5 ms·

This is really just an attack on non-wealthy people. If you're fucking wealthy, it's also very easy to move money for fraud, drugs, murder, literally anything.

• dymk 3y ago
  It’s an attack on criminals, not non-wealthy people
  • cnity 3y ago
    But the attack is biased towards only the non-wealthy subset of criminals (par for the course), ipso facto it is an attack on the non-wealthy.
    • b112 3y ago
      But the attack is biased towards only the non-wealthy subset of criminals Oh no! Please, oh please, let's protect these fiscally impoverished criminals. What horrible social injustice! Good grief. Just give it a rest please? Ridiculous.
      • cnity 3y ago
        I think you misunderstand my comment as an appraisal of crime, or something. My point is that wealthy financial criminals get off the hook way too freely, and that this is the injustice (relax, I'm not the justice warrior you think I am).
    • dymk 3y ago
      It’s an attack on water drinkers, air breathers, etc etc
  • lanternfish 3y ago
    Specifically, it's an attack on non-wealthy criminals and not wealthy criminals
• mcosta 3y ago
  So what?
• krisoft 3y ago
  > This is really just an attack on non-wealthy people. It is not an an attack. Neither is it an "attack". Nobody got hurt, nobody needs stitches, nobody was in fear for their life, autonomy, or well-being. Nobody brandished weapons, nobody damaged physical objects. That is why it is not an attack. In modern parlance people started calling it an "attack" when someone was ever slo slightly mean to them. I think this usage is contemptible and should be called out. It devalues the meaning of the word. If a market participant publishing research is now an attack then what will you call when someone throws a punch and breaks a nose, or douses someone with gasoline and lights them on fire, or fires an intercontinental ballistic missile at a city?