5 ms·

I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-sides-ing. States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police, which is something they have alw

I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-sides-ing. States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police, which is something they have always done. How they handled protests is worth criticism e.g. I don't like that they use curfews to suddenly make protesters breaking the law. I don't like the use of tear gas on otherwise peaceful protestors. As a note, these are state / city officials not federal guidance typically. However, The current administration, Donald Trump, the president of the united states, and the top most members of his cabinet, as a federal, top-down policy will: - Automatically identify protesters - Arrest them for simply saying things the admin doesn't like. - Bypass due-process. - Will ship them to a gulag outside of the united states. - Are on track to be found in contempt of court for refusing to bring back a lawful resident. Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.

notjoemama 1y ago
The rules state you need to stay on topic. Your reply violates that requirement. If you want to discuss politics instead of the technology of the post, feel free to engage other social media networks, Reddit would be a much better fit for the kind of discussion you are directing people to engage in. In the interests of fostering better quality dialogue, I think you could have replied something like, “Democrats did (X in relation to technology) where Republicans have done (Y in relation to technology). It would have accomplished the same thing and at least stayed in relation to the topic.
- cap11235 1y ago
  [flagged]
morkalork 1y ago
I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even comparable to what we're witnessing now.
- blix 1y ago
  Obama also created ICE as we know it today. And normalized drone strikes.
  - sightbroke 1y ago
    How are drone strikes any different than a pilot, a warplane, and advanced precision bombs/missiles? Except they're cheaper to run and don't physically risk a pilot.
    - blix 1y ago
      The issue is not really with the difference in impact between drone attacks and other types of aerial attacks, but with the dramatic increase in scale, resulting from reduced cost and risk. It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "mass extra-judicial assasination/execution of individuals opaquely labelled as 'militants,' including US citizens, in foreign jurisdictions" instead of "drone strikes," but the latter is shorter and I thought would be understood as implying the former.
      - sightbroke 1y ago
        That appears to be an issue of policy not one of technology. Because they'd more than likely target those same individuals with less precise weapons if not for the given alternative.
        blix 1y ago
        The technology enables the policy. If the cost and risk were higher, there would be fewer strikes.
        sightbroke 1y ago
        They invaded two countries simultaneously (one landlocked). Then used secret stealth helicopters to fly a hit squad into an allied nations territory for one particular individual. I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.
sepositus 1y ago
> Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done. I think you might have missed the point. The way I read the comment, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that this sort of power creep was inevitable. Which administration it happened under is likely an influencing factor, but to think it was never going to happen seems a bit far-fetched at this point.
- knowsuchagency 1y ago
  No, he didn’t miss the point. “Power creep” doesn’t necessitate or justify the behavior of this administration.
  - sepositus 1y ago
    > “Power creep” doesn’t necessitate or justify the behavior of this administration. Well, neither one of those words showed up in my comment. I said that, based on the growth of this technology, power abuse was inevitable. Not justified, not necessary, simply the natural outcome of such things as history has shown us time and again.

notjoemama 1y ago

The rules state you need to stay on topic. Your reply violates that requirement. If you want to discuss politics instead of the technology of the post, feel free to engage other social media networks, Reddit would be a much better fit for the kind of discussion you are directing people to engage in. In the interests of fostering better quality dialogue, I think you could have replied something like, “Democrats did (X in relation to technology) where Republicans have done (Y in relation to technology). It would have accomplished the same thing and at least stayed in relation to the topic.

cap11235 1y ago
[flagged]

morkalork 1y ago

I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even comparable to what we're witnessing now.

blix 1y ago
Obama also created ICE as we know it today. And normalized drone strikes.
- sightbroke 1y ago
  How are drone strikes any different than a pilot, a warplane, and advanced precision bombs/missiles? Except they're cheaper to run and don't physically risk a pilot.
  - blix 1y ago
    The issue is not really with the difference in impact between drone attacks and other types of aerial attacks, but with the dramatic increase in scale, resulting from reduced cost and risk. It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "mass extra-judicial assasination/execution of individuals opaquely labelled as 'militants,' including US citizens, in foreign jurisdictions" instead of "drone strikes," but the latter is shorter and I thought would be understood as implying the former.
    - sightbroke 1y ago
      That appears to be an issue of policy not one of technology. Because they'd more than likely target those same individuals with less precise weapons if not for the given alternative.
      - blix 1y ago
        The technology enables the policy. If the cost and risk were higher, there would be fewer strikes.
        sightbroke 1y ago
        They invaded two countries simultaneously (one landlocked). Then used secret stealth helicopters to fly a hit squad into an allied nations territory for one particular individual. I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.

sepositus 1y ago

> Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done. I think you might have missed the point. The way I read the comment, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that this sort of power creep was inevitable. Which administration it happened under is likely an influencing factor, but to think it was never going to happen seems a bit far-fetched at this point.

knowsuchagency 1y ago
No, he didn’t miss the point. “Power creep” doesn’t necessitate or justify the behavior of this administration.
- sepositus 1y ago
  > “Power creep” doesn’t necessitate or justify the behavior of this administration. Well, neither one of those words showed up in my comment. I said that, based on the growth of this technology, power abuse was inevitable. Not justified, not necessary, simply the natural outcome of such things as history has shown us time and again.