wanye Profile picture
May 3 4 tweets 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
I think we are genuinely at an impasse with these people. This is deeply unserious and tendentious to the point of absurdity. You can have a serious conversation about escalation, but not with people who describe what happened here in these terms.
There is nothing "pure and simple" about this case and others like it. What a deeply unserious thing to say.
Shameful people who experience no reputational loss for saying such extreme things on the timeline. This should be disqualifying. ImageImageImage
They run in circles where "just asking questions" and "waiting for the facts" code negatively. Anti-intellectual circles, in other words. Circles where you are judged not by your understanding of the facts, but by a willingness to breathlessly affirm religious principles.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with wanye

wanye Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @wanyeburkett

May 3
This latest round of the discourse just further demonstrates the inversion of the “exactly one proposition” quote that progressives love. From those on the bottom nothing shall be expected, because they are definitionally victims. They can be protected, but they are not bound.
Notice that in principle there is basically nothing that the crazy homeless guy can do that will be given a full-throated condemnation. He is protected, but not bound. Only those he intimidates and threatens are bound by the law.
When the insane homeless guy violates the law perhaps literally thousands of times, then that’s fine, because he is not bound by the law. Your response to him, obviously, will be relentlessly scrutinized, because you are indeed bound by the law.
Read 6 tweets
May 3
“Get these people away from me” is actually a coherent and effective structural solution to the problem Image
Progressives reject the only option in the policy landscape that’s known to be effective in favor of softer less-proven approaches. And, like, fine, but that doesn’t mean the other approach is invalid.
I'm actually totally fine with throwing a bunch of money at wild ideas to solve the problem, so long as 1) there is a quantifiable policy goal that must be met along a defined timeline; and 2) people who fall out of that system and continue to be disruptive should be incarcerated
Read 6 tweets
May 3
The way people in a big city resolve difficult ethical dilemmas and deal with quantifiable risks is basically to say, "it probably won't happen to you," which seems deeply unfair to those who get the short straw, but that's apparently not even remotely compelling to them?
In some contexts these are people who profess the belief that "injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere," but then in others, you know, not so much
People with an ethic of "just ignore it" and "it probably won't happen to you, so who cares" really seem pretty sure of their metaphysics, huh? Funny, that.
Read 4 tweets
May 3
Not killing the crazy guy police won't deal with or ignoring the crazy guy police won't deal with, but a secret third thing
If you ride the NYC subway you absolutely will be screamed at and threatened. That's not even a question. (In fact, it's what New Yorkers are repeating ad nauseam today to argue this was an abnormal response to something quite normal)

You might actually have a duty to avoid that
You are putting yourself in a predictable bind wherein you will inevitably be forced into an ethically ambiguous corner. The typical New Yorker thinks "simply ignore it" is a free pass out of this dilemma, but I think that is completely mistaken.
Read 4 tweets
May 3
Here it is: the least surprising thing ever reported
There is just no way around it: in this kind of case you're going to have to give one side or the other the benefit of the doubt. And, amazingly, lots of people think it's the insane guy with a long history of violence that deserves it, not the guy who responded to his threats.
Read 4 tweets
May 3
FYI: there doesn't exist any magical way to restrain somebody that carries with it no risk of injury to either party
I think what I'd want to ask the people claiming this was "cold blooded murder" is 1) if they think there's any scenario that justifies restraining someone; and if so, 2) did they know that there's no fool-proof way to do that; and 3) what they think should happen instead?
Related: people often say, "that wasn't a capital offense" and, sure, that assessment can be made *after* the immediate physical conflict is over. But *during* physical contact anything can happen and the standard must necessarily be different.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(