|
Post by Amadan on Jul 19, 2017 7:47:52 GMT -5
Legally, of course he can refuse to talk. The big question will then be what the police department and the DA's office decides to do about that.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 18, 2017 13:35:03 GMT -5
The Australian government can only increase the likelihood of it going to a jury, though - it can't influence the jury's verdict.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 18, 2017 7:01:54 GMT -5
Voluntary institutions are already responsible for every industrial civilization, as far as I can see. Industrialization flourished in those countries that encouraged and formalized those voluntary institutions, such as the US and Western Europe, as opposed to those who imposed progress from the top down, such as Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. Advanced civilization requires human rights guarantees above all else; personally, I think they define civilization. Your personal definition of civilization would appear to exclude basically every civilization that existed prior to the modern day. Did history start in the 20th century or something? Did the United States spring out of existence like Athena from Zeus's skull, never mind all those somewhat less than voluntary institutions that helped propel us to our current state? Voluntary institutions did not build civilizations. Voluntary institutions did not provide the infrastructure for civilizations. Voluntary institutions did not create the Apollo mission. I won't disagree with your implicit "West is best" argument, but voluntary institutions are an effect, not a cause, and the ability to live your entire life selectively engaging only with institutions and practices that meet your personal ideological standard is a very recent (and still very geographically limited) phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 16:53:47 GMT -5
My particular brand of anarchism, OTOH, argues that a basic, malum in se legal code can be successfully provided and protected by competing, voluntary institutions better than by a single, coercive territorial monopoly. Given the poor track record of the territorial monopoly approach, I don't see that as a big stretch. If you measure the "track record" very narrowly, sure. Territorial monopolies have been pretty terrible at maintaining human rights and preventing wars, compared to voluntary institutions. I'll grant you that. On the other hand, we have yet to see a voluntary institution run an industrial civilization, or do any of the other things I described. A legitimate discussion may be had as to whether the trade-off of wars and human rights abuses for an advanced industrial civilization is worth it. But as I see it, I am acknowledging that that is the choice you're proposing, whereas you studiously avoid this point every time it comes up.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:34:53 GMT -5
Well, I also really, truly do not understand how an anarchist "civilization" would work. Anarchist communes, anarchist tribes, sure. Anarchist industrial societies that can cure cancer, build robots, and put things in orbit? Nope. Possibly because you're confusing "no coercion" with "no hierarchy, authority or chain of command?" That's a common issue. No, I understand the theory. I just do not believe hierachy, authority, or chain of command is possible without the ability to exert coercion at some point. People aren't all going to just peaceably go along or else walk away.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:32:29 GMT -5
How do you know the exactly sequence of events? Is it inconceivable that some CNN journalists actually hang out on Reddit and were already familiar with his "work"?
Alternatively, maybe a CNN journalist thought "Huh, might be interesting to see who made that and interview him" - with no hostile intent. And digging a little, he found that the guy is also posting memes about how CNN is controlled by Jews, etc.
Or maybe one journalist was annoyed enough by the meme to see if he could track down the creator, hoping maybe for an actual Trumpist source.
You're assuming a giant media corporation is so thin-skinned that they have taken to going after anyone who makes fun of them as a matter of policy. I think you are distoring reality. They still shouldn't have posted "Behave or we'll out you" - but you're glossing over what got them riled in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:21:45 GMT -5
Well, I also really, truly do not understand how an anarchist "civilization" would work. Anarchist communes, anarchist tribes, sure. Anarchist industrial societies that can cure cancer, build robots, and put things in orbit? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:14:44 GMT -5
You don't think maybe posting Stars of David on CNN journalists might have also provoked their ire?
Not saying that makes what they did "okay" - but it's a little more understandable in context. You're trying to make it sound like they were just being humorless and petty about a stupid and harmless meme. No, I seriously do not think CNN would have gone to any trouble to "get" this guy if all he'd done was make that wrestling gif.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 9:01:45 GMT -5
I think a lot of them are like me, people who might feel an affinity for a lot of libertarian positions, but who are never going to call themselves libertarians because people like you represent libertarianism and we don't feel like everything wrong with the world needs to be turned into a rant about how it's all because sheeple believe the gummint is Santa Claus.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 8:57:33 GMT -5
Just to be clear here: 1) a reporter mocking the size of Trump's penis is okay--not offensive--because the media has always done stuff like that 2) staging a play that depicts the current head of state getting stabbed to death is okay--not offensive--because it's Julius fucking Ceasar 3) but a three second gif that shows Trump wrastlin' with a Vince McMahon that has a CNN logo for a head is offensive Uh, look, I think CNN was in the wrong, too, but you're being disingenous - the offensive memes from this guy went well beyond that Vince McMahon wrestling video.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 7:12:03 GMT -5
If someone were too poor to afford shoes, or some malady prevented you from wearing actual shoes, I would not be offended if you wore flip-flops to my formal wedding. If you wore them because you couldn't be bothered to dress for the occasion I'd be offended. Ditto for my loved one's funeral. Poverty or some disability would justify it. Mere comfiness and laziness, no. Prefer not to know me. I think it's rude to put your comfort ahead of every other consideration. I gotta agree with Cass. If you wore flip-flops to my wedding, or my grandmother's funeral, I'd take it as a signal that you are not taking it seriously. I think most people would. (And before you start carving out exceptions, yes, I'm sure in some contexts - like, you are BFFs and always pulling pranks like this on each other, or you know grandma was a character and she'd have laughed her ass off at the idea of people wearing flip-flops to her funeral - then maybe it would be cool. But in most situations, no.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 17, 2017 7:06:24 GMT -5
But no, my brain is not affected by my clothing. It just isn't. I do not stop thinking, or think differently, depending upon what I'm wearing. I have a hard time believing that I'm the only one who feels this way. You probably aren't, but (a) it's possible you feel that way but you'd actually be surprised if it were put to the test; (b) even if it's true that how you dress has no effect at all on your demeanor or attitude, you may be in the minority. Any psychological/social study that determines "Such and such phenomenon is observable X% of the time" means that for n-X people, it's not observable. You'll rarely see a study that says "This is true always and affects everyone equally." Painters and doctors aside, sure, skepticism is warranted. The results remind me of studies that showed that things like implicit bias, "stereotype threat," and "psychological priming" are real - studies that subsequently could not be replicated. That said, I know that subjectively, how I dress seems to affect my demeanor and attitude, so I don't find it unlikely that it is an observable phenomenon in X% of people. Maybe it's nothing more than how much you give a shit about how people perceive you, but it's there.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 18:17:51 GMT -5
What I am saying is that if the issues are complex (and I agree that they are) then why is it generally accepted that "professional attire makes people more productive"? That's extremely simplistic, and yet that's what the study in the OP concluded. I don't think it concluded that "professional attire makes people more productive," like putting on a suit and tie is donning a magical Wardrobe of +2 Lawyering. My take was that it demonstrated a noticeable impact on people's performance - my theory for that would be that when you dress seriously and professionally, it puts you in a more serious and professional mindset. Akin to any other "positive thinking" method. Sure, the dress standards are completely arbitrary and cultural, but the point is that adhering to a set of arbitrary and cultural dress standards is itself a form of communication. If you are in a different frame of mind when you speak formally to an audience than when you're shooting the shit with your friends, why is it surprising that you are in a different frame of mind in formal attire than when you're lounging around in sweat pants?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 12:37:36 GMT -5
Yes, and this (along with not wanting to be perceived as less than professional and capable) is why I continue to dress up for clients. Because I care what they think. I care a lot, but that doesn't seem to stop me from wondering why we all keep going along with arbitrary things. Well, some arbitrary things are pointless. Like, I hate ties. They're obsolete and uncomfortable and continue to exist as a relic that serves only to signify formality. I'd be happy if ties stopped being part of formal men's wear. I imagine women feel the same way about high heels (though there are a few ev-psych rationalizations for those that boil down to them making women look sexier, and I think they do change a woman's posture in a way that men generally find appealing - which is not to say that that's a good reason for high heels to remain in fashion, just that unlike ties, it's not totally arbitrary). But, let's agree that certain modes of dress are arbitrary. So are certain modes of speaking. I imagine you also speak more formally to clients, being more careful to use proper grammar and avoid vulgarities and curse words, than you do when hanging out with your friends. Likewise, if you were speaking in your most formal register around friends and family, they'd ask who stuck a stick up your butt, right? How you dress really is much like how you speak - it's a form of communication. You are going to change modes depending on your audience. That's why we have formal and casual dress. Whatever "formal" and "casual" is in a given culture, you're still going to have situations that call for dressing more formally and situations where no one would normally dress formally, and if you switch modes, it's going to be perceived as inappropriate, or else sending a deliberately off-putting message. Wearing sandals and flip-flops in a professional office is like swearing in front of your conservative grandma.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 11:21:26 GMT -5
I just want to ask these people, "Okay, so if the Earth is flat, that should be easy to prove - go to the edge of the world and take a picture. Why don't you do that?"
|
|