Worth noting that the state rep whose arrest the union chief tweeted out is responsible for "Breonna's Law," a bill pending in the KY lege that would ban no-knock warrants.
Which, to me, is the best response to this: prevent these situations from even being able to happen.
Accountability after harms happen is essential. That didn't happen here.
But in terms of preventing future deaths and other harms, after-the-fact punishments imposed randomly and infrequently (esp for police) won't really shape behavior during the moment.
So elim the moment.
And this doesn't have to be limited to no-knock warrants.
We already give speeding tickets and red-light violations based just on cameras.
So with dash-cams, deny police right to stop for certain driving/car violations. Take the pic, mail the ticket.
Confrontation gone.
There are surely other places too where, even absent shifting responsibility from police to non-police agencies, we can limit and restrict police interactions with people. Fewer interactions, fewer opportunities for harm--including to the police officers as well.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Fair—it wasn’t right of me to say that the “we’re being silence” intellectual-dark-web McKinsey-is-too-woke types are annoyed solely over their inability to state certain racial views publicly.
They’re also annoyed they can’t dehumanize trans ppl openly too.
But it is fair, and not cynical at all, to point out that a HUGE chunk of what the “forbidden knowledge” types complain about boils down to not being able to openly dehumanize certain marginalized groups.
Thus their need for safe-space echo-chambers in which to do so.
Like I said when it came to opera-watch SCOTUS buddies, I can be friends and politely debate anyone over tax policy or the goals of punishment.
The “I don’t want to hear it” only comes up when they start making it clear that they don’t see certain ppl as full ppl.
I’d add, without sarcasm: I think I see a way to push for SCOTUS retirement.
Congress surely CAN pass a law saying that justices can receive $0.00 in royalties, honoraria, etc while in office. Prob can limit above-market returns on housing sales, etc.
It’s clear that outside payments—whether direct cash payments or cozy “teaching” gigs overseas or sudden land sales—are a non-trivial form of SCOTUS compensation.
A chunk unprotected by Art III.
Cut that off, maybe lifetime employment is less appealing.
“Won’t that reduce the quality of ppl who apply?”
1. The what now? 2. Short terms as a philosopher-king followed by big bucks? Think lots of quality ppl will be fine with that.
“What abt the incentive to look to that future payment?”
I’m not saying that the causal story here isn’t true, but I feel like at this point we should basically just ignore studies that are purely correlational with—AFAICT here—absolutely NO identification strategy beyond “we control for confounders.”
Like, this is an issue where reverse causation is really, really plausible—the vulnerability to schizophrenia CAUSES the self-medicating use of marijuana. Which makes correlational-only so so risky.
And that it may align w other such studies tells us nothing, if all are biased.
Given all the alleged benefits of weed, it shouldn’t be hard to create an ethically sound RCT that simultaneously tracks for these sorts of risks.
They did it for Vioxx with heart risk. Surely can do for weed.
Thread, on the murder--it was a murder--of a homeless man on the F train this week: on how we have consistently failed to provide adequate services, disrupted effective self-support the homeless have devised in their absence, and thru it all dehumanized them.
The coverage of this, from every source, has made the consistent, deadly, dehumanizing error of equating disorder with danger.
The claims of "threatening behavior" are simply asserted, although nothing I've read suggests he *actually threatened* anyone.
Can it be somewhat scary when someone in a mental health crisis acts erratically on the train? Sure.
But the time between stops on the F in Manhattan is ~1 minute. If you're scared, that's more than enough time to just ... change cars at the next station.
Moreover, by going to the opera w Scalia rather than shaming him, those who went w him failed to impose any costs for this racist behavior, despite being among the few anywhere who could. Which only likely encouraged him more.
(This applies to his takes on homosexuality too.)
Also, honestly? If you could go and laugh and have fun with someone who thought like this, it makes me wonder about the seriousness of one’s commitment to the rights of Blacks or gays.
How was this sort of thinking not repulsive on a personal level?