5 ms·

So if you're pro-civilian resistance to tyranny, I suppose you supported the Oregonian federal occupation, the civil disruptions caused by Black Lives Matter, a

So if you're pro-civilian resistance to tyranny, I suppose you supported the Oregonian federal occupation, the civil disruptions caused by Black Lives Matter, and the Alcatraz occupation? Forgive me, but lately I've run into a lot of people who talk about the importance of enabling civil resistance until they actually see civil resistance and suddenly they're the living embodiment of law and order.

zepto 10y ago
Those examples of civil disobedience have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting tyranny, and whether I support them or not is irrelevant.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. The very first acts pledged by the presidents staff are to immediately challenge long-standing civil rights issues only pressed by a relatively small minority of those polled. What is your metric for tyranny, zepto? When, exactly, is the civil disobedience part of the founders intent? Do people need to shoot a gun to invoke the intent of the 2nd? Is having a gun with them not enough? I think it's relevant to any discussion of the 2nd amendment to ask what it's actually for. I think the intent of the 2nd was to enable political expediency, but maybe you imagine something grander.
  - grzm 10y ago
    A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Soundly? A plurality, yes. Soundly seems like an exaggeration. What to you justifies the use of soundly? Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. Are you saying all (or nearly) who voted against Trump are in support of faithless electors? I agree the voting population is split and there's a lot of dissatisfaction (to put it mildly). This sounds like hyperbole to me, which makes you sound like you're misrepresenting the facts, which plays right into the narrative that those against Trump are out of touch.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      I'm not sure what your threshold of "soundly" is, but it's not a margin of 10000 people were talking about. It's an odd word to take exception to. It's a genuine question Americans need to ask though: if presidents can win while losing the popular vote, does the current electoral college system exist only to enable that? Or can/should it do more in exceptional cases? I'd argue that if the only reason the current system exists is to allow the Republican party to win on a popular loss (which is what it enables, Democrats only take the presidency with huge popular vote margins) then it should be no surprise that we are seeing widespread protests and civil disobedience. I suppose were lucky that Democrats as a whole are less likely to own a gun.
      - grzm 10y ago
        My threshold for "soundly" would be at least 2 percent of popular vote. I agree that an actual threshold would be subjective. What's yours? That we can have disagreement between the electoral college and the popular vote is also an issue that we need to look at very seriously. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting your contention that Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. To my reading, there are two interpretations: - "begging the electoral college to be faithless" is a colorful rephrasing of "voted for the candidate that did not win the electoral college" - over half of those who voted are now asking electors to be faithless Is there another interpretation that I'm just missing? I'm open to correction. I guess it depends on what message you're trying to send and who you're trying to send the message to. If you're addressing those who already agree or are likely to agree with you, the language doesn't matter as much, as it's clear what side you favor. Exaggeration, hyperbole, misrepresentation will generally go unnoticed or be forgiven. Your message is effectively "I'm on your side" and serves to energize those you agree with. If you're looking for a wider audience, the language matters more, especially in a political environment as polarized as the one we're currently in, where both sides are hypersensitive to language and how it's used. Also, people respond emotionally: it takes active effort to parse messages rationally, particularly if they're messages you're not already inclined to agree with. This is why I'm paying attention to words like "soundly". Those who agree with you don't really care. Those who don't are going to respond emotionally, put off by the language and no longer listen to the content of the message. Given the attention I've paid to this, you're not going to be surprised that it's something I think is really important. I'm not ready to accept that the divide in America is insurmountable, but to close it we need to be engaging each other across the divide. If the Electoral College votes for Trump, there needs to be cross-party support in government to fight the efforts Trump you oppose, which means working with people who don't already agree with you. Does this seem misdirected to you?
  - zepto 10y ago
    This is massive straw man. The point at which the 2nd amendment becomes relevant is the point at which a sufficiently large part of the population becomes motivated to act together to overcome an oppressive regime. Being armed and yet not acting collectively to overthrow the government is the essence of government by consent.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      There is a nonzero chance were about to see direct civil resistance at scale and you call it a "straw man?" I'm confused. What point do you think I am making. I've been asking you questions.

zepto 10y ago

Those examples of civil disobedience have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting tyranny, and whether I support them or not is irrelevant.

KirinDave 10y ago
A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. The very first acts pledged by the presidents staff are to immediately challenge long-standing civil rights issues only pressed by a relatively small minority of those polled. What is your metric for tyranny, zepto? When, exactly, is the civil disobedience part of the founders intent? Do people need to shoot a gun to invoke the intent of the 2nd? Is having a gun with them not enough? I think it's relevant to any discussion of the 2nd amendment to ask what it's actually for. I think the intent of the 2nd was to enable political expediency, but maybe you imagine something grander.
- grzm 10y ago
  A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Soundly? A plurality, yes. Soundly seems like an exaggeration. What to you justifies the use of soundly? Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. Are you saying all (or nearly) who voted against Trump are in support of faithless electors? I agree the voting population is split and there's a lot of dissatisfaction (to put it mildly). This sounds like hyperbole to me, which makes you sound like you're misrepresenting the facts, which plays right into the narrative that those against Trump are out of touch.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    I'm not sure what your threshold of "soundly" is, but it's not a margin of 10000 people were talking about. It's an odd word to take exception to. It's a genuine question Americans need to ask though: if presidents can win while losing the popular vote, does the current electoral college system exist only to enable that? Or can/should it do more in exceptional cases? I'd argue that if the only reason the current system exists is to allow the Republican party to win on a popular loss (which is what it enables, Democrats only take the presidency with huge popular vote margins) then it should be no surprise that we are seeing widespread protests and civil disobedience. I suppose were lucky that Democrats as a whole are less likely to own a gun.
    - grzm 10y ago
      My threshold for "soundly" would be at least 2 percent of popular vote. I agree that an actual threshold would be subjective. What's yours? That we can have disagreement between the electoral college and the popular vote is also an issue that we need to look at very seriously. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting your contention that Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. To my reading, there are two interpretations: - "begging the electoral college to be faithless" is a colorful rephrasing of "voted for the candidate that did not win the electoral college" - over half of those who voted are now asking electors to be faithless Is there another interpretation that I'm just missing? I'm open to correction. I guess it depends on what message you're trying to send and who you're trying to send the message to. If you're addressing those who already agree or are likely to agree with you, the language doesn't matter as much, as it's clear what side you favor. Exaggeration, hyperbole, misrepresentation will generally go unnoticed or be forgiven. Your message is effectively "I'm on your side" and serves to energize those you agree with. If you're looking for a wider audience, the language matters more, especially in a political environment as polarized as the one we're currently in, where both sides are hypersensitive to language and how it's used. Also, people respond emotionally: it takes active effort to parse messages rationally, particularly if they're messages you're not already inclined to agree with. This is why I'm paying attention to words like "soundly". Those who agree with you don't really care. Those who don't are going to respond emotionally, put off by the language and no longer listen to the content of the message. Given the attention I've paid to this, you're not going to be surprised that it's something I think is really important. I'm not ready to accept that the divide in America is insurmountable, but to close it we need to be engaging each other across the divide. If the Electoral College votes for Trump, there needs to be cross-party support in government to fight the efforts Trump you oppose, which means working with people who don't already agree with you. Does this seem misdirected to you?
- zepto 10y ago
  This is massive straw man. The point at which the 2nd amendment becomes relevant is the point at which a sufficiently large part of the population becomes motivated to act together to overcome an oppressive regime. Being armed and yet not acting collectively to overthrow the government is the essence of government by consent.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    There is a nonzero chance were about to see direct civil resistance at scale and you call it a "straw man?" I'm confused. What point do you think I am making. I've been asking you questions.