this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
769 points (95.7% liked)

News

23268 readers
3483 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hundreds of unsheltered people living in tent encampments in the blocks surrounding the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco have been forced to leave by city outreach workers and police as part of an attempted “clean up the house” ahead of this week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s annual free trade conference.

The action, which housing advocates allege violated a court injunction, was celebrated by right-wing figures and the tech crowd, who have long been convinced that the city is in terminal decline because of an increase in encampments in the downtown area.

The X account End Wokness wrote that the displacement was proof the “government can easily fix our cities overnight. It just doesn’t want to” (the post received 77,000 likes). “Queer Eye but it’s just Xi visiting troubled US cities then they get a makeover,” joked Packy McCormick, the founder of Not Boring Capital and advisor to Andreessen Horowitz’s crypto VC team. The New York Post celebrated the action, saying that residents had “miraculously disappeared.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 125 points 1 year ago (6 children)

We shouldn't decide the morality of things based on it being legal or illegal. The law is at best an after thought around morality.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll take "it was legal at the time" for a thousand, Alex.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What are you referring to? Are you aware the sweep that was performed was illegal?

You don’t even need to read the article; it’s in the headline.

How does this statement about “legal at the time” correspond to anything in this story?

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

First of all, I was playing off of the parent comment that legality is wholly divorced from morality, a notion that I agree with, rather than commenting on the article.

Second, even though it's illegal, well, read the article. It seems to me that even the social aid organizations involved were giving a bunch of coy, shitty non-answers to the journalists involved in this story. This is kind of one of those unsettling moments where the institution has lost faith in itself, like when the SCOTUS found the removal of native Americans to be illegal and President Jackson said "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him come enforce it" and caused the trail of tears anyway. I doubt we're going to see any accountability come of this. So, even though it's illegal on paper, it's functionally legal; the state is just going to five finger salute the law on this one.

[–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The law is a essentially the enforceable moral code of the state that enforces it. Most criminal laws were created to penalise acts that are considered morally reprehensible. I wouldn't say the law is an afterthought around morality but a reflection of the morality of the state. The laws are largely written by the capitalistic class and are a reflection of what they consider right and wrong.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah but the problem with this sentiment is that it eschews responsibility for the state its self, a responsibility for which a people always ultimately are. A state legislature makes laws. City councils create rules. Dog catchers have policies. At any point you can work to take responsibility for those positions. Its not an abstract theoretical thing. These are real material positions.

We are responsible for the society we live in.

[–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. Laws can be changed but in reality but don't really have that much say nor do they even pay that much attention. Let me ask how much people really vote with the homeless on their mind? How much people voted for Biden because they were genuinely excited for him or because he just was the only way to prevent Trump from coming back? The laws of the state are a reflection of what it deems to be moral and just there's no way around that.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I totally agree. Point is that a people are ultimately responsible for the state.

[–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. So what is the disagreement about then? Laws are essentially the enforceable moral code of the state. I do believe that people are ultimately responsible for their own laws but because of propaganda and misinformation by the capitalistic class they are rarely fully informed of the laws they vote for. The capitalistic class ensures to public are constantly misled so their candidates and lawmakers get picked. This ultimately sees the ruling 1% in control of the law and deciding what the state or country considers right or wrong. How much people do you think Biden really represents?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

of the State

Right there is where the disagreement is. My argument is that laws are ultimately a moral code of a people, because a people are ultimately responsible for their state. It's a false dichotomy that misrepresents where states and laws ultimately come from. It 'others' the state as some kind of inaccessible agent that our actions don't contribute to. It removes the moral responsibility of state actions from a people, which is not ok. My argument is that individuals are and need to take responsibility for the state and the codification of its moral because they are us. The state is not a separate entity from its people, when it is a state of the people. This thinking of the state as separate from the people is deeply problematic.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, what's that say about the law since slavery was completely legal at one point in time?

[–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That once upon a time people considered slavery to be just or morally ok.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When it comes to actions of government agents, though, following the law is the most basic form of accountability, and unaccountable governments are never good.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're a fool to think the entity that makes and enforces law will ever hold itself to its rules. Rules and laws are for controlling peasants, not itself.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Lol okay dipshit Karen who feels the need to get one over on a kid to win an argument, I'm sure you feel powerful as hell right now

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A philosophical argument that goes all the way back to Socrates.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Violation of law most of the times is immoral. There are exceptions of course, but it is quite good guide.