You can charge them with murder all you like, but while brandishing as control is considered standard police practice, you will find it almost impossible to prove any intent.
They both killed the guy. The guy lied with the intent to get heavily armed people to point guns at someone. Anyone who does this and tries to claim that they couldn't possibly know that the risk is deadly, is either lying or lacks basic reasoning skills.
A good way to check logic is to test the statements against other scenarios.
> The guy lied with the intent to get heavily armed people to point guns at someone.
What if we apply your reasoning to politicians that lied in order to enable invasions of other countries? Does that mean they also committed mass murder and war crimes? If no, then please explain what is the difference? If yes, then why are the politicians not charged?
What if we apply your reasoning to the same exact scenario but instead of it having been false, this was where there was an actual armed attack and a victim had been made to open the door and then been shot within seconds by the policeman? In that scenario, would you not say that the policeman had committed an act of murder or at least gross negligence leading to murder?
Some politicians are guilty of mass murder and war crimes under exactly the circumstance you give. And part of the reason those from more powerful countries are not charged is they have made every effort to put themselves above international law. For instance, Bush Jr signed the Hague Invasion Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... - to guard against this very risk.
edit - And in your second scenario, that would be negligence causing a homicide. It wouldn't be murder unless there was an intent to kill the hostage.
Making the Japanese and Nigerian elite look bad, could be a large part of the intent here. That $76M might mainly be a political comment.
In perspective, oil and gas companies spend more than double that lobbying the US government every year and in Mayfair in London, a house went on sale last year for $120M.
I showed 'Crockers Rules', after Lee Daniel Crocker, to my mum and my sister over Christmas, as I thought it might help all of us indicate the level of acerbic comment we are currently able to process.
"Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.
Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor."
How silicon valley.. maximize efficiency at the expense of all culture and social norms!
No need for complex social relations, I will process information, more than ever before (because there is so much of it now!), like the great logical-positivist that I am!
Moreover, I certainly do not have any political positions embedded in my norms-steamrolling worldview, because all there is, in fact, is information.
This seems like an uncharitable read. The whole point of Crocker Rules is that you opt in. No one forces you to accept Crocker Rules (that would indeed be steamrolling). You declare "feel free to say things that might insult me", not "I'm going to assume you don't mind being insulted".
Personally, I've found this to be a very useful tool with people who are conflict-avoidant. I tell them "if you're afraid of offending me, please don't hesitate, I promise I won't get mad".
Sometimes I go as far as to suggest something they might be thinking that might be offensive in order to get the ball rolling and show them there won't be negative consequences.
For example: "Hey I wonder if you're concerned I'll be offended if you propose throwing out my work and replacing it. Don't worry, it's fine. I just want what's best for the project, so if you're holding back because you're concerned I'll be upset, you can relax."
I've got to say, I love the idea. I am always getting into trouble for not "playing nice" when I'm discussing something with somebody I don't agree with. It is very difficult to talk with people when the immediate assumption is that you are rude and offensive when all you want is a chance to get your opinion heard.
- You are are participant in society, so your preferences indeed affect other people
- the example of the project at work is benign, especially since the outcome doesn't matter to you. What happens then the issues are about personal skin-in-the-game, like someone coming after your means of living, gentrification of your neighborhood, attacking the behavior of your significant other, etc..
I think we must be interpreting the meaning of Crocker Rules differently.
You say the example I gave is benign — so is it fair to assume you believe that this behavior is useful in at least some cases?
You're right that I have the "luxury" to do so in that situation because the outcome isn't particularly painful.
And you're also right that it would be difficult to opt in to Crocker Rules when discussing something with huge stakes and emotional charge. But that's why it's opt-in ... no one should try to force you to accept it, and you can choose to accept it depending on context.
I would probably not volunteer for Crocker Rules with someone proposing something that would grievously harm my family.
(and just to be clear: I never actually use the term, I always use in-context statements like the one in the example).
I come from somewhere where the opposite of that is the dominant culture, so I was explaining Crocker's rules as a method of us pointing out to each other when we are not capable of operating by them, rather than when we are. I had a bad head cold and was trying to work out a diplomatic method to get them to chill out a little. It half worked, some of the time.
More Silicon Glen, if you really care about origin stories. My family tends to conduct a lot of discussion at full volume with lots of swearing, so being able to say, 'fuck off, not playing by Crocker's rules', is pretty useful.
> Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.)
Is calling someone a moron the best (most information-optimized) way to tell someone they're wrong?
I'm in favor of truth being more valued in this culture, but I don't think being too polite is the root of the problem.
> Is calling someone a moron the [most information optimized] ...
Think of it not as "please be rude to me, that's optimal".
Think of it as "I'd rather have the truth delivered rudely than a polite falsehood or slience."
You may say that's a false dichotomy — surely everyone should just tell the most informative truth and be polite. But this is often just too taxing, or not even possible depending on language and social skills. This is especially true on contentious topics.
It isn't about calling someone a moron, it is about being able to respond, "Thanks, I can be fucking stupid at times, can you show me where I am being moronic here?".
It is also about being able top unguard your own language should you know that the other person is operating by the rules, not to be insulting, but so to not worry about it for that conversation and so not having to run that whole level of extra processing.
I tend to swear a lot, as do most of the people I both work and socialise with. If I were to work with people of a more delicate sensibility, conversations would take a lot longer.
But you could further optimize your communication by dropping the profanity.
A listener declaring Crocker's rules says they will not be offended, but
at best, profanity communicates your emotional reaction to a situation. In seeking optimal communication of information, profanity is largely wasted bandwidth.
> But you could further optimize your communication by dropping the profanity.
I have certainly been in stressful situations with people where I was confident they were struggling to say what they really meant because they were angry and trying to remain civil.
Giving someone permission to vent at you, in the interest of also giving you a truth they've struggled to present politely, is one of the functions of this practice.
I think you may be taking "optimally" to mean something like "ideally"; in this context I take it to be "the best available". It would be ideal for the angry person with the important truth to find a polite way to present that truth — but with emotion involved the best available option may be to accept some profanity along with the truth, in preference to the truth being hidden behind an attempt to stay civil.
I understand "optimally" to emphasize concision and clarity.
Profanity is either seeking to evoke an emotional response, or basically just "very" as DoreenMichelle says.
As such, profanity is semantically a really poor intensifier.
While a listener declares Crocker's rules in order to optimize communication by saying "I won't take offense," a speaker can optimize communication by clearly stating what is wrong, rather than just "This is !#$%&, you !$_&!"
I work really hard at editing out profanity when I write online. The reality is that I swear like a sailor and the running joke in the family is to quote that movie line "you go into a bar and sailors come running out." I basically use the eff word like other people use very.
So when I write something full of profanity, it doesn't suggest I have really strong feelings about it or am trying to attack or insult people. It usually means I was writing while tired, distracted or a bit under the weather and failing to put in the extra effort to mind my Ps and Qs.
I am aware that it causes problems at times for me to use so much profanity when I post things online. It isn't uncommon for me to go back and try to edit out the worst of it after I post it.
But the converse of that is this: it takes extra effort for me to come up with alternate phrasing and this takes bandwidth away from me focusing on more substantive elements. If someone actually thinks I have good ideas and they want to know what I think about something, they will get more useful info from me more frequently if they don't give me shit constantly about how my foul mouth is an excuse to just not listen to the substance of my points.
There are plenty of people who punctuate their speech with colorful language. Colorful language can be a rich way to express some concepts and trying to clean it up can actually lose something.
So given that I am hardly the only person on the planet who just habitually peppers their speech with profanity, I think one use of this standard is to agree to ignore that element as a minor style detail in order to focus on the substance of their ideas.
People from bad neighborhoods often have foul mouths. Expecting them to politely and articulately elucidate their points without profanity can be a form of classist and racist gatekeeping that excludes them from serious discourse.
I don't have an easy answer for you. I do try to clean up my language when speaking "in public" whether online or off. I just wanted to note that the issue is more complicated than that.
I do wonder how people could operate in this manner when presented with opinions that challenge their world view. Challenge somebodies religion, sexuality (especially if they are homophobic) or belief in their country and your are almost certain to trip them from civil discussion into emotional outburst in very short order.
