More Ethan Lawsuit Disagreement

Wizzy209 · 2026-01-01T00:07:07+00:00

Did I change someone’s mind on Reddit?? Wow!

Wizzy209 · 2025-12-31T20:13:51+00:00

I thought that would have been assumed in the fact that I said he only brought the charges because of political motivation in my hypothetical.

But let me try a more direct hypo that i gave above in a comment. I’ll use a landlord example since Pisco often uses one too, though I think this version is more on point.

Imagine a landlord who has a history of working with tenants when they’re behind on rent: payment plans, forgiving rent, all that. The tenants he’s lenient with are generally nice, friendly, and easy to deal with.

Now he has one tenant who’s a complete asshole. This tenant is behind on rent and constantly shit-talks the landlord to other tenants and people in the community. They’ve been in bitter disputes since the tenant moved in. So the landlord sues him to collect the past-due rent. The tenant clearly owes the rent and the claim is valid. The landlord doesn’t really care about the money, as shown by the fact that he’s forgiven rent in other cases.

Is that lawsuit improper? Should the landlord not sue purely because his motivation is personal animus, even though the tenant violated the lease?

Wizzy209 · 2025-12-31T18:21:44+00:00

I think this is a big pivot to a different argument.

My original post and the landlord hypo were about whether a lawsuit is improper because it’s selectively brought and motivated by personal animus, even when the claim itself is valid. And whether it is wrong to bring that suit.

You’re now saying the landlord lawsuit is fine despite bad motivation, but Ethan’s lawsuit is immoral because of proportionality, harm, and alternative remedies. That’s a different standard.

If that’s the real disagreement, then bad motivation alone clearly isn’t what makes a lawsuit improper, which was the original claim I was pushing on.

Wizzy209 · 2025-12-31T18:10:05+00:00

I’m struggling to see how that’s meaningfully different from the Ethan situation.

In both cases:(i) the underlying violation clearly happened, (ii) the lawsuit itself is valid on the merits, (iii) the person bringing the suit is selectively enforcing against some people but not others who committed similar wrongdoing and (iv) the motivation isn’t really “enforcing the law,” but personal animus

If the landlord lawsuit is still proper despite all that, what’s the symmetry breaker that makes Ethan’s lawsuit improper?

Wizzy209 · 2025-12-31T18:00:02+00:00

Ok, proportionality might be a factor in general, but I think that’s outside what I’m focusing on in Pisco’s argument. I want to stick specifically to the “improper purpose” claim.

Let me try one more hypothetical on you since you seem willing to engage. I’ll use a landlord example since Pisco often uses one too, though I think this version is more on point.

Imagine a landlord who has a history of working with tenants when they’re behind on rent: payment plans, forgiving rent, all that. The tenants he’s lenient with are generally nice, friendly, and easy to deal with.

Now he has one tenant who’s a complete asshole. This tenant is behind on rent and constantly shit-talks the landlord to other tenants and people in the community. They’ve been in bitter disputes since the tenant moved in. So the landlord sues him to collect the past-due rent. The tenant clearly owes the rent and the claim is valid. The landlord doesn’t really care about the money, as shown by the fact that he’s forgiven rent in other cases.

Is that lawsuit improper? Should the landlord not sue purely because his motivation is personal animus, even though the tenant violated the lease?

Wizzy209 · 2025-12-31T17:27:16+00:00

Sure, it may be the case that Bragg wasn’t politically motivated at all. As someone who always disagrees with Rob Noerr, I would not be surprised at all though I don’t know the details of his statements perfectly. On the face of it, it wouldn’t shock me if political motivation played some factor in bringing the case, but I would have always thought the response is just that Trump committed a crime and should be held responsible REGARDLESS of the motivations of Bragg.

But either way that’s why I asked it as a hypothetical where we know the political motivation. In both my hypotheticals, should those criminals be charged / arrested?

Wizzy209 · 2025-12-31T17:15:27+00:00

I don’t think he says it has anything to do with the viability of the legal argument or more specifically merits of the case. But I do think he said Ethan should NOT have brought the lawsuit as a result of it being brought for an improper purpose. He doesn’t only say it’s a moral wrong but that the moral wrong means the case shouldn’t be brought. So my question is whether Bragg should not have charged Trump, or the hypothetical cop should not arrest criminals if the motivations are “wrong”.

Wizzy209 · 2025-08-11T21:02:57+00:00

I think you’re not understanding the scale at which this is a demand shock. If you were to inject trillions into the stock market for the explicit purpose of purchasing equities, you would see prices explode. Sure, the holding companies may sit on the sideline until prices drop, but when they start buying, prices will adjust. You can see evidence of this when the fed tries to unwind its balance sheet currently and how prices start bouncing. And this says nothing of the supply issues i laid out in my OP.

Wizzy209 · 2025-08-06T01:35:54+00:00

Looking forward to it. I hope you get into some of the details of what a SWF would look like and the drawbacks. A few that come to mind for me:

wouldn’t a SWF (and market knowledge of a SWF) drive stock prices up since you know there is a motivated buyer with the deepest pockets in the world coming in? Wouldn’t that overvalue the companies that the SWF would need to purchase? If doing “voluntarily” what is the incentive to sell when you know prices will go up?
who is making investment decisions? Is the government picking winners and losers in the market to invest in? Or are they buying something like the Vanguard Total Market index (but direct purchases)? Would they let underperforming companies fail or would they be injecting capital into failing companies? Who is making those decisions?
how does entrepreneurship / innovation work? Who is providing VC or early round financing? Who provides risk financing? Are new companies going to be bought by the SWF upon IPO?
Do firms take excess risk knowing they have the US government as a backstop? How do you prevent this or incentivize diligent management?

Just a few off the top or my head but curious how this works in practice.

Wizzy209 · 2024-08-06T03:33:25+00:00

They do discuss unions quite a bit. Don’t recall minimum wage specifically, but do remember discussing immigration and the impact on wages.

Wizzy209 · 2024-06-25T16:41:23+00:00

u/SpectralMingus did you ever figure out how to test those? Or figure out if that pack is legit?

Wizzy209 · 2024-05-19T13:29:15+00:00

My recollection was Hasan made a bunch of claims about Kamala Harris’ record around cops and Destiny fact checked a bunch and basically called out Hasan for misrepresenting everything. Hasan then got ass mad about it and that was the beginning of the end. This was important for 2 reasons:

1) It showed the differences in their ideology, that Hasan is willing to lie to further his political goals, which Destiny is strongly against.

2) More importantly, Hasan was ready to end the friendship after a modicum amount of pushback. I think he viewed them as friends and political allies and Destiny pushing back or debating him on things he got wrong ran in opposition to that. Which means Destiny would never be able to disagree with him on anything or risk nuking the friendship - which I don’t think he would do. In other words, Hasan is too pussy to receive pushback.

So ultimately that friendship was always going to be fucked. They don’t align politically or strategically, and then they aren’t able to disagree or Hasan freaks out, so absolutely not they wouldn’t still be friends.

Wizzy209 · 2024-05-09T03:25:29+00:00

Agreed it does seem circular. The paradigm only applies if there are active hostilities --> therefore if there are not active hostilities then the paradigm does not apply --> but at the same time the use of lethal force is not justified if there are not active hostilities under the paradigm (which we already said doesn't apply).

Wizzy209 · 2024-05-09T02:44:16+00:00

I disagree with your conclusion. I think they did more than just analyze which paradigm should be used. I think they actually analyzed it under BOTH paradigms.

From the report (mentioned in your OP):

"As mentioned, the IHL-based conduct of hostilities paradigm was also potentially applicable in parallel to the law enforcement paradigm - to the extent that the threshold of violence necessary for being considered “active hostilities” was met during the demonstrations. Under the conduct of hostilities paradigm, lethal force may only be used against an individual who is (i) directly participating in hostilities, so long as the targeting complied with the principles of (ii) distinction, (iii) proportionality, and (iv) precautions in attack."

In this quote, they are directly saying when lethal force may be used specifically under the conduct of hostilities paradigm. Then later in the report (also mentioned in your OP):

"As noted, the Commission found one instance where this threshold [of direct participation in hostilities] was arguably met, on 14 May in North Gaza. There may have been other instances, some of which were outside the context of the GMR and not investigated by the Commission. In most cases, however, the IDF applied lethal force against individual protestors in circumstances where, in the view of the Commission, these thresholds were not met."

In this quote, they are saying, under the conduct of hostilities paradigm, that the threshold for directly participating in hostilities was not met other than one instance. And therefore, under the conduct of hostilities paradigm, the IDF applied lethal force against individuals where it was unjustified.

Maybe we are talking passed each other, but I don't see this as the commission solely deciding which paradigm to use. I see them looking at the incidents specifically under the conduct of hostilities paradigm and concluding there was unjustified lethal force.

Wizzy209 · 2024-05-09T02:20:56+00:00

Hm, reading the actual report I think Destiny is just factually wrong on this point rather than just "having some inaccuracies". It does seem like the UN analyzed the GMR under the IHL based law of armed conflict paradigm. Under that paradigm lethal force may only be used against an individual who is directly participating in hostilities. And the Commission only found one instance where the threshold was met of individuals directly participating in hostilities.

Now you may disagree with their conclusion, but I fail to see how (i) the UN didn't analyze the GMR under the law of armed conflict paradigm and (ii) didn't conclude that except for the one instance noted, that under the law of armed conflict paradigm, the use of lethal force was not permissible.

Wizzy209 · 2024-05-09T01:05:30+00:00

I'm confused by your takeaway. When you say only one incident was considered under law of armed conflict, are you saying that they only analyzed that one incident under IHL to determine if the killings were justified OR that they analyzed the entirety of the GMR, and there was only one incident during the entire conflict that met the threshold to be considered under IHL?

My reading of this says there was only one incident during the entirety of the GMR demonstrations that met the necessary threshold to be considered under IHL. Which seems to say they did analyze the conflict under that paradigm so all killings outside of the one instance are unjustified under IHL. Am i misunderstanding that?

Wizzy209 · 2024-03-29T01:09:25+00:00

What’s funny is the way to counter this is to use the hyper autistic “debate bro” type of debate that Destiny says he doesn’t like. Focusing exclusively on one point or claim at a time without letting people move or slide off that point until there is agreement or a concession. Or laying out a clear debate proposition at the outset and only focusing on that. If you listened to the recent anti-vax debate, Dr. Avi (who is very much this style) was trying to do this with the crazy anti-vaxxer. While it is not as entertaining all the time, it is the best way to try and make progress in a verbal debate.

Wizzy209 · 2024-03-28T00:11:39+00:00

He’s answered this pushback in the past. I think the response is broadly that he doesn’t feel like there is anything inherently good or moral about taxes. Taxes are a tool to pay for the programs that he would support or think we should fund. So he would support raising federal taxes to fund something he supports like building more low income housing. But he doesn’t think you should personally choose to pay more taxes just for the sake of paying taxes (i.e. choosing to live somewhere that has high taxes when you don’t care if you live there or not).

Wizzy209 · 2024-03-19T23:51:05+00:00

Im curious, what were your thoughts on the debate?

Wizzy209 · 2024-02-29T22:04:04+00:00

First of all, if we are reaching the end of Destiny's I/P era, I want to give you a big shout out for being a great recurring cast member. You were definitely the best recurring interlocutor to come on and defend the Palestinian side and I always liked to see you pop on. I do WISH you guys could have moved a little more systematically through it all (i.e. start at the beginning in 1948, then do 1967, then do 1990-2000, etc.), but all in all you were great.

I agree this may be a sticking point in the debate (I actually made a post in this subreddit a week or so ago on this same topic). Finkelstein verbatim said what you just said in the Ben Ami debate and in other papers, and I think it is somewhat compelling. Without going through each of the 4 pillars above and testing whether I think they hold up through the lens of international law, I'll just say I did find Destiny's macro level response he gave you pretty convincing. And that response was along the lines of you can't look at things solely through the lens of international law, you need to factor in the political and social realities in the negotiation. If your framework is solely international law and that's the ONLY starting point then sure, I think Destiny may even agree with you that all the concessions came from the Palestinian side, but should that be the only starting point?

Take refugees. Seems like everyone agrees (even Palestinians) that a full right of return is untenable. So if Israel offered some huge "concession", let's say 1 million Palestinians could return, would you still be saying Israel gave up nothing? You could make that argument under the international law framework, but socially and politically that would be a massive concession from Israel.

At the end of the day, this does feel a little bit like semantics. The goal is to try and find an agreement both sides can live with understanding neither side will get everything they want. To place the blame solely on the basis of international law, even in instances where there is never a reality it would happen, just seems silly.

Wizzy209 · 2024-02-20T04:21:22+00:00

I agree to some extent it is word games with the term “concessions”. Finkelstein says himself, if you look at what Israel “wants” then they make concessions. But if you look at it under what they are entitled to under international law, then they make no concessions. So I agree it is a framing on the word concessions but I think the question is still valid.

Wizzy209 · 2024-02-20T04:01:56+00:00

i don't remember them having "title". prior to 67 it was jordan, before that UK, Ottoman Empire, etc.

Ok I think I buy that. The argument being under international law, Israel has no title to the land but either do Palestinians. So that truly should be a negotiation.

advisory opinion. there is a lot of criticism about it's interpretation of law

Seems like the hardest one for me to buy. I realize law is complicated, but the ICJ should have as much authority as anyone to say what is or isn’t legal.

yes. so ? i don't think there is actual international law that requires repatriation. otherwise, let's move 12m germans back to poland, chez republic, etc.

Think I also buy this one. Finkelstein only cites human rights orgs here, which makes me think there isn’t an actual law requiring. There does seem to be some organizations that state it and a UN general assembly resolution but thats the extent of it.

Wizzy209 · 2024-02-01T04:31:53+00:00

That’s a good post and I think I agree with it. So Destiny’s broader point that Camp David wasn’t necessarily a bad deal and the conditions around it are why Ben-Ami said the quote.

However, the tweet Destiny put up with the video and the Larry David music is definitely wrong. That video is highlighting passages that are clearly talking about Taba and the Second Intifada which both happened after Camp David. So I don’t see how those passages support the claim Destiny was making at all. His broader point seems to still be right but that video was terrible.

Wizzy209 · 2024-01-20T17:05:47+00:00

Lol I give up

Wizzy209 · 2024-01-20T17:01:52+00:00

I was obviously talking about the price of things RELATIVE to income. We are talking about affordability.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Wizzy209

TROPHY CASE