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.
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.