Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
Mixed fiction and non-fiction with no warning label on where the transition occurs is the sort of thing that can end with false information stuck in somebody's head and propagating. Spoilers or not, I'd put a warning sign on it.
This is, somewhat unbelievably, the first take of yours that has annoyed me. All of your other ones were great, including and especially the ones that made people maddest.
I am a bit torn - when I got up to the fake Calvinist, I had to question the connection to reality, and felt a bit annoyed about "fake facts."
But, the key thing is that it isn't such a good essay. British anti terror law is an extension of prescribing traitorous nobles. That is
decker i'm trusting you enough to make me read sam kriss, i hope you understand the magnitude of this decision
Sam Kriss is incredible, I love all his work. Maybe the best style of any blogger ever.
Regrettably--because it pains me to agree with you--that essay was amazing.
i consider moralizing on X to be pretty lame, but im genuinely unclear why people dont block you for misleading them with this post.
Laws are a means to an end. They offer up varying levels of resistance based on said ends.
This is really all it boils down to. The world is too complicated for Hammurabi style laws to be perfectly sufficient. The informational requirement is too large. There is too much noise
GIF
Not an essay if it’s fiction. I think this is (unintentional?) misinfo. It’s definitely mislabeling, with you not issuing a correction after being called out.
(From all the context clues I also assumed this was a true story, up until you got called out.)
I really enjoyed this essay. I kept waiting to read something that addresses Terry Prachett's critique of modern law, which is that is enforced unevenly based on who has power and can get someone to enforce the law. (He called this "private law" or "privilege"). Didn't see it.
I'll be surprised if it beats this one out. But I'm going to give it a chance.
Started strong but couldn’t hold it
Also he’s wrong about classified US law—it’s about defining limits of surveillance powers, not a penal code
What's the second half... for? Is there some really good punchline I lack cultural context for? Or is it supposed to be a cautionary tale... against the most scooby doo chase sequence ass legal proceedings imaginable? I'm genuinely open to understand what's supposedly great here
Well written but mostly fictional and not in an obvious way, which is repulsive. Bad recommendation
Starts okay but then turns into made up stories presented as historical events...
Really is a good essay; fascinating! Doing the Trevor Moore bit in the first bit is also pretty funny, honestly.
I’m sure the guy with a pedo flag and “Palestine Action” is gonna link to some great material.
What percentage of us were too dumb to realize that the Craven storyline was pure fiction? I was so excited about discovering this hidden history that it didn’t occur to me that it was all an invention.
It seems to be wrong though. Both Hammurabi and biblical law appear not to have been used as codifications of law, but rather as general statements of values which judges contradicted when justice required it. See Joshua Berman, "What Is This Thing Called Law?" available online
It's a huge chore to read and all the points are very obvious. Perfect for the substack crowd!
“British antiterror law is bizarre, but despite their stronger attachment to the vague idea of free speech the Americans aren’t really much better. US intelligence agencies are allowed to operate under classified interpretations of legislation like the PATRIOT Act.” These are not
The article confuses being “spiritually free” with having no moral responsibility.