The supply chain comment makes me wonder if they might need new pagers soon.
brygphilomena
joined 2 months ago
It is the obligation of every university to refuse to cooperate beyond the minimum amount required by law. No one in the administration is working in good faith. Make them require the judicial branch.
Indirect becomes nebulous. At what degree of indirect harm do we set that limit. Almost every action we do may cause indirect harm to others. It might be better phrases as "physically" harms someone. I don't want to get into someone doing something to themselves like taking drugs and restrict it solely on the basis that it will hurt their family and friends to see what happens to them.
I use it as the core base of my beliefs, but that doesn't mean I don't think that freedom divests them of any responsibility for their indirect actions. It's the default position until something convinces me why it should be restricted or outlawed.
I also limit it to individuals working alone. Once they work in groups and organize the damage that can be done is different. Or doing it for commercial reasons. I believe private businesses can only exist under strict regulation.
But what does mine say?
I'm not giving an excuse. But really understand our size. There are a shitload of horror news stories that are posted here, but most people haven't seen it hit close to home.
They are all in America, yes. But these are news stories that take place in what is effectively Moscow when your in London. We are getting pissed off, but while these news articles make it seem like the guard rails are off, and they are, the majority of people still aren't actually seeing this shit. It's still mostly those that are actively following the news. I don't think people are really, truly understanding that it's in their house already.
They did.
What's funny is seeing the fox news right wing report of those questions though. How ridiculous they twist the interaction. https://www.foxnews.com/media/karoline-leavitt-says-ap-reporter-clearly-failed-grasp-trumps-tariff-plan-after-heated-exchange
I enjoyed the series, and rewatched it recently but I did disagree on several episodes/topics.
I'd love to see a new series though.
The core political belief I hold is that so long as you are not directly harming someone else, you should be free to do that. That said, I have a lot built up on that.
I do not extend it to corporations or government. I believe that regulation is undoubtedly necessary for a functioning society.
And with laws, nuance is in everything. Nothing is ever so black and white to have a zero tolerance policy.
I really, really don't want this to pop off. I want there to be some other means.
I'm just having a real hard time seeing what other choice people with their backs against the wall will have.
It's premise is that the courts can never be 100% correct. There is no level of burden of proof which is infallible.
No amount of modern technology guarantees that an innocent man won't inadvertently be convicted and sentenced to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates
Unbridled capitalisms only real end game is slavery.
The kind that thinks all those edge cases don't matter and if they don't get payments it's just another example of "waste, fraud, and abuse."