator

A mild cigar.

With due respect, it is time to go outside.

You’re right. I’m sorry for taking my frustration with the forum out on you.

Yes, if you throw democracy in the trash, ignore the rights of the unpopular, and pass any law that appeals to today’s public morality, then you’ll have lots of options. I just don’t want to hear you guys complain after this idealism gets spun to fuck you over by corporate lawyers more skillful than your populist politicians. But fuck me for pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the useless seething groupthink machine, I guess. Apparently I only have rights if the public likes me.

We’re talking about criminal law. Can you clearly, objectively, without arbitrary valuation of goods or services, define a legal principle which identifies the point at which a health plan cut becomes a crime?

What’s your point? That people organize themselves to commit crimes? That risky behavior is more dangerous when it’s amplified by concentrated capital? None of this justifies the phenomenal leap you made to say that an employer is responsible for the lives of their employees. None of this is precedent for the further corruption of the justice system into subjectivity and emotional bias.

Can’t you see that you’re actually making it worse? You go after organizations whose bread and butter is legal entanglement, using legal entanglement as your only weapon. You make the regulatory environment more difficult for startups and SMBs to compete in, and you do nothing but give your (supposed) worst enemies more political tokens with which to negotiate advantageous positions in that environment. Why do you think these corporate elites flush hundreds of millions of dollars sponsoring progressive media outlets? Do you think they’re stupid?

I’m going to ignore the insane part of your point where you equated layoffs with murder.

Greed, like hate, is subjective. It is therefore, like hate, a terrible prerequisite for the activation of the criminal justice system. The idea that motivations for crimes should change the definition and/or penalty of those crimes has fostered popular corruption of the justice system since its inception. Industrialization has accelerated the adoption of human fears into that justice system, to the point where we can no longer even count the number of infractions under the law.

Adding more subjective emotional consideration to a punitive system which is already weighed down beyond the ability to enact swift justice is the opposite of helpful.

Individual data points like “I take pilates”, “I work nights and weekends”, and “I live in Smalltown, ST” might not mean anything on their own, but if you can connect this data to a single person, then realize there’s only one pilates studio in Smalltown, then look up their hours and notice there’s only one day class on weekdays, you can make a reasonable guess as to a regular time when a person is away from home. This is called data brokerage.

This is a comically contrived example; the real danger is in the association of countless data points spread across millions of correlated identities. It’s not just your data, it’s the association of your data with that of your friends and family. Most people are constantly streaming their location, purchases, beliefs, and affiliations out to anyone who cares enough to look. Bad actors may collate their data and use it to take advantage of them, and the only move they have is to ask for prohibitive legislation. As if we don’t already have prohibitive legislation.

Anonymity is expensive, inconvenient, and fragile, but it’s the only mechanism that protects individuals from the information economy, which I would put right next to ecology in terms of critical 21st-22nd century social problems. It also helps us resist censorship, but that’s a different essay.

He cannot protec
Nor can he attac
But he is a little hat

>we’ve been no contact with my family on and off
>why doesn’t my family want to connect with me

“Going no contact” ends relationships. I’ve noticed a lot of people will defend “going no contact” as a normal and healthy relationship tool because they’ve done it, erected massive walls of pain and mistrust in core relationships, and need the support of others with similar blockades to defend the disastrous results. I’ve seen it recommended as a response to bad table manners. The problem is you’re inflicting a death on someone while refusing them permission to grieve. There is a void in their life where a person used to be, but they can’t even come to terms with that and move on because the person might come back. It is the strongest possible ultimatum. Now, boundaries are healthy, and if a relationship is giving you more pain than support, it’s your prerogative to end it; that’s what “going no contact” usually does. If someone lets you back into their life after you’ve done that, you shouldn’t assume that they’ve forgotten what it was like to live without you.

Your fan fiction about the internal motivations of those who disagree with you is not rational or empirical. You’re literally making stuff up right now.

Not an argument.

That’s not an argument.

Not an argument.

I won’t be dragged down to your level, man.

That’s like saying that a flat income tax is a progressive tax because some people have more income.

Source: Wikipedia