it seems dumb on the face of it, but in the intended chain of events is only the cop who kills the guy for being homeless violating the NAP?
the comment is saying the signal-boosting is a clear violation of the NAP, which is certainly hilarious for the "clear" part
-
-
but, like, the intended result of the signal boosting is person becomes unemployable > becomes unemployed > becomes homeless > dies
-
so i'm trying to make sure i know why it actually isn't a violation of the NAP in a non-UBI society that kills its poor
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.