Los Angeles City Council is considering sending "Dear John" letters to the registrants of cars seen in an area of San Fernando described as having a "thriving street prostitution problem". The plan would use automated license plate readers to identify vehicles that stopped in the area. Council member Nury Martinez claims "If you aren't soliciting, you have no reason to worry about finding one of these letters in your mailbox. But if you are, these letters will discourage you from returning."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/12/01/the-age-of-pre-crime-has-arrived/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Age of ‘Pre-Crime’ has Arrived
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:38PM
They're shamed just because their car was spotted in an area with high rates of prostitution? That sounds unconstitutional.
BTW the council member's quote reminds me of Eric Schmidt defending Google's privacy invasion by saying something like "If this bothers you, maybe you're doing something you shouldn't be".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:53PM
Forget shame letters. inb4 it becomes probable cause for a no knock raid.
(Score: 4, Funny) by davester666 on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:30PM
So, if they do go through with doing it, go and doctor up letters for the mayor and every councilmember and send them to their homes. For every Friday and Saturday night.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:37PM
Make sure their spouses get to the mailbox first as well.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:46PM
Address them to the spouses.....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @11:34PM
That Eric Schmidt quote is often taken wildly out of context. Here is the full answer, given in response to a question about how much privacy google could provide:
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
Remember that this is pre-Snowden and Schmidt was gagged. None the less he was warning that no company can protect your privacy in the face of the surveillance state, and Google was no exception. A soylent reader should have found nothing controversial about that statement even then.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:43PM
Think how happy the local businessmen must be to hear this. I bet the politicians will have an impressive wave of donations. Or maybe not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:31PM
Probably not. It's incredibly stupid to begin with, attempting to use shame. It requires one to be subject to it (I'm not personally myself), and also assumes every john has a girlfriend or wife at home. I'm sure some working stiff without a GF cares anymore about a letter saying he was with a prostitute anymore than he cares about the package from Amazon. What's interesting is that they're starting off with really the threats of shaming, not the shaming itself. Do I care that the government knows I'm visiting hookers? What does that mean? 3 blowjobs and I go to jail? What? Am I supposed to feel shame the government knows of my sexual activities? Why?
The local business owners, and especially the local property owners, are going to go ape shit. This only works by creating literal zones where your license plate (real or not) triggers off a government warning when you enter it. Just how valuable is that property right now? If it ever took off, I can easily see Google, or anyone else, start listing it just as they do traffic. I would want to be warned if I was about to drive into that area. How can anyone attempt to bring businesses back onto property that generates these warnings, I have no idea. If the city is really interested in this, then they might was well just bulldoze down the entire area through eminent domain and fence it off. For the property owners their property was effectively condemned, and most likely worth less than the dirt on it.
For the people really subject to shame? Boy howdy are they going to have a field day suing the city into submission. Proof your vehicle was in that particular area is not adequate proof you were receiving the services of a hooker.
Another poster had an idea about how to fake information to these license plate readers. False positives? The city is going to learn a lesson about false positives, and then later on false negatives when regular johns get wise to obfuscating their plates.
I'm sure the city lawyers are busy explaining just how legally dangerous this idea is, and how costly is might be.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:57PM
> It requires one to be subject to it (I'm not personally myself), and also assumes every john has a girlfriend or wife at home.
No it doesn't. It isn't just shame, it is a threat. A threat that anyone you know might find out. Including people you depend on, like your employer.
And don't even try to play that randian uberman canard: "I would never work for a company that would fire me for paying for hiring a hooker." The people who work for those kinds of employers have very little choice in the matter.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by evil_aaronm on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:57PM
> Council member Nury Martinez claims "If you aren't soliciting, you have no reason to worry about finding one of these letters in your mailbox. But if you are, these letters will discourage you from returning."
How are they going to know you're soliciting? And if they know that, why don't they just arrest you?
(Score: 5, Informative) by looorg on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:59PM
This has previously been suggested in some other countries, such as Sweden. Even they didn't go thru with it and they even have that crazy law that half the prostitution transaction is legal while the other part isn't (legal to sell, illegal to buy). As I recall it was about five years ago now, they wanted to send brightly colored, purple, envelopes to the home addresses of suspected buyers (or renters) of prostitutes. The point was the shame the buyers and inform their poor wives. The Minister of Justice at the time apparently thought it was a fantastic idea. That is until she got totally ripped to shreds by every legal instance in the country. They did not go thru with the idea. So it's kind of interesting then that Los Angeles apparently is picking of the torch. They should be prepared to be sued out of the last dollar they have, the amount of letters sent in errors that will ruin peoples reputations will be staggering.
http://www.thelocal.se/20100319/25636 [thelocal.se]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:04PM
What??? False accusations of criminal activity bothers people?
Weird!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:06PM
It's not crazy, it reflects the fact that the prostitute isn't the problem and focuses on the actual problem. That is the johns and pimps. It's like that hear now, a d none too soon.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 02 2015, @09:49PM
The problem is crack and heroin. We need far more mental health and drug treatment; I did first hand research for Mars, Ho!
(from the Notes section in the back of the book) [mcgrewbooks.com]
Buy 'em a beer and they'll tell you their life story. And usually will try to steal from you.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:05AM
How's it a problem if it's "willing buyer, willing seller"? The real problem I see is the lack of regulation and safe-guards which makes things dangerous[1].
Yeah it's terrible that prostitutes are "forced" to do stuff they don't like in order to earn big bucks. But I bet many of us are also "forced" to do stuff we don't like in order to earn smaller bucks. It's called a fucking job! ;)
[1] Stuff like streetwalking is dangerous because it's more likely the prostitute ends up in some unknown place with a stranger. If brothels were legal and properly regulated, then prostitutes would be just as at risk from getting abused by the brothel boss as fast food workers getting abused by their boss. e.g. you're probably going to get yelled at, but both bosses know that if they take things too far they might get in trouble.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by K_benzoate on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:54PM
Sweden's prostitution laws seem incredibly insulting to women especially. It is based on the idea that women shouldn't or can't be held responsible for their side of the interaction. It's refusing to treat them as equal adult humans out of some misguided and flawed interpretation of feminism. But this is Sweden so I'm not surprised. It's the country whose Foreign Minister (Margot Wallström) announced that they would have security and foreign policy based on feminism. [newyorker.com] Sweden is also the country that lightens the skin of criminals before pixelating their faces for broadcast because they believe showing black criminals is racist.
Sending shaming letters is incredibly ill-conceived on many levels. Since it's just based on geography in this case, it WILL have false-positives. And although there are technically no damages done in a strictly legal sense, it could cause all sorts of problems socially for wrongfully accused individuals. Woe to the husband whose car breaks down in that neighborhood and has to explain to his wife why he got that letter.
You wouldn't see these sorts of things proposed if it wasn't assumed (probably rightly) that the vast majority of people buying sex will be men.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @09:03AM
So basically, only go against terrorism that threats women? :-)
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 02 2015, @11:48PM
Which is why the only civilized response is to legalise prostitution.
In the country where I live, when AIDS became a threat, prostitutes were advised to use condoms, which makes sense. The police began arresting them if they caught them with condoms.
Eventually people woke up to the fact that there's a reason it's known as the oldest profession. No-one has ever managed to prevent prostitution, so why bother trying? Legalise and regulate it so that the prostitutes are safe and so are the johns and everyone's a winner.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:06PM
Someone asked, "How can we make a bad situation worse?" And, this was one of their "better" ideas.
Prostitution is real, and it's not going away. Supposedly "the worlds oldest profesion", it hasn't been stamped out in any country, or any religion, or any culture. It's here, and it's here to stay.
Criminalizing prostitution only encourages exploitation. The drug cartels in Mexico are more than enough proof that criminals will step in to cater to illegal clientele.
Criminalizing protitution isolates prostitutes from society - they lose most, if not all, of the benefits of being a member of society. They end up exploited by just plain pigs or men, by trafickers, by the cops, and just about everyone who knows them.
So, we have an already bad situation, and someone asked, "How can we make things worse?" Fine, we'll start guessing which cars in the neighborhood are there for the purpose of soliciting. And, we'll send these moronic letters to their home, hoping that the women in their lives open the letters.
Complete and utter idiots. This helps who, exactly? And, how does it help them?
The article is a very good read - anyone who skipped TFA missed out this time around.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:37PM
Criminalizing both sides just leads to exploitation. There's absolutely no reason not to criminalize the people that pay for sex or the pimps and human traffickers.
In the modern era, sex isn't exactly hard to get if you don't mind one night stands and going to questionable clubs. Nobody is mandating a relationship or marriage before sex in the US.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:26PM
There's absolutely no reason not to criminalize the people that pay for sex
There is: Freedom. If someone wants to sell sex, and someone else wants to pay for it, they should be able to do so; they own their own bodies. Your puritan, authoritarian nonsense should vanish from the face of the planet, however.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday December 03 2015, @06:41AM
You would say that. Infectious disease and human trafficking are pretty compelling reasons for it to be illegal. It's pretty damn hard to ensure that people are actually choosing to be prostitutes and not being coerced.
At some point most people grow up and realize that freedom isn't unlimited and that there are costs associated with civilization. I'm sure that Somalia is available for people like you that want freedom
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 03 2015, @06:57AM
You would say that. Infectious disease and human trafficking are pretty compelling reasons for it to be illegal.
No, because the fundamental right to control your own body is more important than petty safety concerns. Don't want diseases? Be careful about who you sleep with. Of course, even if there was no way to do that, I would still be against outlawing prostitution.
As for human trafficking, you're just insane. That's like saying we should ban Bittorrent software because it could be used to infringe upon copyrights. Advocating the ban of something merely because it could be abused makes you even more of an authoritarian. Ban sex trafficking, not prostitution. Hard to enforce? Too bad. We don't (or rather, shouldn't) make random things illegal simply to make the job of law enforcement easier.
Furthermore, some people suggest making it legal but regulating it (mandating protection, checking for diseases, etc.). Most of your specific issues with it should disappear at that point.
It's pretty damn hard to ensure that people are actually choosing to be prostitutes and not being coerced.
Man, properly enforcing the law sure is hard. Might as well just throw everyone in prison. Man, catching bad guys is so difficult. Might as well just give police the ability to bust into any house at any time and conduct searches; they might catch some bad guys, so it's worth it. Fuck freedom.
At some point most people grow up and realize that freedom isn't unlimited
Translation: "At some point, most people become authoritarians like me." No one said anything about unlimited freedom, but the fundamental right to control your own body is such an important and basic right that it's simply reprehensible to infringe upon it.
I don't care what "most people" support or reject, because popularity is irrelevant to me, at least in the sense that it won't cause me to alter my beliefs.
and that there are costs associated with civilization.
You made this assertion, but you have provided no evidence that civilization would magically collapse if we legalized prostitution.
And did you know that lots of people also support unconstitutional democracy-destroying mass surveillance? Maybe they would say the same thing as you, and suggest that most people grow up to accept their point of view and realize that it's a cost associated with civilization.
I'm sure that Somalia is available for people like you that want freedom
I'm sure North Korea would be the perfect country for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @09:17AM
Actually we should ban writing. There are so many bad things you can do with that technique it is not funny.
Writing promotes crime. You can write blackmail letters. You can defraud someone using written lies, even if you are exceptionally bad at lying face-to-face.
Writing supports terrorists. Terrorists can use writing to communicate and organize attacks. Writing can be used to produce and distribute descriptions on how to build bombs.
Writing harms the children. People can write child porn stories. Or simply stuff that's inappropriate for children.
Writing also can assist in sending state secrets to unauthorized parties. It therefore clearly threatens national security.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @09:20AM
Well, Germany did legalize prostitution, and it doesn't seem to have collapsed.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday December 03 2015, @06:35PM
You're a troll or a psychopath. Or perhaps mentally ill, but this dribble is what I've come to expect from you. Not one valid argument in the lot, most of them addressing things that I didn't say.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 03 2015, @10:00PM
Or perhaps mentally ill
Isn't a psychopath (which you mentioned as a possibility) considered mentally ill?
Not one valid argument in the lot
Strange. That's what I'd say about you.
most of them addressing things that I didn't say.
"You would say that. Infectious disease and human trafficking are pretty compelling reasons for it to be illegal."
My response to this was perfectly comprehensible. I rejected the notion that they are compelling reasons for it to be illegal, that the "human trafficking" bit suggests that we should ban something merely because it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and that some people support legalizing prostitution but regulating it in such a way that it greatly reduces the chances of either of your scenarios occurring. I don't see the problem here.
"It's pretty damn hard to ensure that people are actually choosing to be prostitutes and not being coerced."
I responded the way I did because it suggests that it is justifiable to ban something merely because it makes the law harder to enforce or because it could be abused.
"At some point most people grow up and realize that freedom isn't unlimited"
Now, here's where you seem to imply something about me that just isn't true: That I support unlimited freedom.
"and that there are costs associated with civilization."
Meaning what? There is no reason that it is necessarily to make prostitution illegal in order to have civilization. Why would that be a necessity or a cost that we must accept, especially considering that it is legal in some places?
If those don't address what you said, then you must be using a different language than me that looks exactly the same as English.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:21AM
You would say that. Infectious disease and human trafficking are pretty compelling reasons for it to be illegal.
So you're also going to ban people from having multiple sex partners FOR FREE? I'm pretty sure plenty of people would be fine with reinstating those "old school" laws where sex outside marriage is illegal and often punishable by death... ;)
The human trafficking problem is often because it's not legal. So the hookers are forced to put up with crappier conditions. Whereas fast-food workers know that if work conditions get too crap they can report their boss without themselves getting charged for a crime too.
There are other issues with human trafficking - to bypass immigration/border controls - but in many of those cases the "victims" aren't actually victims - they want to be "trafficked". Nobody kidnapped them. In many cases yes they get cheated - people told them lies (promises of high salary etc) they paid a fee and find out the salary and work aren't as promised. But this happens to other workers as well, not just prostitutes. So the solution should cover those workers as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @09:05PM
> Someone asked, "How can we make a bad situation worse?"
No they didn't and to characterize what happened like that is to utterly misunderstand how people work.
It makes for great rhetoric. But it's empty and useless rhetoric.
What actually happened is that they put ideology ahead of both empathy and practicality.
Sound like anyone you know?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:33PM
No they didn't and to characterize what happened like that is to utterly misunderstand how people work.
To not understand that people don't mean everything they say to be taken literally is to utterly misunderstand how people work, oh enlightened person.
What actually happened is that they put ideology ahead of both empathy and practicality.
Not to mention that their ideology doesn't favor freedom.
But "ideology" is such a dirty word. What we really need are more clear and sensible positions like yours, where you put forth the ideology that empathy and practicality are more important than ideology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:59PM
> To not understand that people don't mean everything they say to be taken literally is to utterly misunderstand how people work, oh enlightened person.
That's funny since you are literally taking my words literally. I'm talking about the idea expressed in those words. Nobody went into that intending to make the situation worse.
> where you put forth the ideology that empathy and practicality are more important than ideology.
I concede. Treating people like people instead of relying on some arbitrary set of rigid rules is definitely ideological. You got me sheldon cooper!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @11:39PM
Nobody went into that intending to make the situation worse.
Which is your problem: You took that statement literally. Does he literally believe people went into the situation intending to make things worse? I don't know, but I doubt it.
I concede. Treating people like people instead of relying on some arbitrary set of rigid rules is definitely ideological.
My problem is that you seem to treat "ideology" as a bad word, but you subscribe to ideologies yourself. They're just different from the ideologies other people subscribe to. Ideology shouldn't be a bad word, but you should argue in favor of the ones you think are correct instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @12:49AM
> . Does he literally believe people went into the situation intending to make things worse?
Have you seen his posting history?
The guy is not subtle.
> My problem is that you seem to treat "ideology" as a bad word,
I treat strict adherence to ideology as a bad thing. That sort of simplification is black and white thinking which is great for physics and software, but not so much for people. Empathy and practicality are pretty much the opposite of black and white thinking. They require human judgment on a case by case basis. If that counts as ideology in your book, then your dictionary has defined ideology in such a broad manner as to be meaningless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @01:02AM
I treat strict adherence to ideology as a bad thing.
I would say it depends on the ideology. I don't know every ideology that exists, so I can't say that strictly adhering to any ideology is necessarily bad.
If that counts as ideology in your book, then your dictionary has defined ideology in such a broad manner as to be meaningless.
The definition of ideology is broad in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @01:39AM
> I would say it depends on the ideology. I don't know every ideology that exists, so I can't say that strictly adhering to any ideology is necessarily bad.
Forest and trees man. It isn't necessarily the content of ideology that is bad. It is the strict adherence part that is bad.
> The definition of ideology is broad in the first place.
That's a false dichotomy. It isn't a case of "broad" versus "not broad" it is a case of "broad" versus "anything under the sun."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @02:00AM
That's a false dichotomy.
No, it's not. I simply called it broad. That's not a false dichotomy. I did not specify the exact degree to which it is broad, and nor did I say that "broad" and "not broad" were the only two things that exist.
It isn't a case of "broad" versus "not broad" it is a case of "broad" versus "anything under the sun."
The actual definition is pretty vague and closer to the latter, sadly. I didn't come up with it. That's why I generally don't even bother using such terms unless someone else brings them up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @03:15AM
No, it's not. I simply called it broad. That's not a false dichotomy. I did not specify the exact degree to which it is broad, and nor did I say that "broad" and "not broad" were the only two things that exist.
Jesus christ. For someone complaining about literalism, you are way too fucking literal.
You offered that up as an excuse as to why your meaninglessly broad definition was acceptable. The "I didn't literally say that" excuse is simple denialism.
The actual definition is pretty vague and closer to the latter, sadly.
So, lets think this through. You are complaining that I used a word with a definition that is so broad as to have no essentially meaning. And that's meaningful to you?
Fucking dictionary pedants. Context dude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:00AM
You offered that up as an excuse as to why your meaninglessly broad definition was acceptable. The "I didn't literally say that" excuse is simple denialism.
It's not denialism; it's just that you accused me of doing something I wasn't doing. I communicated my point by saying it's broad, and you somehow got from that
So, lets think this through. You are complaining that I used a word with a definition that is so broad as to have no essentially meaning.
Well, it began with you complaining about my use of the term being too broad, so I simply decided to point out that the actual definition is, in fact, extremely broad. I see this as valid.
Fucking dictionary pedants. Context dude.
Words have meanings. It seems to me that you were trying to redefine it to be less broad than it really is, without even being clear about how broad your new definition was.
(Score: 3, Informative) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:18PM
The city council voted Wednesday to ask the City Attorney’s office to examine sending so-called “John Letters,”
This would open up the city to libel suits, and I'm sure the City Attorney realizes this. Politicians come up with stupid ideas all the time. Only a small percentage of those stupid ideas are executed. This won't be one of them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:33PM
Man, would I ever love to read that response letter, though!
Hmm.....how do I word "Are you fucking retarded?" politely?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @03:53AM
Hmm.....how do I word "Are you fucking retarded?" politely?
"Are you f-word r-word?"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:35PM
...support the local economy by selling the CCTV footage to porn studios, after installing ground-level cameras for up-skirt shots. With the proceeds, the city could build barricades of burning tyres to block autos from those crime-prone streets.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:51PM
Privacy matters because laws are neither perfect nor incorruptible. The MAFIAA is only one group that would love to be able to monitor every download, every exchange of information, so they could collect rent for eternity. Another group that would love that is publishers. They wish to hold the education of our children hostage, for money. Education is, after all, very valuable. Police are another group that always seeks more power, taking an amoral and mindless stance that they wish only to be able to better enforce the laws, no matter how horrible those laws may be. Lot of them just don't care about possible unintended consequences. Such as, blackmail.
This stupid idea is ripe for all kinds of abuse. Doesn't matter if you weren't soliciting, just having your license plate number in this database is an accusation that may not be easy to settle. Perhaps the city will ask for a "fee" to cover the expenses of administering the database to remove your info.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:36PM
Use of license plate readers by the government should simply be illegal.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Cognizant on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:55PM
Need to make up some fake plates for officials in the state and see if they keep the program going after the mayors and such get those letters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:15PM
> Need to make up some fake plates for officials in the state and see if they keep the program going after the mayors and such get those letters.
Easy-peasy. Just get the right font and print it on a piece of paper. Those cameras can't tell the difference between a real plate and the cheapest facsimile. Vehicle registration records are usually public information too. Or at least public enough that the state will sell a copy of the database to anyone with a couple of thousand dollars so any of the data brokers should let you look it up in their copy for a couple of bucks.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday December 02 2015, @09:05PM
Mayors and stuff are probably stopping there anyway. They'll no doubt have a list of "do-not-mail" plates.
Add in your local fox news and talk radio reporters to get them riled up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:57PM
from the you're-kidding,-right? dept.
Heavens, no! I'm pre-kidding.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:03PM
Buzzard should be along any minute to defend the city council's plan. He's very pro-shaming:
Shame is a valuable tool that has been used to correct thought and behavior for thousands of years and it is a sword I intend to wield whenever I see it as appropriate.
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=10749&cid=267014#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by tibman on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:08PM
Are you pre-shaming him for defending shaming?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:12PM
> Are you pre-shaming him for defending shaming?
What's good for the goose is good for the buzzard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:35PM
There is making a point with rhetorical tools and there is hypocrisy. When a thought is applied to an instance unbecoming, that is the moment you become a hypocrite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:39PM
Is that a poem? Because it sounds like liberal nonsense.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:24PM
There is making a point with rhetorical tools
and there is hypocrisy, used only by fools
When a thought is applied to an instance unbecoming,
that is the moment in you a hypocrite is forthcoming
(Score: 4, Funny) by Gravis on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:35PM
how is that going to work? the man is shameless!
(Score: 2) by rob_on_earth on Thursday December 03 2015, @11:39AM
From the future news department;
"After just one year of instating the controversial 'John letters' the Los Angeles City Council contractor's website was broken into and over 4 million records stolen. Reports are coming in that the addresses are receiving both ransom demands and religious paraphernalia, this follows the 73 domestic violence cases reportedly related to receiving the letters, which resulted in 17 deaths".