If you think the purpose of living your one single life in the universe is to become a CEO, you have a failure of imagination and should likely be debanked to protect society.
I think that is becoming a less and less ridiculous scenario over time and I hope blue state governors have had long conversations with their national guard leadership about it.
Have you stopped to consider how you got to the point that you are defending this. Like, I get sort of working this over in your mind to yourself, but you have gone out of your way to excuse a cop gunning down a mom that just dropped off her kid at school. She had stuffed animals sitting in her dashboard. Her kid is an orphan. You didn't have to do this. You could have just stayed silent. Now you're the guy that is going to defend secret police murdering people in broad daylight.
I have been curious about this as well. So far what I have discovered, for a significant section, it is schadenfreude borne out of their past injustice. It roughly translates to: nobody was on my side when I was kicked down and this is my moment to rejoice where others like the victim do not have privilege to human dignity either and therefore assuaging the previous resentful assumptions to the contrary.
I think this situation is very tragic, and I wish it had not happened.
The reason I am taking this stance, is because I think that, unless they are fine with becoming a martyr, people should not go and mess with government officers in the streets.
Yeah, I know: “victim blaming”, but there is a difference between officers descending upon a blameless victim vs. you going out looking to make trouble with authority. Even in the first case, the right thing to do (if you value your life) is to comply with the instructions (even if illegal) and challenge them in court later.
What if the instructions they give you would be to submit to them while they assaulted you, sexually or physically? Are you supposed to comply and then challenge them in court later?
That is a thing that happens. Rarely, I suppose, and #notallpolice and all that, but the idea that we should live in a country where everyone just has to "comply" with the instructions or be murdered is ridiculous.
Do you recognize the freedom and comforts you enjoy is due to the tiny brave and unhinged section of population willing to take actions against their self-interest? It is reasonable you yourself won't take the risk but discrediting those who do is another low.
What leverage do the citizens have when government can illegally constraint their rights including the right to justice in the courts which you speak of?
How would you challenge these masked gunmen when they have legal immunity conferred by the fascist in charge? How successful is your approach for the sitting president with criminal history and redacted links to Epstein? Are you willfully feigning ignorance of how fascism works?
Are you joking? It's trivially easy to drop the err or just not handle it accidentally in ways that are essentially impossible in rust. Especially when people re-use the `err` variable.
> What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
>I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
Jailing Hitler sure stopped his movement in its tracks! Or maybe we should have gone even further and set a precedent for to jail people for decades for having "dangerous" political opinions?
While I agree that the question of "are we jailing this person for their political opinions" gets into skeevy areas, if we refuse to enforce laws just because elections and politics are involved we might as well not have any laws that involve elections and politics (and I don't think "lawlessness starts at the top" is a recipe for a healthy society).
The dirty secret about American politics is that people care about any of that stuff only to the extent that it supports their actual ideological goals. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, state's rights, all of it. They want it for them, and don't care if anybody else has it _at best_, and actively want to take it away from others at worst.
Documents like the Declaration and Constitution only get written after centuries of bloodshed that we are far removed from, and people forget why anybody cared about such abstract principles to begin with.
Um, what "ideological goals"? "My friends and I get to do anything we want and fuck everybody else" isn't much of an ideology. Ideology means "abstract principles".
reply