If this scandal had any relation to the Gamergate corruption, then there's no way the gaming press would even cover it. Anybody investigating the players would be said to be "harassing" them in articles, and they'd probably be called "misogynists" too, the players' actual genders be damned.

Brown was just trying to "spread the wealth"!

Then an obviously-racist cop stopped him (Wilson is white and Brown was black, so racism on Wilson's part is automatically a fact). Brown was simply defending himself against being prevented from "sharing" more of other people's hard-earned wealth. Brown is a warrior of Social Justice and an obvious victim of racism! /sarc

The cognitive dissonance displayed here by Brown supporters is stunning. The reality-distortion field generated rivals that of Apple/Jobs.

Strat

So just because the victim is a minority means they ARE wrong?

If not, what are we supposed to do, just ignore the justice system every time some people don't like the result?

It's simple, actually: The person who buys those violins created that value they used to purchase it elsewhere. Money is just a store of value used for trade, but in and of itself isn't valuable, and in fact is only worth whatever you think its worth.

Replicate the same analogy as GP did, only with somebody who makes shoes. That person who makes shoes buys a violin. Effectively he traded several pairs of shoes for a violin.

If you can grow the pie, then by definition it is NOT zero-sum. I don't mean to ad-hom, but what you said is just insanely stupid.

It would also cut our GDP in half.

History has always shown that if you kneecap imports in *any* way, you also do the same to domestic production. It doesn't matter if the other trade partners retaliate or not; the whole purpose of imports is to acquire goods that can't be acquired domestically (either they flat out aren't available, or the domestic knowledge and/or infrastructure isn't present, so the foreign companies can create it cheaper.) These imported goods are then used as capital for domestic production.

If that wasn't true, it wouldn't ever be economical to import; we'd just rely entirely on domestic production.

Look at the period between the market crash and Smoot-Hawley. It's relatively stable. Basically what we had during that period is comparatively the same as what we had in 2008. The jobless rate didn't really increase until after it passed.

You and AC are both wrong. Tariffs indeed caused it. Look at the unemployment rate for a good six months after the stock market crash. It was basically the same as what we saw in 2008. Not good, but not particularly bad. The depression didn't begin until Smoot-Hawley passed. Imports and domestic production rise and fall with one another. This is something even the most liberal economists agree with. So if you squelch imports, guess what happens to unemployment?

The flaw in that plan is that domestic production and imports are known to rise and fall with one another. Anything that dampens imports in any way likely results in domestic job losses. The Smoot-Hawley act proved that pretty decisively.

Likewise, tariffs, and indeed any taxation on foreign goods just for the sake of being foreign, are an incredibly stupid idea. The great depression wouldn't have occurred if there was no such thing as mercantilism. We've seen worse stock market crashes than what preceded the depression, and none of the "protections" added after the fact were even needed to prevent economic collapse. If you look at the unemployment statistics for that period, you actually see it stable for some time after the market crash, (it was about the same as the numbers that we saw in 2008) but it doesn't tank until just after Smoot-Hawley passes.

If it went to trial, we *would* know all the facts.

A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence, it only decides whether a trial should happen.

Apropos of nothing, if there was strong statistical evidence that this statement was flat-out wrong, would you change your opinion?

(Note: The decision(*) was handed down 2 hours ago and already there's rioting.)

I recently posted about a fire inspector reacting to a problem in the most dickish way possible.

The responses were surprising and enlightening. On the topic of his actions, each and every one of the respondents felt that the inspector reacted appropriately, that he in fact had to react in the most extreme manner possible, and that it was the right thing to do(**).

If you agree with this position, then it's OK for police to shoot an unarmed black man in Ferguson Missouri, or a black man purchasing a gun off the shelf at WalMart, or a 12-year old boy in Ohio playing with a toy gun.

The police have a dangerous job - they put their lives on the line every single day (just ask one), and they simply can't take the chance that a black man might be dangerous.

No. That's completely wrong, and it comes from police and other government agencies "doubling down" on their mistakes. Something bad happens, someone in authority shouts "it was the correct thing to do!", and it's echoed all over the press and on the net by people who repeat what they hear without thinking it through.

When the department says that the most dickish possible way is the right response they are alienating the people. It might avoid getting the cop thrown off the force, but in the future the department may actually *need* the support or cooperation of the people in order to do their job. This is short-term smart and long-term stupid.

We have schools teaching teenagers how to react to cops, and the take-away message is that cops only hurt people - they are a danger to be avoided

The "broken window" theory of crime can also be applied to the police. If we let them get away with these sorts of abuses, everyone in a position of authority will know that it's OK to act in the most dickish way possible.

I understand how rules exist to prevent the "worst possible scenario" from happening, but do we *always* have to act as if the worst possible scenario is happening right here, right now? Should cops always shoot a suspect who has a gun in hand? Would a more nuanced approach better?

I'm glad there's rioting. This crap needs to stop.

(*) For non-merikan readers, a grand jury does not assign guilt or innocence, it only determines whether a trial should happen. Basically, it tries to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. Also, it's heavily rigged *against* the defendant.

(**) There are at least 3 alternative actions the fire marshal could have taken that would have solved his problem without alienating all the con goers, the business, and the hotel. I don't expect anyone in his local area would help if his office needed public support for something, such as "please help us by sending us your video tape of incident".

It's OK to try and harm someone just because they are wearing a badge and talking to you?

Equally disgusting...

Because that's what the physical evidence, and now a grand jury who had ALL the facts, said.

There actually hasn't been warming (on average) for over a decade. But it makes it easier for lunkheads like yourself to get the message not to panic if I pretend like there is, and then point out warming doesn't matter - otherwise closed-minded zealots like yourself couldn't read past the initial message, even though scientifically accurate (I know you're not used to believing things with actual proof instead of faith behind them). People not panicking and doing stupid things as a result is my primary mission.

I give it 50/50 we'll start seeing a cooling trend again in a decade or so. I give it zero percent chance you will ever see one.

I'll let you have the last word because the pig and the lunkhead have much in common...

Historically that's not what happened, so why imagine the preposterous instead of the normal?

...welcome our new military robotic overlords, SIR!

Cheers,
Dave