Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Jacob]

It may not be just money and politics though. There are many many footsoldiers that will carry a story that helps their team without funding. Syt's sisters are some of the footsoldiers, but in the case of nancy pelosi there are probably also some among the bernie sanders brigade.

I don't doubt the footsoldiers thing, but these are not people I follow and it's only remotely related to things I've clicked on but it still comes up as the suggested / recommended / sponsored feed at a high frequency.

[Tamas]

Insider trading by the Pelosis is not a new story her filings of stock and option positions have been a talk in stock gambler circles for a while now, her results have been most excellent. Its getting traction and attention lately because of the proposed semiconductor bill and how she has a recent and massive position (can't recall if call options or shares) in Nvidia. Also one of her aides just got selected for a job with the Sec.

Pelosi corruption aside though, the number of enthusiastic volunteers to spread fascist anti-Democrat bullshit on Twitter is annoying and somewhat worrying.

[Jacob]

Insider trading by the Pelosis is not a new story her filings of stock and option positions have been a talk in stock gambler circles for a while now, her results have been most excellent. Its getting traction and attention lately because of the proposed semiconductor bill and how she has a recent and massive position (can't recall if call options or shares) in Nvidia. Also one of her aides just got selected for a job with the Sec.

Pelosi corruption aside though, the number of enthusiastic volunteers to spread fascist anti-Democrat bullshit on Twitter is annoying and somewhat worrying.

I have no opinion on Pelosi and stock trading, because it doesn't really interest me. Which is why the topic surfacing in twitter selected posts (as opposed to posts of accounts I follow, or accounts people I follow comment/ like/share) stands out.

[Admiral Yi]

And the salient question - which I think you're getting at - is whether we should buy into the political traction US police has established around the risks warrior cops face... or not.

A much more salient question in my mind is what one does after one has decided not to "buy into the political traction."

[Jacob]

Well what do you think one should do?

[Admiral Yi]

Well what do you think one should do?

I think one should buy into the political traction.

[Jacob]

I think one should buy into the political traction.

In that case, what one should do in the opposite scenario seems less salient.

[Admiral Yi]

In that case, what one should do in the opposite scenario seems less salient.

Even if I do buy into the political traction I live in a democracy in which people who don't can out vote me.  The repercussions of their decisions can affect my life.  So salient.

[Berkut]

The "cops job is less dangerous then a loggers" is kind of bullshit though.

Its one of those "lies, damn lies, and statistics" sort of things.

Cops deal with criminals. They will tell you that absent the measures they take, those criminals, being dangerous, would put their lives in jeopardy on a regular basis, resulting in lots and lots of police officers being injured or killed.

Thereore, they take significant measures to reduce that risk, and those measures work, which is why they are not being killed much more then they are, given the inherent dangers in what they do.

Now, they might be wrong - it could be that the danger is much less, and those measures are reducing the numbers much less then they think, because really, it is not as dangerous as they imagine.

But it could also be that it is in fact just as dangerous as they claim, and they are in fact taking the necessary precautions to mitigate that danger, and hence that is why we see the danger rate that we do see.

Both those scenarios would result in the outcome we see. Noting that delivery drivers die more often then cops is not evidence that cops do not have a dangerous job that justifies the measures they take to lessen that danger.

Anlogy time: If I claim that jumping out of an airplane is really fucking dangerous, and will result in nearly a 100% fatality rate, pointing out that people who jump from airplanes with parachutes almost never die, therefore, they clearly don't need parachutes, and noting that in comparison, people who jump from moving cars die more often then people who jump out of planes, well - that doesn't tell us anything at all about whether we should be pro-parachute or not.

[DGuller]

We're spending way too much money on securing our nuclear arsenal.  Since the invention of nuclear weapons, there have been exactly zero people killed by stolen nuclear weapons.

[Razgovory]

Cops are the branches of Ares and thus are more entitled to more respect than mere loggers and delivery persons.

[crazy canuck]

The "cops job is less dangerous then a loggers" is kind of bullshit though.

Its one of those "lies, damn lies, and statistics" sort of things.

Cops deal with criminals. They will tell you that absent the measures they take, those criminals, being dangerous, would put their lives in jeopardy on a regular basis, resulting in lots and lots of police officers being injured or killed.

Thereore, they take significant measures to reduce that risk, and those measures work, which is why they are not being killed much more then they are, given the inherent dangers in what they do.

Now, they might be wrong - it could be that the danger is much less, and those measures are reducing the numbers much less then they think, because really, it is not as dangerous as they imagine.

But it could also be that it is in fact just as dangerous as they claim, and they are in fact taking the necessary precautions to mitigate that danger, and hence that is why we see the danger rate that we do see.

Both those scenarios would result in the outcome we see. Noting that delivery drivers die more often then cops is not evidence that cops do not have a dangerous job that justifies the measures they take to lessen that danger.

Anlogy time: If I claim that jumping out of an airplane is really fucking dangerous, and will result in nearly a 100% fatality rate, pointing out that people who jump from airplanes with parachutes almost never die, therefore, they clearly don't need parachutes, and noting that in comparison, people who jump from moving cars die more often then people who jump out of planes, well - that doesn't tell us anything at all about whether we should be pro-parachute or not.

Loggers take significant measures to reduce the inherent risks of working in the forest, felling and harvesting trees.  And those measures work to some extent, but the job is still inherently very dangerous and the danger is never eliminated. 

[Zanza]

While CCs argument for loggers applies, the difference between cops and delivery drivers can probably be explained by the measures Berkut refers to though.

Cops can afford these measures as their job is well-funded and well-protected by law.

Delivery drivers cannot as they are typically exploited persons from the poorest segments of society and have to take the risks inherent in their job so they make money to survive.

[Jacob]

Even if I do buy into the political traction I live in a democracy in which people who don't can out vote me.  The repercussions of their decisions can affect my life.  So salient.

Well, I'm not going to outvote you since I live in a different democracy.

My perception, from the democracy I live in, is that we should do our very best to prevent the further growth of the warrior-cop "we take unique risks so we should be given unique latitude" ethos amongst our police forces in Canada, and that the "if you're insufficiently deferential for your social class you only have yourself to blame if the police fucks you up" attitude is absolutely corrosive to a free and just society.

In my view, police officers do important and often thankless work which should absolutely be appreciated and rewarded. However, they also have a huge amount of authority and ability to apply discretion and thus the ability to mess up people's lives. As such police should be held to the highest standard of conduct.

Additionally, I think that police officers - as public servants authorized to apply force - owe an especially high duty of care to the public, including suspects and criminals.

In my view police work is an honourable and necessary profession that should respected, but it is not uniquely heroic or special. We - in the democracy I am in - should be vigilant towards abuse of power, corruption, and excessive deference (we don't always succeed, of course). When looking a the democracy you're in it seems to me that you fail too frequently in that regard, and the "there's something uniquely special about our heroic cops risking their lives every day" ideology is part of the reason for that. I don't know how to unfuck that situation, though.

[Berkut]

The "cops job is less dangerous then a loggers" is kind of bullshit though.

Its one of those "lies, damn lies, and statistics" sort of things.

Cops deal with criminals. They will tell you that absent the measures they take, those criminals, being dangerous, would put their lives in jeopardy on a regular basis, resulting in lots and lots of police officers being injured or killed.

Thereore, they take significant measures to reduce that risk, and those measures work, which is why they are not being killed much more then they are, given the inherent dangers in what they do.

Now, they might be wrong - it could be that the danger is much less, and those measures are reducing the numbers much less then they think, because really, it is not as dangerous as they imagine.

But it could also be that it is in fact just as dangerous as they claim, and they are in fact taking the necessary precautions to mitigate that danger, and hence that is why we see the danger rate that we do see.

Both those scenarios would result in the outcome we see. Noting that delivery drivers die more often then cops is not evidence that cops do not have a dangerous job that justifies the measures they take to lessen that danger.

Anlogy time: If I claim that jumping out of an airplane is really fucking dangerous, and will result in nearly a 100% fatality rate, pointing out that people who jump from airplanes with parachutes almost never die, therefore, they clearly don't need parachutes, and noting that in comparison, people who jump from moving cars die more often then people who jump out of planes, well - that doesn't tell us anything at all about whether we should be pro-parachute or not.

Loggers take significant measures to reduce the inherent risks of working in the forest, felling and harvesting trees.  And those measures work to some extent, but the job is still inherently very dangerous and the danger is never eliminated. 

Indeed.