Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Alright, that's coming down to a poorly defined hellfire line, again. Can you roll in the bear cats if a few guys at an Occupy protest have rifles slung? One guy?

One guy in his house refusing to pay his property taxes?

I'd argue that in, all of those cases, unless they're shooting at someone, police shouldn't be aggressing things.

I'd mostly agree, but they're again pretty significantly different situations. You might draw parallel with the former if they're explicitly threatening violence during the process and it's not an open carry state, but if they're there peaceably and not breaking any laws, then it's probably not something to be dealt with. This situation... ain't that. This isn't one or two folks showing up at a protest in an open carry area with weapons slung, this is multiple dozen threatening explicit violence (which is by and large the big thing, here, imo -- someone with a gun saying they're going to kill people is roughly where you stop screwing around) and overtly breaking the law in the process. I'd probably guess the closest previous similarity would be some of the Panther action a ways back, but even then most of that was damned different.

The latter, there's not really much parallel at all, and it's something that's relatively likely to get your arse shot if you're armed and belligerent (which, again, this lot is), and definitely likely to get you put in jail or a psychiatric hospital -- far as I'm aware, police in that situation tend to aggress pretty rapidly if you don't let yourself get talked down pretty quick. They don't just back off and let you twiddle around just because you've got a gun. Firearm ain't gonna' get you out of breakin' the law, especially if you're threatening violence and displayin' capability to inflict it.

... is the concept that armed belligerence is something that needs to be stopped pretty rapidly really something I've having that much difficulty expressing in a way that gets across? Especially when it's as incredibly blatant as something like this situation? Rule of thumb's really kinda' simple -- if you want to use the threat of firearm use to make a point, you make it implicit and don't make the first move. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what happening in this situation. Going past that is what normally gets people shot. Can argue it shouldn't, I guess, but still.

---

Though I guess if we're armchairing similar situations, I'd call dead-on being something along the lines of a gang squatting in a post office on the outskirts of a town. Broke in during the hols/weekend, saying they're shoot the first pig that tries to get 'em out. Ain't actually shot, yet, but I'd say we're both pretty damn certain there wouldn't be too terrible much talking or waiting in that situation. Maybe there should be, but there wouldn't be.

I agree, they're probably wouldn't be. But even if that gang had the thinnest veneer of it being political action, that's a completely different kettle of fish. In any case, it's more than easy enough for the government to conjure a casus belli and roll in with extreme prejudice, but it'd be questionable legally, very questionable morally, and questionable practically, once the riot and outrage machines start pumping.

[SalmonGod]

What progressive media is mainstream?  And I've never seen leftist politicians protect leftist protesters who got in trouble with the law.

MSNBC, Huffington Post, Guardian, CNN, BBC 2000-2015

I admit I don't pay much attention to them, but I've never heard of MSNBC and CNN suggested to be in the same political realm as the others on your list.  Just because they're not as reactionary as Fox News doesn't make them especially progressive.  I wouldn't count on anyone I meet in person where I live to watch BBC, or to even know what Huffington Post and Guardian are unless they're internet geeks, which most are not.

Major counter-point to your claim would be the treatment of whistleblowers this past decade.

Is whistleblowing a left-wing action?

Depends on the action being called out.  When it's war crimes, I would say yes.  Carried out by a republican administration should theoretically increase the motivation to be supportive.

[SalmonGod]

The US recognises "the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."

www.state.gov


"The UK does not recognise Taiwan as a state and has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, so limited consular services are available to British nationals"

Yet they have their own ISO country code in use by U.S. customs.  I recognize them as a country every day in the paperwork I file with a federal agency

Edit:  Woops... sorry for double-post.

[Strife26]

MSNBC has a motto of "lean forward"
They're pretty much the anti-fox, although there might be a claim to be made that they're leftist media, not progressive media. It isn't a claim I'd take especially seriously.

[Helgoland]

Wait, there's a difference between leftist and progressive in American nomenclature?

[TheBiggerFish]

Wait, there's a difference between leftist and progressive in American nomenclature?

I have no idea.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wait, there's a difference between leftist and progressive in American nomenclature?

There isn't any largely accepted one. There isn't even a largely accepted difference between liberal and leftist. It all just sort of sinks together, though I think a lot of people have personal ideas of the difference between all of them. For example, I don't think of myself as a progressive anymore due to a perceived association with illiberal SJW and campus communist types. I don't think that's really legitimate enough to apply to the whole world, but the word started putting a bad taste in my mouth.

[Loud Whispers]

I admit I don't pay much attention to them, but I've never heard of MSNBC and CNN suggested to be in the same political realm as the others on your list.  Just because they're not as reactionary as Fox News doesn't make them especially progressive.

I'm surprised you didn't know MSNBC isn't progressive, it's the most progressive of them all o.O
Heck, Salon the most progressive of magazines (inb4 pedos) criticized them for being awash with progressivism

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Being progressive is kinda their thing, they're well good at it
Fox's audience leans conservative, while CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have audiences that lean left.
Also Fox isn't reactionary, it's conservative.

I wouldn't count on anyone I meet in person where I live to watch BBC, or to even know what Huffington Post and Guardian are unless they're internet geeks, which most are not.

Does it matter? Political groups are so divided neatly by geography in the USA that the people who would support them would support them and nothing is lost in the people who would always oppose them opposing them.

Depends on the action being called out.  When it's war crimes, I would say yes. Carried out by a republican administration should theoretically increase the motivation to be supportive.

Why? Whistleblowing war crimes is not a left-wing action, any less than defectors from the USSR or whistleblowers of the left-wing labour regime's involvement in the invasion of Iraq.
Also progressives were not appreciative of Snowden leaking PRISM under a democrat administration.
Don't see anything left-wing about that action either. Heck, Obama says he's a spy not a patriot whilst Clinton says he's a traitor.

[Reelya]

Well there should be. "leftist" generally means economic ideas, and "progressive" is social ideas. You can have progressive social ideas and adhere to a market economy, which would be a Libertarian for example.

Generally, people who identify as "progressive" will support "leftist" ideas if those ideas can be shown to improve people's lives. e.g. a progressive person doesn't support the idea of universal health care because of any ideological adherence to socialism, but because the model can be argued to be both fairer and cheaper than the market-based health model.

[Rolepgeek]

That's essentially the "kill them all with a semi-decent excuse" option.

Let's put it this way:
What do you believe the proper response to armed protesters shooting at law enforcement officials when they try to disperse them is?
Because sending in law enforcement officials to say 'you're on federal grounds and threatening government officials, we're gonna have to ask you to leave' seems like the single most appropriate first response that could be taken. "We warned you" is not an excuse for firing on federal officers.

And yes, Loud Whisper. I'm sorry, are you trying to say Turkey should be allowed full stop to keep the Kurds from trying to form their own country by any means necessary? Or that this is just as legitimate of a cause? You wanna call it mob rule? Fine. Call it mob rule. But don't just make The Worst Argument In The World and leave it at that. This is how democracy works. Yeah, we try to represent minorities too so it ain't tyranny of the majority. But a couple dozen guys trying to make a point via threats of violence is not acceptable. This isn't people trying to escape from an oppressive government. Or, fine, let's say it is. Taxes are a form of oppression, after all, so is arresting people for burning down forest so they can poach. But there's a reason that's considered acceptable while, say, genocide, isn't. Armenian genocide, for example, since we were talking about Turkey.

Another question. You seem to be implying that having to abide by rules put in place by elected officials is authoritarian mob rule. Do you actually believe this? Because as far as I know, mob rule is associated with, say, whimsical decisions and disproportionate response, someone's popularity being the sole factor of their innocence or guilt. That has...basically nothing to do with what I was saying. I was actually talking about causes, rather than individuals put on trial, for example. Ongoing discontent due to oppression and wanting to escape it by creating a separate state is sorta similar between Turkey and this situation. It's just that the reasons for the oppression, the extent of the oppression, the number of people being oppressed, the methods used whilst attempting to create said state, and the relative character of the governments that are different.

When you say 'that's might makes right' about political movements and legitimacy, you have a point. A small one, but a point. Which is why I was, you know, also bringing up how relevant the particular situation was to the people supporting or opposing, and how reasonable the cause was beforehand.

In other words, Loud Whisper, if you're going to address my points, please actually do so. Don't just put out single lines mocking it and expect that to suffice as a legitimate argument. Please don't just say 'lol you support mob rule' with the implication that I'm an idiot. Because right now that is almost exactly what you're doing. Maybe that's not what you intended to do. But it's the way that it's coming across, and I really do not appreciate it.


Intereting sidenote: Political leaning is in large part dependent on whether you live in a city or the country. Don't know if that's what you meant by geography but I find it interesting.

[Reelya]

What if a bunch of Muslims, or a bunch of Mexicans armed themselves up and staked out a chunk of the USA, and claimed secession due to mistreatment? How would y'all be then? Legitimate protest?

[Strife26]

That's essentially the "kill them all with a semi-decent excuse" option.

Let's put it this way:
What do you believe the proper response to armed protesters shooting at law enforcement officials when they try to disperse them is?
Because sending in law enforcement officials to say 'you're on federal grounds and threatening government officials, we're gonna have to ask you to leave' seems like the single most appropriate first response that could be taken. "We warned you" is not an excuse for firing on federal officers.

That's the only proper response, but when you know exactly how those protesters are going to respond and you still march that leo up to them to get shot at, that's not exactly kosher.

What if a bunch of Muslims, or a bunch of Mexicans staked out a chunk of the USA? How would y'all be then?

Have they occupied an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere? Same damn thing

[Reelya]

Apparently the Russians are all in favor of chunks of the USA seceding. Secessionist now have to consider the implications of doing something that makes the Russians happy.

[TheBiggerFish]

Hmrphle.  Heh.

[Rolepgeek]

Strife, it was unoccupied when they entered. It was not a building that was not in use, it just was not in use on that day. It was a weekend. They will be preventing federal officials from carrying out their duties.

And actually, I would say it is kosher. The government does it's part by responding appropriately. If they're not going to do their part; if in this Prisoner's Dilemma they're going to defect when the government is Cooperating, they get tit-for-tat. You have to punish Defectors or you can't get Cooperation. You do your duty, you do it to the best of your ability, and you rely on others to pick up the slack because no one's perfect, and that's civilization. If the government does that in good faith, rather than storming the building for conspiracy to assault federal officers or something, or just letting armed militiamen occupy a federal building, and they get shot at, blaming them for taking the most appropriate response in both situations is rather dishonest. Not on your part, I just mean hypothetically. Because no matter what happens, the gov't will get blamed and criticized for what they should have done. So go with the option that is most in keeping with the law and proportionality.