7 ms·

The premise of the article has almost nothing to do with current events. One can dislike how/why DHS was created and also believe that order needs to be restor

The premise of the article has almost nothing to do with current events. One can dislike how/why DHS was created and also believe that order needs to be restored the area by the feds. As for the "unmarked cars" picking people up, what is actually happening to these people? Is it catch and release? It seems pretty tame to me. Should they just let the protesters/rioters burn down the courthouse? As to whether they are protesters or rioters, ask whether you think Peter Schiff could do what he did during occupy and stroll into the crowd attempting to debate and defend capitalism with the folk (which I think he failed to do at all, but more just the fact he was able to try it there is significant)? The answer is of course not; he'd probably be beaten or severely injured.

annoyingnoob 6y ago
>As for the "unmarked cars" picking people up, what is actually happening to these people? Is it catch and release? It seems pretty tame to me. Its illegal to detain people for no reason. How will you feel when it happens to you? > Should they just let the protesters/rioters burn down the courthouse? That is an interesting perspective. And its one that a lot of people currently hold toward the police. Does one (or even a few) bad apple spoil the bunch? Do you think that protesters like the Navy Vet, Naked Athena, the Wall of Moms, and even the Mayor of Portland really want to burn down a Federal building?
- sky_lounge 6y ago
  > Its illegal to detain people for no reason. I agree and I find these events troubling. But I also want to put them in perspective. > Does one (or even a few) bad apple spoil the bunch? I don't understand the point you're making here. > Do you think that protesters like the Navy Vet, Naked Athena, the Wall of Moms, and even the Mayor of Portland really want to burn down a Federal building? As another commenter said, there are about 3 different groups with different adgendas operating in the area.
  - annoyingnoob 6y ago
    Who exactly is calling for the the courthouse to burn? That is my point, while there may be some troublemakers the vast majority are not. While some find calls to defund the police offensive, others find the call to stop people from exercising their rights offensive.
    - sky_lounge 6y ago
      > Who exactly is calling for the the courthouse to burn? The point of a mob is that having diffuse boundaries there is no central leader, planning, or accountability
      - annoyingnoob 6y ago
        > there is no central leader, planning, or accountability So the response should be police with no identification, planning, or accountability? And assault everyone?
        sky_lounge 6y ago
        > police with no identification https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portland/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portlan... If this happened at all, there have only been 2 possible cases, and given that extent, we are not talking about a widespread phenomenon. The scope of the discussion and ramifications should account for that. > police with no.. planning, or accountability? Yes, I think an institution has a lot more of those things than a mob does. And just because that is true doesn't mean police need to be reformed. But i'm responding to your direct coments. > And assault everyone? Are they 'assaulting everyone?" I don't know what events you're talking about anymore.
        annoyingnoob 6y ago
        You admit that there are possible cases where human rights were violated and yet you see no problem with that - that goes directly against our constitution and our natural rights as humans. So far there has been no accountability for the Feds. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/26/leaf-blower-wars-how-portland-protesters-are-fighting-back-against-tear-gas-forming-walls-veterans-lawyers-nurses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/26/leaf-blower... "Typically, police fire the agent once or twice to clear crowds and encourage people to move away from an area, said Michelle Heisler, the medical director of Physicians for Human Rights. But in Portland, federal agents have been unleashing the chemicals repeatedly for hours. This sustained cascade makes it difficult for peaceful demonstrators to avoid being hit and runs the risk of ensnaring bystanders in the area, she said." I find it sad that you hold the symbolism of a building over the lives and fair treatment of your countrymen.
- voodootrucker 6y ago
  This hasn't been true for the CBP for a long time. They can legally ignore the 4th amendment, among other extra-constitutional authorities. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- koheripbal 6y ago
  No reason? They are literally trying to set fire to the Federal Courthouse in Portland.
happytoexplain 6y ago
You don't know what's happening to the taken people, but it seems pretty tame to you? >Should they just let the protesters/rioters burn down the courthouse? You're implying a binary, which is a common fallacy. It's not helpful, and is in fact provocative, to respond to critics of some behavior to the effect of, "So, what, they should do the extreme opposite thing?"
- sky_lounge 6y ago
  attempts to launch fireworks/mortars into the windows of the courthouse is not a binary or a fallacy. > You don't know what's happening to the taken people, but it seems pretty tame to you? I don't think they're being killed/maimed/"dissapeared" (south american style) as another commenter put it, but i agree that detainment without identification is a problem and it should stop.
  - annoyingnoob 6y ago
    The response should be proportionate to the act. Its inappropriate to punish many for the acts of a few.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
brett-k 6y ago
Oof. If terrorizing protestors that are leaving the protest while having committed no crimes and only exercised their first amendment rights is “tame” to you, there remains some questions about your tolerance for tyranny.
- platz 6y ago
  You inserted a lot of qualifiers in your characterization of the protesters. - terrorizing - while having committed no crimes - only exercised their first amendment rights I haven't seen the evidence for or against those - I'm not sure how you know in each of those cases what actually happened either. I do think the unmarked arrests should stop though
throwlogon 6y ago
A burnt-down courthouse is less of a threat to civil liberties than actual paramilitaries literally grabbing people off of the streets. We're better off when vandals are the bad guys, rather than state security. EDIT: I'm not sure why I took your false dichotomy at face value in the first place. A burnt-down courthouse and an informal military occupation aren't the only two options; but even if they were, the former is preferable.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I disagree. A mob burning down a courthouse isn't a minor thing: it's a clear symbolic statement that the justice system is illegitimate, the law has no power, and mob rule should be established. If I were confident that everyone would peacefully disperse and things would return to normal, I'd be all in favor of letting it burn, but I'd expect to just see more arson.
  - armada651 6y ago
    As the person above you has said, it's a false dichotomy. We can both respect people's civil liberties and prevent federal buildings from burning down. He's saying that if those were the only choices he'd prefer those buildings burning down over the suspension of civil liberties. But they are not the only choices, we can protect both. It's not easy, but it's worth it.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I'm not sure we can. What ideas do you have in mind? The obvious strategy would be for local leaders to show up in person to express sympathy and solidarity with the cause, but that's been tried and doesn't seem to have changed anything. I've seen some people float "do everything the mob demands so they won't have to follow through on their threats", but I hope we can agree that doing that would itself constitute mob rule.
      - armada651 6y ago

annoyingnoob 6y ago

>As for the "unmarked cars" picking people up, what is actually happening to these people? Is it catch and release? It seems pretty tame to me. Its illegal to detain people for no reason. How will you feel when it happens to you? > Should they just let the protesters/rioters burn down the courthouse? That is an interesting perspective. And its one that a lot of people currently hold toward the police. Does one (or even a few) bad apple spoil the bunch? Do you think that protesters like the Navy Vet, Naked Athena, the Wall of Moms, and even the Mayor of Portland really want to burn down a Federal building?

sky_lounge 6y ago
> Its illegal to detain people for no reason. I agree and I find these events troubling. But I also want to put them in perspective. > Does one (or even a few) bad apple spoil the bunch? I don't understand the point you're making here. > Do you think that protesters like the Navy Vet, Naked Athena, the Wall of Moms, and even the Mayor of Portland really want to burn down a Federal building? As another commenter said, there are about 3 different groups with different adgendas operating in the area.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  Who exactly is calling for the the courthouse to burn? That is my point, while there may be some troublemakers the vast majority are not. While some find calls to defund the police offensive, others find the call to stop people from exercising their rights offensive.
  - sky_lounge 6y ago
    > Who exactly is calling for the the courthouse to burn? The point of a mob is that having diffuse boundaries there is no central leader, planning, or accountability
    - annoyingnoob 6y ago
      > there is no central leader, planning, or accountability So the response should be police with no identification, planning, or accountability? And assault everyone?
      - sky_lounge 6y ago
        > police with no identification https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portland/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portlan... If this happened at all, there have only been 2 possible cases, and given that extent, we are not talking about a widespread phenomenon. The scope of the discussion and ramifications should account for that. > police with no.. planning, or accountability? Yes, I think an institution has a lot more of those things than a mob does. And just because that is true doesn't mean police need to be reformed. But i'm responding to your direct coments. > And assault everyone? Are they 'assaulting everyone?" I don't know what events you're talking about anymore.
        annoyingnoob 6y ago
        You admit that there are possible cases where human rights were violated and yet you see no problem with that - that goes directly against our constitution and our natural rights as humans. So far there has been no accountability for the Feds. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/26/leaf-blower-wars-how-portland-protesters-are-fighting-back-against-tear-gas-forming-walls-veterans-lawyers-nurses/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/26/leaf-blower... "Typically, police fire the agent once or twice to clear crowds and encourage people to move away from an area, said Michelle Heisler, the medical director of Physicians for Human Rights. But in Portland, federal agents have been unleashing the chemicals repeatedly for hours. This sustained cascade makes it difficult for peaceful demonstrators to avoid being hit and runs the risk of ensnaring bystanders in the area, she said." I find it sad that you hold the symbolism of a building over the lives and fair treatment of your countrymen.
voodootrucker 6y ago
This hasn't been true for the CBP for a long time. They can legally ignore the 4th amendment, among other extra-constitutional authorities. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
koheripbal 6y ago
No reason? They are literally trying to set fire to the Federal Courthouse in Portland.

happytoexplain 6y ago

You don't know what's happening to the taken people, but it seems pretty tame to you? >Should they just let the protesters/rioters burn down the courthouse? You're implying a binary, which is a common fallacy. It's not helpful, and is in fact provocative, to respond to critics of some behavior to the effect of, "So, what, they should do the extreme opposite thing?"

sky_lounge 6y ago
attempts to launch fireworks/mortars into the windows of the courthouse is not a binary or a fallacy. > You don't know what's happening to the taken people, but it seems pretty tame to you? I don't think they're being killed/maimed/"dissapeared" (south american style) as another commenter put it, but i agree that detainment without identification is a problem and it should stop.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  The response should be proportionate to the act. Its inappropriate to punish many for the acts of a few.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

brett-k 6y ago

Oof. If terrorizing protestors that are leaving the protest while having committed no crimes and only exercised their first amendment rights is “tame” to you, there remains some questions about your tolerance for tyranny.

platz 6y ago
You inserted a lot of qualifiers in your characterization of the protesters. - terrorizing - while having committed no crimes - only exercised their first amendment rights I haven't seen the evidence for or against those - I'm not sure how you know in each of those cases what actually happened either. I do think the unmarked arrests should stop though

throwlogon 6y ago

A burnt-down courthouse is less of a threat to civil liberties than actual paramilitaries literally grabbing people off of the streets. We're better off when vandals are the bad guys, rather than state security. EDIT: I'm not sure why I took your false dichotomy at face value in the first place. A burnt-down courthouse and an informal military occupation aren't the only two options; but even if they were, the former is preferable.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I disagree. A mob burning down a courthouse isn't a minor thing: it's a clear symbolic statement that the justice system is illegitimate, the law has no power, and mob rule should be established. If I were confident that everyone would peacefully disperse and things would return to normal, I'd be all in favor of letting it burn, but I'd expect to just see more arson.
- armada651 6y ago
  As the person above you has said, it's a false dichotomy. We can both respect people's civil liberties and prevent federal buildings from burning down. He's saying that if those were the only choices he'd prefer those buildings burning down over the suspension of civil liberties. But they are not the only choices, we can protect both. It's not easy, but it's worth it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I'm not sure we can. What ideas do you have in mind? The obvious strategy would be for local leaders to show up in person to express sympathy and solidarity with the cause, but that's been tried and doesn't seem to have changed anything. I've seen some people float "do everything the mob demands so they won't have to follow through on their threats", but I hope we can agree that doing that would itself constitute mob rule.
    - armada651 6y ago