I’m not talking about what you do in your personal capacity. I’m talking about the state and it’s monopoly on violence. I don’t care if a Nazi calls me a Nazi. I do care if the state labels me a subversive and uses its collective authority to jail me.
So never arrest anyone, because it might happen for bad reasons. Yeah? Recognizing intolerable abuses of power and also wanting power used appropriately is a contradiction somehow. Fighting any problem via the state is bad because what if they lie and fight not-that.
Not really, you’re just wrong. Or at least applying your clever-feeling rationale too narrowly. The same assholes who will “label you a subversive” are just as likely to “label you a terrorist.” Does that mean the state should avoid fighting terrorism… just in case?
This is barely a hypothetical, given the insanity of GWB-era anti-terrorism bullshit. People against that counterfactual abuse of innocents, under color of law, were not generally against having laws. Are you saying they should have been? Because I’m not seeing much daylight between “some dipshits will redefine what hateful means” and “some dipshits will redefine what dangerous means.” Or what violent means. Or what harmful means. Or whatever your standard is, for when the state should do a thing.
I really have to highlight what an aggravating demand for effort this reply was. It offers nothing. It could be used anywhere. It does not demonstrate so much as having read what the other party wrote. It’s an erudite version of “bless your heart.”
I’m not talking about what you do in your personal capacity. I’m talking about the state and it’s monopoly on violence. I don’t care if a Nazi calls me a Nazi. I do care if the state labels me a subversive and uses its collective authority to jail me.
So never arrest anyone, because it might happen for bad reasons. Yeah? Recognizing intolerable abuses of power and also wanting power used appropriately is a contradiction somehow. Fighting any problem via the state is bad because what if they lie and fight not-that.
Seems we’re at an impasse.
Not really, you’re just wrong. Or at least applying your clever-feeling rationale too narrowly. The same assholes who will “label you a subversive” are just as likely to “label you a terrorist.” Does that mean the state should avoid fighting terrorism… just in case?
This is barely a hypothetical, given the insanity of GWB-era anti-terrorism bullshit. People against that counterfactual abuse of innocents, under color of law, were not generally against having laws. Are you saying they should have been? Because I’m not seeing much daylight between “some dipshits will redefine what hateful means” and “some dipshits will redefine what dangerous means.” Or what violent means. Or what harmful means. Or whatever your standard is, for when the state should do a thing.
I really have to highlight what an aggravating demand for effort this reply was. It offers nothing. It could be used anywhere. It does not demonstrate so much as having read what the other party wrote. It’s an erudite version of “bless your heart.”
Your restraint in not downvoting them is impressive. Some people are simply incapable of reflection, I suppose.