While Reddit mods and admin try to keep up with the site's "no violence" terms of use, Facebook and LinkedIn is reacting with tens of thousands of laughing emojis.
I don’t think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It’s all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it’s not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.
but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.
Yes, but with the added context they could be murdered. The fear may make them be more careful not to anger people like that. But the rich already got ritch by perverse incentives and refusal to be dependant on the freedom and happyness of others. The people around him will say, “see! This is why we need to further decrese the socially accepted set of activities for civilians to mostly just working, eating, laughing with friends, buying things for pleasure and enjoying (or coping by using) a distraction.”
An armed society is a polite society. I’ve never believed that. I still don’t. There doesn’t seem to be much of a connection between gun ownership and access to health care.
I don’t think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It’s all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it’s not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.
Yes, but with the added context they could be murdered. The fear may make them be more careful not to anger people like that. But the rich already got ritch by perverse incentives and refusal to be dependant on the freedom and happyness of others. The people around him will say, “see! This is why we need to further decrese the socially accepted set of activities for civilians to mostly just working, eating, laughing with friends, buying things for pleasure and enjoying (or coping by using) a distraction.”
An armed society is a polite society. I’ve never believed that. I still don’t. There doesn’t seem to be much of a connection between gun ownership and access to health care.
I agree. It leads to problems of its own.
I can think of one disincentive in particular they probably wouldn’t have considered before a couple days ago