You left out the icing on the cake:
>Will you try to get me and the other libertarians on SSC fired?
That dude is a *libertarian* who believes that you are literally compelled to continue to spend money.
Ooh! I love this question! The answer is:
> Yes.
> Yes I am going to exercise my social and economic power in ways that you find distasteful and problematic in order to advance ends you thoroughly disapprove of.
> What, precisely, do you plan to do about it?
A decade and a half of arguing on the internet plus an acute understanding of the difference between Libertarianism (i.e. empowering a central authority usually does more harm than good) and "Libertarianism" (i.e. I, personally, should be free to do what I want all the time with no consequences).
> I can't wait until the government shows up at my house to force me to buy a Juicero at gunpoint
[Ayyyyyyyyyyyy](https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/san-francisco-may-ban-any-more-free-lunches-for-tech-companies-workers)
The video is linked in the comments. I wish I hadn't watched it, probably the least justified shooting I've ever seen people defend.
The shooter was hassling the partner and child of the victim in a parking lot. The victim shoves the shooter to the ground, then takes several steps back. The shooter sits up, takes out a gun, takes a couple seconds to aim at a clearly non-threatening man fifteen feet way from him who is in the process of backing up, then repeatedly shoots him. None of these facts are in dispute - it's clearly visible on the video that the shooter was in no danger.
Four different posters:
>"Having watched the video, I want to live in a place where people who violently shove another person to the ground out of the blue can get shot with zero repercussions. It’s a good shoot."
>"Having seen the video, I'm inclined to agree with you. It sucks that a man died, but that man came tromping down the sidewalk and leveled the other man. He initiated violence, and he made is physical."
>"When you reveal yourself to be a violent thug, you should be prepared for the consequences."
>"If the threat wanted to be over, he should have been either raising his hands or running his ass away. Many an asswhooping has been preceded by one or two steps back."
I wanna stress that the last guy is arguing that the victim is to blame *even though he acknowledges the victim was walking away from the shooter*.
Then there's this asshole:
>"I'm at least intuitively in favor of tweaking self-defense statutes, but it's hard to do when my obvious allies keep trying to modify "stand your ground" statues in response to shooters who were lying on their backs."
With the "I'm totally a liberal, but this time my fellow liberals have gone too far, goshdarnit!" take you see literally every couple posts on the CW thread. I think I hate those fuckers more than the outright fascists.
(EDIT) - fucking hell, the mods have their knives out; posters expressing outrage at SSC's take are getting warned or banned. Remember; it's perfectly fine to say the most vile shit imaginable, [but if you reply to that vile shit with any emotion, you are wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/90yue6/by_far_the_stupidest_idea_that_rationalists_have/)!
I didn’t say you should feel sorry for him or that he’s somehow worse
off than the decedent. I was simply pushing back against the narrative
that this was 100% upside for the shooter, and that killing has no
consequence for the killer.
Sorry I annoyed you
With an accurate model of what killing your enemy would be
like.
It's "silly" to be worried about people who think it would be a good idea to do these kinds of provoked kills against their enemy and explain why it wouldn't work out as well as they think?
If you don't like these idiots fantasizing about these kinds of kills, why don't you want someone explaining downsides that might be relevant to them? It sounds like you're trying to have it both ways: these people are wrong, but don't make arguments that would appeal to them.
Imagine if you actually held yourself to the same standards:
"Seriously? Vegetarianism would be good for the *environment*? And your *budget*? What about, you know, the *animals that are fucking murdered*? The consequences on each side are so fucking far off balance as to be incomparable."
>He doesn't need you to go to bat for him on some random online forum
I wasn't "going to bat" to bat for anyone, and I'm not going to filter my remarks for who "needs someone to go to bat" for them, and this is a stupid standard to hold yourself to, and I doubt you even try to hold yourself to it anyway.
This entire discussion is ridiculous, and it is to my discredit that I'm actually engaging in it.
>Then what were you trying to prove?
That "everything went well for the killer" is probably false, as you would have known if you read the actual context instead of your tribe member's guffaws.
>People who want to kill others under stand your ground laws aren't likely to be convinced by your hedged "killing is traumatic" point, given that Zimmerman continued to be a toxic asshole in public for years after murdering Trayvon.
And that would be a great discussion to have, had you brought it up! Instead, you elected to go with a misrepresentation of the remark and do it from a safe space where you could get unearned praise. If you had something of substance to say, you could say it in the more productive environment where I originally made the comment.
>This is a ridiculous false equivalence,
It's equivalent in precisely the sense I brought it up for: that you could dishonestly represent someone's remark as defending (what you deemed) a wrongful killing.
I'm sorry, are we back to a serious discussion about the merits of my specific point? I can only justify further effort on this topic if it looks to be in good faith, and framing my point as "lol think of the shooters!" doesn't look like that kind of exchange.
If you can dial back on that -- say, by apologizing for the ridicule and deleting your submission -- I'd be more than happy to have that good faith discussion back on the original thread, but I can't reasonably expect that to happen here, or as things stand now.
I'm sure you can understand my reservations.
It's not.
You're writing it like I said, "Shooting over a handicapped spot? Poor shooter!"
What actually happened (and which you took care to obscure):
- Big discussion about a shooting that started from altercation regarding a handicapped spot.
- Long discussion about the consequences of this incident and different laws regarding it.
- Subthread about how the shooter's actions make sense game-theoretically.
- Comment to the effect of "well hey, seems like the shooter got everything he wanted, so obviously this went perfectly for him!"
- I jump in and say "No, that's not true."
In your mind, that's "won't someone please think of the shooters!"
Okay then.
I didn't obscure anything. This post is a link to your full comment, and in another comment I linked to the full discussion thread for the context. Everyone here can see "what actually happened" pretty easily.
The title makes it sound like a spontaneous reaction to the shooting, not disputing the finer points of appropriately gauging the benefit to the shooter.
For someone lecturing about tone-deafness, your framing is pretty deceptive.
And yes, everyone can do extensive reading to get full context; that doesn't someone make it impossible to label things deceptively, nor is it a defense of your dishonesty here.
You're going to have to accept that people here have read your comment and its context, understand it, and are still making fun of it. *However*, now that I look, the parent replies to my post are a discussion about other parts of the cw thread, my context with discussion of some of the other comments in the shooting thread, and one image reply. Looks like almost everyone wasn't sneering at your comment in the first place. Maybe they understood the context better than you give them credit for.
Don't worry, they're heading back to their safe space:
> If you can dial back on that -- say, by apologizing for the ridicule and deleting your submission -- I'd be more than happy to have that good faith discussion back on the **original thread**, but I can't reasonably expect that to happen here, or as things stand now.
I vote we stand our ground here --- this *is* our home, so Castle Doctrine should protect us.
[deleted]
For context, there was a shooting in Florida over a parking spot. Watch as r/ssc debates whether shoving someone to the ground warrants being killed.
.
Seriously, guys? Copying my comment over: