John Oliver incredulously reporting that there are states where parents can homeschool their kids and they don’t even have to tell the state what they’re doing in their own private homes to an audience nodding and agreeing that it’s crazy that a family could just do whatever they wanted without checking in with the government first is disheartening
Now he’s spending a bunch of time on some Nazi homeschooling program somebody on his staff dug up that I’m sure like six people in Montana have ever heard of
After priming you with a long segment about a Nazi homeschooling program no homeschooler has ever heard of he pivots to the position that the real problem with homeschooling is that many of the programs are created by conservative evangelicals
He is now expressing astonishment that parents are allowed to raise their kids however they want without a background check
Credit where due: he did acknowledge at one point that there might be some good reasons to home school, for example if you’re a black family and the school is criminalizing your child for no reason
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The connection between Brian Dowling and Jordan Neely should be obvious to everybody. Both screamed threatening statements at strangers unprovoked. In one case, the assailant was pulled to the floor and kept from hurting anyone. In the other case within seconds a victim was dead. That’s how fast it can happen. When someone screams, “I’ll kill you” that should be taken literally and seriously.
You don’t have the luxury of waiting around to see what happens. By the time Dowling had fully approached Carson and struck his first blow it was likely all over.
“Let’s just see if the guy screaming unprovoked threats decides to make a move” is functionally equivalent to saying, “he should have the right to kill me.” That’s how violence functions in real scenarios.
Every one of these court apologies is entirely about the perpetrator -- how they're planning to improve, what they see for themselves going forward, the positive difference they're sure they'll someday make, how the grisly crime they committed has impacted them.
"Oh, I almost forgot: I also wanted to say sorry for stabbing your grandma 40 times"
Another thing common to these apologies is this *exact* working: "poor decision." I can't perfectly describe what I find so disgusting about this characterization. But all these guys use this *exact* phrase. Poor decision. He stabbed an 84-year-old 40 times. Poor decision.
Let’s be absolutely clear about what this study claims: you can’t actually stop criminals from reoffending. At all. They’re gonna reoffend no matter what.
Only a deranged person would come away from that thinking prison is therefore pointless. https://t.co/vMDWV6a5BD
Criminals will commit additional crimes if you keep them in prison for a year or if you don’t put them in person at all or if you keep them in prison for 10 years. They will just keep committing crimes as soon as they have the opportunity.
I would just simply keep the most worst prisoners incarcerated for the rest of their lives, especially those with multiple offenses. We talk way too much about recidivism. Recidivism is the easiest problem in the world to solve.
The “it was only $9” portion of this annoys me as much as anything. What happened is he strong arm robbed someone who happened to be carrying $9. He would’ve taken whatever he had. The fact that he only came away with nine bucks is not in his favor.
What it shows is that he was willing to impose drastic levels of physical violence in order to make gains with low expected value. The fact that he was so stupid and reckless to be willing to do this for nine dollars says the opposite of what activists think it does.
The fact that he lacks foresight, exhibits such extremely low impulse control, doesn’t seem capable of properly weighing risk and reward, and is willing to go to such extreme measures for such a low expected returns are each arguments *against* him, not mitigating or exonerating.
Preston is just the logical conclusion of the position that you should never ever do anything to inconvenience a homeless drug addict. If the outcome of a policy is worse for them in any way, then it is illegitimate -- full stop. This leads, obviously, to absurdities.
In earlier eras we gave something like zero weight to the concerns or interests of homeless drug addicts, so Preston and his ilk are operating in opposition to that status quo. And one can certainly understand why. The earlier status quo was unnecessarily cruel and dismissive
But those earlier injustices do not imply that instead we should operate a system in which the concerns and interests of homeless drug addicts are the only ones that matter. We can of course with complete legitimacy weigh their concerns against the interests of the public.
Imagine killing someone in front of their family because you weren't able to successfully carjack them. The idea that this is the behavior of somebody who is acting only out of material want is so amazingly absurd that it betrays a deranged and dangerous worldview.
If your worldview does not have evil as a concept, then you will constantly be confused to the point of being a danger to yourself and others
People like this shooter lay their head down at night and *never think about the harm they've caused.* You probably toss and turn about something stupid you said in 2007. They don't lose sleep over murdering someone. They are not like you!