A small sidenote on a dynamic relevant to how I am thinking about policing in these cases:

A classical example of microeconomics-informed reasoning about criminal justice is the following snippet of logic.

If someone can gain in-expectation X dollars by committing some crime (which has negative externalities of Y>X dollars), with a probability p of getting caught, then in order to successfully prevent people from committing the crime you need to make the cost of receiving the punishment (Z) be greater than X/p, i.e. X<p∗Z.

Or in less mathy terms, the more likely it is that someone can get away with committing a crime, the harsher the punishment needs to be for that crime.

In this case, a core component of the pattern of plausible-deniable aggression that I think is present in much of Said's writing is that it is very hard to catch someone doing it, and even harder to prosecute it successfully in the eyes of a skeptical audience. As such, in order to maintain a functional incentive landscape the punishment for being caught in passive or ambiguous aggression needs to be substantially larger than for e.g. direct aggression, as even though being straightforwardly aggressive has in some sense worse effects on culture and norms (though also less bad effects in some other ways), the probability of catching someone in ambiguous aggression is much lower.

Fucking hell, that is one of the stupidest most dangerous things I've ever heard. Guy solves crime by making the harshness of punishment proportional to the difficulty of passing judgement. What could go wrong?

Jesus christ, just ban the guy! Don't write a million words about how much he gets under your skin! Rude!!!!

"The left gets a new publication"

it's right wing

it's a substack

My goodness that's a lot of words for completely missing the point that policy shouldn't be informed by religious beliefs.

God, poor Zack doesn't know how to do anything but publish instances of himself getting owned

Of course I ignore your warnings and proceed to read this shit from the beginning.

And before you say, as many people I'm sure will, that language changes or evolves and so forth: shall I presume many of you have no objection to being called 'nazis' in the standard twitter-left definition? Shall I treat all drunk sex as 'rape' because kidnapper-rape and frat-sex have the commonality of reduced consent? Shall I treat your remarks about this-or-that group as 'hate speech', or 'violence', in the form of speech? Clearly, we have some sense by which concept creep exists; by which definitions can be stretched dishonestly. That is what you're doing, and you know what you're doing.

Cool. Cool. This is fun.

lol these people are so much more vicious than people here holy shit. i can't even discern what their problem is. babe please stop hanging out with fascists.

I like how even the "correct" response at the end has got this paragraph of absolute nonsense.

To minimize the number of trips, the robot should use a strategy that reduces the number of elevator rides. Since the elevator can carry the robot and up to 3 other items, the robot can take all 4 vegetables in one trip if it is allowed to carry all of them at once. However, if the robot can only carry 3 items in addition to itself, it would need to make at least two trips.

And I hate how even though I know perfectly well how it works I still asked myself what it was trying to say here. God I hate chatbots. I hate the mockery of meaning.

Malcolm and Simone Collins with their children – Octavian George, four, Torsten Savage, two, and Titan Invictus, one – at home in Pennsylvania.

bye

Oh well done, you added noise to a line going up!

oh holy shit I was only a handful of paragraphs in but he literally says that!!!

So The New York Times implicitly accuses us of being racists, like Charles Murray, and instead of pointing out that being a racist like Charles Murray is the obviously correct position that sensible people will tend to reach in the course of being sensible, we disingenuously deny everything.

one point for (pseudo)intellectual honesty i guess!

But… I mean, think of a bakery of all (straight) men.

Then think of the same bakery, but it's all (straight) women.

Then imagine the same bakery, but it's mixed sex.

Can you see what happens?

no, not really. bakeries you say?

Even if there's no attraction going on in the last case, the fact that there could be dramatically changes the unspoken dynamics. It's just not as stable as the other two.

Things like… if a man notices a female coworker struggling with a flour sifter, and he comes in one day with a device he purchased to help her out… it raises questions that just wouldn't have arisen if the two coworkers had been the same sex.

oh. ok. flour sifters, man, yeah, those things are crazy.