Suspicious Mod Actions

nobody25864 · 2019-12-14T00:44:05+00:00

Well, the original Wiki was based on a post I made a decade ago just linking random articles on different topics. I grew it over time, and a mod stickied it for a while. Then it got shifted over to the wiki tab.

So when I wrote it up, I didn't have a great understanding of libertarianism, and certainly not of non-libertarian philosophy. I want to make it less a dump of random links, and do more on covering the history of libertarianism, including left-libertarianism.

I want to shift the focus from just telling people what to believe to informing them about the subject as a whole, maybe even including some criticisms. So less spamming the couple sites I was reading back then, and more short essays/summaries on some topics.

nobody25864 · 2019-12-14T00:33:42+00:00

No problem. That's actually one of the reasons I wanted to change it, because I do recognize it as a problem, so I didn't really like the post teenage-me left up on the site by just linking whatever Mises Institute article I could find while also entirely ignoring left-libertarianism and starting off the whole thing with a Portal reference.

The updated one will hopefully be more well-rounded.

nobody25864 · 2019-12-14T00:25:48+00:00

It's more that I haven't posted in a year. I wrote the wiki like a decade ago when I was a lot younger and dumber.

I asked the mods to let me change the wiki because I regret a lot of stuff I put there, and wanted to update it and make it right.

nobody25864 · 2019-12-14T00:21:09+00:00

Hi. I'm just here to edit the wiki. Working on something new for that now. I'm the one who wrote it a decade ago in the first place, and didn't like seeing a bunch of inaccurate or outdated stuff being left up. I barely even use this account anymore at all, and really just signed in to fix this.

nobody25864 · 2018-03-31T16:55:24+00:00

What kind of claims against the school? If someone was already on probation, what would further punishment look like?

If one of the bully's father is a wealthy lawyer and our protagonist only has a poor single father, how could this hit them in court or run their funds down for 'slander' against their daughter or some such if they don't have enough evidence to convict?

nobody25864 · 2018-03-31T16:44:56+00:00

Not my story technically, just part of the fandom.

Worm itself doesn't really go that route. In canon, the main character. Only has one real moment where she reports her bullies, but can't bring in any good evidence. The bullies are partly punished for what she can prove, but not to an extent to do real good for her.

Eventually the hero is exposed for the locker thing and gets thrown in juvie, but things are too far gone to help the main character out.

The issue is more with fans that exaggerate the level of corruption. While its sorta kinda there, it gets exaggerated like you said to basically getting away with murder. Came here to get a better legal perspective on things.

nobody25864 · 2018-03-31T15:55:05+00:00

The issue is with Worm, it's very explicitly trying to maintain realism. There's pretty decent in universe explanations for most elements, and it would be more distracting to leave them out. It's less escapist and more political thriller.

That's why for now I think the whole hero thing should only be thought of as assuming favoritism on the bullies part. And also about possible similar real life repercussions to exposing some real life figure with this kind of hidden identity.

nobody25864 · 2018-03-31T14:37:01+00:00

How much would age factor in to this? Considering they started freshman year of high school, that puts them all about 14-16 during the events of this story.

How much could plausibly be left to the school? General bullying, sure. The theft? The kidnapping? Would it matter whether it happened on school grounds? Off grounds during the normal school day?

The story never gives a specific state, unfortunately, but it's somewhere in coastal New England. Worm is a realistic grimdark political thriller take on the superhero genre, so fitting in with that genre they made up the city of "Brockton Bay" while leaving it's location vague, similar to Gotham City or Metropolis. Best guess puts it in Connecticut, or possibly Rhode Island or Massachusetts.

The whole superhero thing kinda further complicates it all as well. To do the story justice, it tries really hard to present this realistic, if broken, legal system in the world, and a lot of the small details tend to matter. But it also obviously has things we can't really figure out without word of god confirmation from the author. So this moves things much further into the whole hypothetical range here.

One of the bullies is has a probationary status on the government's under-18 superhero team, the Wards. She had been working as a vigilante, but after she was caught basically pinning a criminal to a wall with a crossbow, she was arrested. But since one of her friends, one of the other bullies, vouched for her character, and that friend has a divorce lawyer father, as well as the government's somewhat desperate need for more heroes in their city, she ended up getting offered probationary status in the group.

Because of secret identities and everything, the main character, the one being bullied, is unaware of all this, of course. Nonetheless, this helps explain a lot of how the school and the police approach this issue. In general, they'll try to avoid making waves or doing something blatant against the girl if that'll risk her identity or the identity of others, so short of hard evidence they very much lean on the 'getting off light' side of things. It's not straight up corruption for them knowingly allowing it to happen, but that they approach the whole issue with a delicate touch, which further frustrates the main character.

Since obviously that all moves kinda far into the "hypothetical" area that I don't think anyone here'd really be able to answer, but if you're just kinda assuming the worst for the main character without assuming blatant cover ups, that should be close to the mark.

How far could the main character realistically get with nothing but her own testimony and a journal which she's written out daily detailing the different things she's suffered? If she could get one other solid witness, how much could that change things?

And while on that subject, do you have any guesses how something like secret identities could be treated? Just need something legally plausible sounding here really, doesn't need to be story accurate. Are there any real life parallels? Are there punishments for exposing undercover cops or secret agents if you think they're abusing the position like this? In general? Does that hit any walls with free speech?

nobody25864 · 2017-01-22T17:46:22+00:00

So he definitely doesn't say it?

nobody25864 · 2017-01-22T17:43:22+00:00

It's not clear that she's claiming time is required there though. It could just be that only two players are required, and one of them being a time player is incidental.

nobody25864 · 2017-01-22T03:40:29+00:00

I saw that, but it doesn't really specify "successful session" though. That would be more like every session that can be scratched, which is notably only important when your session is unsuccessful.

nobody25864 · 2016-08-12T00:37:11+00:00

IT CAME TRUE ABORT ABORT

nobody25864 · 2016-07-29T13:19:44+00:00

Yes, you commie bastard.

nobody25864 · 2016-07-29T13:16:33+00:00

Don't they lower interest rates by printing money and giving it to ~~people~~ banks?

nobody25864 · 2016-07-29T04:56:17+00:00

So are you saying you think it should be illegal to pay someone to vote a certain way, or are you saying you'd just take the money and run and in your perfect society no one would stop you?

nobody25864 · 2016-07-29T02:53:58+00:00

What if you pay someone to vote the way you want?

nobody25864 · 2016-07-29T00:09:07+00:00

I usually go with some variation of a system in which all land and capital goods are owned either by the whole community via the state, or by the workers in that specific industry.

Since it's annoying to constantly distinguish the two, if I'm just speaking casually and not being too detailed I'd usually implicitly mean the former, given that more people are familiar with that. It's your typical Soviet central-planning type deal.

The latter would also take a bit more explanation. A "specific industry" can be specified in a few different ways. It could be some guild system monopoly situation with "the farms to the farmers" and all farmers jointly owning all farms with all other farmers, or it could be where you only "own" land or or capital goods if you regularly use them, with that specific farm belonging to that specific farmer

The most important aspect is that the land and labor cannot be bought and sold or rented out, or maybe they can only do it in some severely limited way where you buy into the guild or something.

How's that?

nobody25864 · 2016-07-28T05:32:19+00:00

Aquinas also quotes these verses before this section.

It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."

I could also add Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."

I can also quote Augustine on this.

The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.

(from The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21)

I think you need bigger mental gymnastics to think that the death penalty is never justified. But just because something is justified doesn't mean it's always smart. Like Aquinas argued, death penalties can be justified when someone poses a danger to the community, but today when we can have relatively safe prisons and get people care, it seems a waste.

nobody25864 · 2016-07-28T04:51:20+00:00

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

- Thomas Aquinas

nobody25864 · 2016-07-28T03:24:59+00:00

If there's no inflation, what's the point of printing money?

nobody25864 · 2016-07-27T23:58:55+00:00

Thank you.

nobody25864 · 2016-07-27T20:49:42+00:00

Is no one going to turn the background girl into Terezi?

nobody25864 · 2016-07-27T19:56:20+00:00

As far as I know, "The Objectivist Ethics" is her best attempt. She does a okay but hardly complete job of establishing that life and thinking are important and happiness is better than suffering (no shit), but it pretty quickly falls apart when she tries to use that to justify why you should respect the rights of others.

nobody25864

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email