promethea.incorporated

Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent

(theatlantic.com)

funereal-disease:

guerrillamamamedicine:

Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

This is by no means an argument against having laws.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.

The statute or regulation we like best carries the same risk that some violator will die at the hands of a law enforcement officer who will go too far. And whether that officer acts out of overzealousness, recklessness, or simply the need to make a fast choice to do the job right, the violence inherent in law will be on display. This seems to me the fundamental problem that none of us who do law for a living want to face.

But all of us should.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal.

I’m a fan of Conor Friedersdorf’s brand of libertarianism.

Are any readers persuaded by the notion that some laws they would otherwise support are better repealed, or never passed, because the benefits do not justify the violence that is likely to be triggered, sooner or later, by attempts at enforcement?

(via nonternary)

5 days ago · tagged #it me #already 100% persuaded a long time ago #the best heuristic for oppressed people since sharp stick time · 394 notes · source: The Atlantic · .permalink

Should you ask the types out?

nonternary:

m-b-tea-me:

ISFJ: please don’t ask them out unless you’re 100% sure they like you back. They’ll feel guilty and they’ll pity date you and it’ll be awful for everyone involved and their grandmother.
ISTJ: “what are your intentions? Are you serious about this? What are your plans for the future?”
ESFJ: Picky af. If you’re down for constant “adjustments” to your character and appearance then go for it.
ESTJ: Surprisingly shy when it comes to romance. Ask them out. Ask them and watch how they get all stuttery and red in the face. So cute…and hilarious. Please take pictures for me.
ISFP: The closest thing to an idealist without the wishy-washyness. Suckers for all things love. If you’re into gushy and sickeningly sweet, this is your match.
ISTP: Dating them is like being their best friend…with benefits. What are you waiting for?
ESFP: They’re often very popular and desirable. If you’re the jealous clingy type, spare yourself and the esfp and forget the whole thing.
ESTP: Okay first of all, don’t try to compete for their love because you’ll never be able to love them as much as they love themselves. Also, if you’re looking for consistency, look elsewhere.
INFP: They’ll love you for you. 100% genuine. But their feelings are very intense. These are deep waters, you sure you can swim well?
INFJ: These ones are surprisingly ambitious. If your plans don’t fit into their “vision”, just walk your separate ways. They might wind up loving you with all of their heart, but Ni comes first. It’s nothing personal.
ENFP: This is the guy/girl that made you question your sexuality, isn’t it? Well guess what? They’ll probably also be down for helping you “figure it out”. Seize the opportunity!
ENFJ: So hot. I totally get why you’re interested in them. They’re a walking, talking paradox though. Helloo, is it confusion you’re looking for?
INTP: Lmao. Okay try to befriend them first then we’ll talk. This one could take years. Good luck, you poor thing.
INTJ: If you want someone who’ll constantly express their undying love for you then please don’t bother them.
ENTP: Go ahead. They’re pretty easy going and down for whatever. And even if they turn you down, they’ll do it so smoothly you’ll wonder if it ever even happened.
ENTJ: If you actually manage to score this one then you’ve successfully found yourself a sugar daddy. Niiice.

….ouch.

?NT? here and 100% accurate, would get confirmation biased again 5/5

1 week ago · tagged #shitposting #it me #confirmation bias is ~magic~ · 2,698 notes · source: m-b-tea-me · .permalink

ozymandias271:

“All witches are selfish, the Queen had said. But Tiffany’s Third Thoughts said: Then turn selfishness into a weapon! Make all things yours! Make other lives and dreams and hopes yours! Protect them! Save them! Bring them into the sheepfold! Walk the gale for them! Keep away the wolf! My dreams! My brother! My family! My land! My world! How dare you try to take these things, because they are mine!” –the Slytherin primary motto

(via metagorgon)

3 weeks ago · tagged #it me #user's guide to interacting with a promethea · 51 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink

The Tingled Puppies

(therabidpuppies.com)

teapotsahoy:

unseenphil:

So uh…guess who didn’t register the most obvious domain name, so Chuck Tingle helpfully stepped up and did so for them, with a series of helpful links on the side along with the picture of a dude with no shirt?

#chuck tingle#the hero we need (via @minimcalibre)

Oh hey other people are doing this general type of thing :D

(via veronicastraszh)

1 month ago · tagged #it me · 424 notes · source: unseenphil · .permalink

ozymandias271:

nostalgebraist:

IMO, an idea that should be more widely spread – not even widely assented to, necessarily, just talked about, possibly as a “controversial thing” – is that contrarianism is often the result of anxiety

More precisely, not contrarianism but “I know what you’re thinking, but – what if this consensus idea were actually wrong?”-ism

In stereotype land, the psychology behind this behavior is either a desire to annoy people from a place of presumed intellectual superiority, or just an interest in intellectual game-playing for its own sake. But in my experience, I find myself wanting to question consensuses because the alternative feels scary. If no one really knows why the thing is true and everyone just believes it because other people believe it in a self-confirming web, then what happens when it turns out to be wrong?

The anxiety, in particular, makes this weigh on me in particular even though, as just described, it would be a society-wide failure. I tend to (irrationally) feel like other people can rely on “what seems sensible” without much risk, possibly due (says the anxiety) to some mystical intuitive faculty that aligns their sense of “what seems sensible” with actual truth – but if I try to do that, I end up ruining everything, and then everyone’s looking at me in horror and pain and asking what the hell I thought I was doing, and I’m thinking “well it seemed sensible at the time” but that is not enough, not for me, no, for me only rock-solid nerdy professorial foundations will work, not because I want to be an intellectual, but because I want to not ruin everything

(This almost never actually happens, and when it does it doesn’t happen with anything like the high drama in the previous paragraph, but it feels like it is a danger I must ever be on watch for)

And when I look around me – taking into account of course that I may be projecting my own motivations onto others (I must include nerdy caveats like that one, some people might know how to get by without them but I don’t, you see how it is) – well, it looks to me like a lot of the “contrarians” and “fans of weird ideas” out there have anxiety disorders. And this makes sense.

Rejecting common knowledge and laboriously replacing it with a nerdy fiddly ground-up programme that either ends up rediscovering the obvious or “absurdly” negating it – this can be intellectual pretentiousness, or a desire to be special, or just poor judgment of how to usefully spend one’s time and energy. But it can also be what you do because you “know” that if your foundations aren’t rock-solid, they’re going to blow up in your face and also the faces of loved ones and innocent bystanders, even if this never happens to anyone else

If you don’t go back and check whether the oven is on, it’s going to turn out that it was on, because this is how your life works. If you don’t neurotically plan out your schedules and your schedules-within-schedules and make checklists and proceed in life one carefully regimented step at a time, you are going to make some mistake so stupid that it lies outside of the realm of ordinarily conceivable human behavior, and it will be so embarrassing that you will be cast out from society and gainful employment forever, because this is how your life works.

If you don’t worry over the coherence of your epistemology and your ethics and the reliability of every source you read and the myriad potential for error even in the work of the great scholars and thinkers who have shaped the received wisdom of educated people and the established (established? by whom?) fact that received wisdom in every prior society has contained vast errors and licensed vast injustices and in sum the ever-present possibility that everyone else could just be getting some basic thing (any basic thing) wrong and failing to see reality for what it is,

it is interesting to frame this as “an anxiety disorder” because previously I had framed it as “everyone else is INSANE and SOMEHOW MANAGES TO NOT FREAK OUT ABOUT THE UNRELIABILITY OF ALL KNOWLEDGE because as previously mentioned they are INSANE”

(via nonternary)

1 month ago · tagged #it me · 245 notes · source: nostalgebraist · .permalink

"Vimes is fundamentally a person. He fears he may be a bad person because he knows what he thinks rather than just what he says and does. He chokes off those little reactions and impulses, but he knows what they are. So he tries to act like a good person, often in situations where the map is unclear."

Terry Pratchett, describing Sam Vimes in a Usenet post back in 2004.

Also, accidentally, describing me. Shit.

(via benpaddon)

Okay, so this is what I love about Samuel Vimes as a Heroic figure.

Sometimes you get Heroes who are paragons of virtue. Even if you see their internal monologues, their mindset is pure and virtuous. Sometimes, they’re tested and you get a Big Moment where they have to choose whether or not to stick to their principles or give in to temptation and expediency.

And then you’ve got the more “Pragmatic” anti-hero types, who do some nasty things in pursuit of the greater good, and who might struggle with the things they’re doing, but they do it anyway because the world is not black and white.

And then you’ve got Sam Vimes, who is dragging himself kicking and screaming into being Lawful Good. Sam Vimes would not beat a suspect into confessing, but NOT because Sam Vimes is an innocent soul who finds the idea abhorrent. Not because he dosn’t think there are some scumbags who deserve to be separated from their teeth. Sam Vimes won’t beat a suspect because that’s not what a good man would do. Sam Vimes is understanding with others, but totally uncompromising when it comes to his own behavior.

Vimes isn’t a “Good Person” by nature, but by choice. By constant, uncompromising choice.

I think this is the only way to be a decent person.

(via nimblermortal)

in the words of asw #626:

p>(via stardust-rain)

(via rusalkii)

1 month ago · tagged #it me #as in that mindset is pretty much the thing between ironic and literal supervillainy #hurting or threatening people promethea cares about is widely agreed to be a low-return investment · 4,684 notes · source: groups.google.com · .permalink

Every Fan Fiction I Started Once I Found Out Emma Watson Was In The Panama Papers

(the-toast.net)

The memory grew brighter. “Professor Slughorn,” Hermione asked brightly, “What if someone wanted to split his wealth into multiple offshore accounts? Say…seven? “Good heavens, seven?” “Well, isn’t seven considered a magically significant number?” “Merline’s beard, girl! Isn’t it bad enough to consider doing it once? To dodge their tax bill seven times…This is all hypothetical, isn’t it, Hermione? All academic?” “Of course, sir,” Hermione said, smiling. “It’ll be our little secret.”

1 month ago · tagged #it me #unleashing my inner randroid #shitposting · 6 notes · .permalink

(via shlevy)

1 month ago · tagged #wetware hacking #brilliant #it me #life goals · 146 notes · source: rangi42 · .permalink

multiheaded1793:

memelovingbot:

Don’t let Tumblr make you believe: make america relocate to San Francisco again just fuck me up.

Libertarian queer tumblr be like

As libertarian queer tumblr this is 100% accurate.

1 month ago · tagged #it me · 142 notes · source: memelovingbot · .permalink

lifeisajourney10:

gloriousbacchus:

religiousmom:

tumblr friendships are hard to maintain like im sorry i know i havent talked to you in 5 months but you’re still super rad and i still consider us friends im just dumb

#if you’re wondering if this is for you #it’s probably for you

If I have ever messaged you or messaged me and never heard from me again, I still consider us friends. I just suck

(via rusalkii)

1 month ago · tagged #it me #user's guide to interacting with a promethea · 737,187 notes · source: tittytron · .permalink