Shoresy

So when someone does something immoral, I should give them a pass for political reasons?

Isn't that exactly what you are doing by excusing the Governor's and Mayor's immoral actions? Giving them a pass for political reasons?

I can't imagine what must be going through the mind of Renee Good's wife in the solace of introspection when she remembers her last words to Renee Good: "Drive baby, Drive!"

A simple shouted cue in a high-stress moment could have plausibly influenced Good's behavior in seconds, and that makes the tragedy feel even heavier, because a person who arguably cared much for Renee Good might have been partially responsible by encouraging her to hit the gas in a tense situation.

But I suppose we can also give her a pass for "political reasons."

Additionally, it's far easier for the Governor to take 5 minutes to train the public to keep their distance from law enforcement instead of a year-long PSA training encouraging the public to obstruct law enforcement, or a year-long ICE training to learn how to deal with indoctrinated vigilantes that shouldn't have been there in the first place were it not for all the activism training them to become a paramilitary group.

bot

I do not think the Left is 'trying to radicalize individuals for suicidal attacks on ICE.

They aren't. It's just a few loud and corrupt leaders doing that.

They don't have to convince most people, just convince one guy that it's okay to treat ICE like the Gestapo. And also convince him that suicide by cop is more honorable than anything similar in Japanese culture.

A good attorney won’t argue motive, psychology, or vibes. They’ll lock the witness into one observable fact:

“Was his hand there?”

“Yes.”

“No further questions.”

So they saw him reaching for a gun but not that the gun was removed? If something is taken off my belt or pocket my hand is instinctively gonna move toward it. At best it's pretty bad communication, a reasonable agent would handle the situation different from the start.

Like I said, I am not spinning a narrative about it or to clairvoyantly tell you why he put his hand there, just telling you where his hand was.

Mostly in control still raises the bar for what's considered appropriate force. If you throw someone down unexpectedly they're gonna instinctively flail, the implications of that justifying deadly force are far too broad.

Again, I am not ascribing a narrative here, just pointing out the continued misuse of the term.

but he didn't despite having the opportunity.

You sure about that? I saw a video of him with the phone in his left hand, and his right hand reached around the back, touching his empty holster when the shots started. Then the straight answer is: yes, that motion does appear in at least one video angle.

Phone in the left hand, right hand goes back toward the empty holster area right as shots start. Full stop.

I'm not asking for motive, justification, or narrative, just simply where his hand was.

Once they were in control of him

This is getting repeated ad nauseam. A struggling person isn't under control until the cuffs are on and in a closed car.

bot

He acts like Democrats never carve out loopholes for billionaires who support them.

they just run a keyword scanner in their head. As soon as they see words like virtue or signals, the brain flips from “evaluate claim” to “identify enemy tribe.” After that, everything said gets reinterpreted as vibes instead of logic.

Get real, nobody votes for virtue. People vote interests. Moral or coded language is mostly a delivery system for aligned interests, not a substitute for them. When policies raise costs, reduce options, or threaten livelihoods, no amount of virtue signaling survives first contact with rent, groceries, tribal friction, and job security. That’s why campaigns win by aligning incentives and lose when they confuse applause from elites and push polls for equivalent consent from voters.

The clear derangement stems from this confusion. They don’t process the argument, they just run a keyword scanner in their head. As soon as they see words like virtue or signals, the brain flips from “evaluate claim” to “identify enemy tribe.” After that, everything said gets reinterpreted as vibes instead of logic.

I mean they won’t but..

Exactly.

But they didn’t “just want to cause chaos or steal things”. Again, they were there because they’re sick and tired of a system that they believed does not value human life if that life is wrapped in dark skin.

Well, I guess Pretti found out the hard way about the myth of white supremacy.

You mean trade with the US. That's over now, son.

Turns out they can, and now they will, at our expense.

Actually, the track record of Chinese trade partners is pretty dismal for the receiving end. But I guess it's better than nothing.

No doubt, the Civil War was fought over money, not ideals, the same as today's fight over Immigration.

But this is the clear line I see: Astroturfed brownshirts---->chaos---> Patriot Act 2.0

Hypothetically, if we had John Brown-style attacks, real grassroots to challenge real power, the response would be totally different, as well as the outcome.

I think you fundamentally misunderstood what I meant when I said the ICE vigilantes are more like Brownshirts than John Brown.

John Brown didn't target slave catchers because it would have hardened the system. He targeted the Armory to speed up the Civil War, because that was the systemic source of the problem; the Federal Force allowing slavery to continue. No systemic politician supported Brown on either side.

Now look at the ICE vigilantes, they don't dare touch the politicians or the lobbyists, which is the real source. They are going after the bagmen, which only hardens the system. The way we know this has to be true is that the politicians in the very same system ON BOTH SIDES are allowing it to happen and arguably encouraging it to happen, similar to the Brownshirts. Chaos as an opportunity for power on both sides, but only for the sake of power and more corruption, and not for any ideological reason. Now, maybe a real John Brown type of vigilanteism could somehow come out of all this that's not astroturfed by systemic NGOs, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Notice that the FBI is nowhere to be seen in a state that's been exposed by independent media as completely corrupt. That is a hard tell about what is really going on.

I get all the moral implications of vigilanteism, I am just asking if you think the intended and collateral American lives lost due to vigilantes are worth the societal cost of chaos. Shooting a healthcare CEO didn't really change your system. In fact, most of your Congress afterwards doubled down on subsidizing the very companies that CEO worked for with increased corporate subsidies. The system absorbed the shock, hardened, and moved on. That is what large bureaucratic systems do: they outlast individuals. Will killing ICE and others who are misidentified as ICE really change anything?

The vigilantes are clearly targeting the wrong people if the goal is to stop the system, which makes me believe they behave more like Brownshirts than John Brown. I can only see more bad coming out of this vigilante mistargetting, as it will likely decrease freedom in America through the self-serving mechanism similar to the Patriot Act.

What do you think of the emerging vigilante culture in America post-Floyd?

Is it concerning at all that vigilante groups are organizing and harming far more Americans through mistaken identity than ICE is?

I suspect a good portion will villainize the people who egged him on instead of him.

We have far fewer people in Canada willing to risk their lives attacking law enforcement whenever they feel like it.

You guys have very heavily funded and well-organized groups dedicated to attacking law enforcement. It's a recipe for tragedy.

Our Parliament would never allow paramilitary vigilante groups like your BLM, BLack Panther, KKK, Proud Boys, Antifa, And I guess the new thing is signal groups for coordinated ICE obstruction?

Our Parliament knows how to deal with organized disruptions of government like the Trucker Convoys before they get organized enough to start violence against the government, which would lead to killings.

I'm not just talking about American law when I say no killing should be justified.

It's a moral stance that Authority shouldn't stem from murder, and your American laws allow Authority to perform "justified killings"

I see that as maybe something that could be improved.

But clearly, only a few really don't know the dangers of having those laws, and now they are dead.

Neither shooting seemed to me justified.

I don't think any killing can be really justified, but these 2 incidents were clearly 100% avoidable.

He was probably a decent guy caught up in American cult politics and ultimately lost his life defending people he probably never really knew much about at all.

His father told him not to get close to the action, and I know that father probably grieves harder than most because of that prediction from a concerned father.

Yet again, thank you for agreeing with me.

The reporters question wasn’t loaded in any reasonable sense,

Hm, what question, the one Biden called out as BS from a "Stupid Son Of A Bitch?"

I have to disagree with you then and agree with Biden.

You just answered a loaded question; anyone would think you just now agreed with the premise that a reporter gets paid to ragebait for clicks.

See, that's how it works. It's easier for me to explain this concept with your own words.

There's no correct answer to a loaded question other than what Biden did. Just call the activist reporter asking loaded questions a Stupid Son Of A Bitch. That's really all you can do. For god's sake, don't try to answer a loaded question, though. Every Lawyer would advise this.

Thus, there’s already a reasonable inference that Trump is covering something up.

Again, thank you for agreeing with me. Why even ask the loaded question if the reporter was ultimately getting paid to ragebait for clicks? Just simply scream the "already inference" implication into his face, it would save a lot of time and confusion about what the theater act is. You don't really need a presiden'ts permission to just hurl the premises of a loaded question into his face. At least, that's what successful activists seem to do instead of larpers.

In before: this gets reframed as “the president is childish and gets enraged by simple questions.” or some other "but Trump" deflection.

Temperament is irrelevant. A calm and mature person doesn’t magically turn a loaded question into an honest one. The question is structured so no answer from any person can avoid an implication of guilt, even Biden when he called a person asking a loaded question a "Stupid son of a bitch"

Attacking the responder instead of the question just confirms our point about loaded questions.

You indicated that a non-answer is an implication of guilt, which is the textbook definition of a loaded question.

On that, we most definitely agree. That's basic common sense, no genius mind required.

and also provide a sensible and consistent reason...

You then indicated that the only "correct" answer that avoids every implication of guilt from your loaded question is this answer. The respondent must provide a “sensible and consistent reason,” but the only answer you consider “correct” is one filtered through your own assumptions and bias. In other words, even a supposedly correct and compliant answer still implicates guilt in your mind.

That’s what makes the question dishonest: guilt is baked in regardless of the response.

Simple stuff, really.

I really wonder why American activists cosplaying as journalists even go through the motions of harassing presidents with loaded questions and performative journalism. Why not just scream "Orangemanbad" into his face instead? It would get the same desired reaction for the news clips without the clumsy mechanics of performative theater.

Again, thanks for agreeing with me, and I hope you agree that this "reporter" could do better at ragebaiting a president.