When you have such stark financial and class inequality in a dense urban environment like the bay, being mugged of your iPhone occasionally is literally seen as a kind of moral tax that you pay for your gentrifying presence. To defend yourself from it would be politically incorrect, both individually to the "victim" of your self-defense, and to your class as a whole, as you should essentially accept the mugging as a tax on your privileged position in the cultural landscape.

I know many tech workers who live/lived in Oakland who have been mugged (including pistol-whippings), who essentially just accepted it. Some did not even report it to the police, as in their world-view, to do so would be to enlisting an inherently oppressive, violent and racist force.

Seriously, how do selfish, cowardly, sociopaths like yourself continue to operate in this world. The last people on Earth thst should be given weapons are people like you.

I didn't once advocate for, or even once mention, guns in this situation (obviously shooting at a crowd of people on a busy train is an absolutely terrible idea for a whopping number of reasons) - but now I - a person you have never interacted with previously - am a "selfish, cowardly sociopath" for simply explaining the attitude that accepts the fact that, as you put it, "robbery happens", that it is better to let 50 teenage gang members assault and rob a train full of passengers than to threaten a single one of them.

In fact, I never even actually disagreed with you! I'm just trying to explain to any other Europeans reading this the context of how your comments could possibly make sense, because outside of the Bay Area bubble, they seem quite shockingly absurd.

That's the robber's call to make, not yours.

On the other hand, they're threatening the lives of random innocent people over something as trivial as a phone, so why should we value their lives particularly highly?

Why are you singling out rich people that drive drunk?

By your reasoning, we should give less value to their lives.

How might we act on that lower valuation? We might demonstrate that we don't value a mugger's life very highly by shooting him in the act. How would we demonstrate that we don't value a drunk driver's life very highly? Shoot the car with a rocket launcher?

Because they're threatening the lives of random innocent people over something as trivial as a their easiness to avoid problems with the law.

> How would we demonstrate that we don't value a drunk driver's life very highly?

Putting them on jail the same way we do with people that steal iphones. I mean Literally the same way, with a lot of punches and armlocks.

You're suggesting that rich people commonly drive drunk solely because they get some kind of thrill out of endangering the lives of innocent people and being able to get out of the consequences more easily than other people?

Putting them on jail the same way we do with people that steal iphones. I mean Literally the same way, with a lot of punches and armlocks.

We're not talking about what happens to them after they no longer pose a threat to innocent people. The purpose of shooting a mugger is not to punish the mugger, it's to prevent harm from coming to you.

How do you know GP voted for Trump? Why jump to that conclusion and why is that relevant in this case? Gary Johnson had just as a "liberal" gun control agenda as Trump perhaps...

That's the interesting thing there. I mentioned the other day about how irrationality is getting out of hand. It seems like people try too hard, go overboard and then hurt their own cause. "Everyone I don't like is a Trump supporter" is not a great way to win arguments or advance your agenda. It seems cathartic, and that's nice, but that's about it. After that is just discredits your argument.

Of course a phone is not worth a life. That is not what this is about.

I'd take one dude with an iPhone over an arbitrary number of people who premeditate assault and theft.