zlacker

Well, if we consider it fine for people to commit crimes like shoplift, rob, or assault people it seems fairly normal to permit groups of people to violate the law too.

Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed anyone yet.

I'd say it's just a general tolerance to the idea that the rules we have are baroque and anything goes when trying to reach your aims. This seems fairly cross politically unifying.

Those who want the law obeyed are kind of rare. Most are happy to have the law violated to hurt their political opponents. Then they feel surprisingly aggrieved to have same strategy played against them.

>>renewi+(OP)
> Most are happy to have the law violated to hurt their political opponents.

Way to make me feel like an outcast.

>>renewi+(OP)
The difference is that people are fans of Luigi Mangione because he enforced a punishment for what people feel should be illegal. You're trying to paint vigilante justice with the same brush as lawlessness, when in fact it's the opposite.

One is breaking the law to punish someone that the law failed to, the other is breaking the law to avoid punishment.

The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him. Enforcing what the people think should be enforced isn't the same as enforcing what the people think shouldn't be enforced (mass surveillance). It is, in fact, the opposite.

>>stavro+gL
The Flock guys are breaking the law to reactivate their cameras so that they can catch people doing things that are illegal or that they think should be illegal. Seems to be an exact match actually.

You have to apply some Theory of Mind. Just like you think you're doing the right thing so do they.

>>renewi+h21
They'll be reporting them to the police, you reckon?

>>stavro+k61
The entire problem here is that these cities don't want ICE to have the camera data from Flock and Flock providing that to ICE over their express wishes so yes, they will be reporting targets to federal law enforcement.

>>renewi+t71
And do you think it's the city here that's expressing the will of the majority of city inhabitants, or the federal government?

>>stavro+m81
I think that just like Luigi Mangione acted against the law to do a thing that he wanted and lots of people think that's fine; you should be unsurprised that Flock is acting against the law to a do a thing that they want.

If you condone violation of the law, it will become commonplace. Acting like your violations of the law are fine but others' violations of the law aren't fine is a position you can take but considering that you're in the minority on both, I don't think it's going to result in anything. Sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas.

EDIT: And I'll add some facts here and an example to my last statement here:

Luigi Mangione's act is a minority approved act actually https://archive.is/hXNhj

So about 18% approve of his act.

And no, in the US the will of the majority is not sufficient. There are damping influences on time-localized desires by design. A typical example might be that California's Proposition 8 banned gay marriage but was nonetheless struck down by the California Supreme Court. The will of the majority is not irrelevant but it is not paramount.

>>renewi+wd1
The law isn't a thing that was handed down from the heavens on stone tablets, it should reflect the will of the majority. What Mangione did is something that the majority wanted, or at least was fine with. What Flock did wasn't. It's as simple as that.

>>stavro+gL
> The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him.

If the CEO caused someone to die indirectly, how much more did the doctors involved cause people to die by refusing to schedule and perform procedures for free? They didn't.

>>randal+9q1
Might as well jack up the price of all procedures and medication to "all your money", then.

>>renewi+(OP)
> Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed anyone yet.

There are also fans of Charles Manson, that doesn't mean we should automatically excuse any bad behavior that falls short of his.

>>BobaFl+gE1
No, we shouldn't. I think we'll find that as we excuse bad behavior with certain political alignments, those with opposed alignments will find it easier to excuse other bad behavior with the net effect being a total lowering in quality of life as median behavior becomes less good.

So yes, I'm in agreement that neither is good. I'm accusing people of supporting a bad thing and opposing a crime less than that bad thing.

>>randal+9q1
Did you forgot that health insurance is something you have to pay for?