4 ms·

>so yes. keep complaining about your governments hard work to keep you safe, i'm sure the opposing forces will thank you later. Are you suggesting blind fealty

>so yes. keep complaining about your governments hard work to keep you safe, i'm sure the opposing forces will thank you later. Are you suggesting blind fealty? If so, relevant.mp4: https://youtu.be/2HYIJahQKaI?t=189 https://youtu.be/2HYIJahQKaI?t=189

rjf72 8y ago
I don't think he's suggesting blind fealty so much as avoidance of the opposite - blind opposition. Good individuals (or governments) can do very bad things. And bad individuals (or governments) can do very good things. When one immediately jumps to one conclusion or another, it leaves one open to being trivially manipulated. In political jargon - being made into a useful idiot [1]. In this case it was particularly bad since it wasn't "one" but rather entire groups of people either blindly supporting or blindly opposing the caravan based on political ideology. Comments running contrary to the groupthink tended to be simply attacked instead of considered. Are there reasons to support the investigation into the caravan? Absolutely. Are there reasons to oppose it? Absolutely. But people are increasingly becoming simple minded on political issues and will simply go full-on one way or the other. This (to borrow from a peer comment) is what is "completely incompatible with functioning democracy." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
- renholder 8y ago
  >I don't think he's suggesting blind fealty so much as avoidance of the opposite - blind opposition. The OC's statement came across as, "The government is doing this for you, so don't question it." To me, it didn't come across as including the facet of being pro/against the caravan in question, whatsoever, but - to the OC's credit - maybe it was there and I just missed it...
- wsy 8y ago
  Please apply this to the case at hand. The case at hand is not about supporting or opposing the caravan, or its investigation. It is about how journalists reporting on it are marked for special treatment at the US border. I fail to see any complex pro/con political issue there. Free press is a constitutional right for a reason.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    The first critical point is to classify the caravan. This is something you have to step outside of politics for, for a minute. This caravan had already illegally broken past the border between Guatemala and Mexico. [1] There's every reason to believe they planned to attempt similar behavior at the US border. This is the definition of criminal conspiracy. In this case it would likely have also been a politically destabilizing event in the US. You would have had far right vigilantes work to 'apprehend' the trespassing individuals which likely would spark 'anti-vigilante' action from far left individuals. Violence would have been inevitable due to the fact you have loonies on both ends meeting up with emotions flaring high. This could have been an organic action, but it could also have been driven by actors who would benefit from such instability. In any case it would be absolutely remiss for the government to not investigate the funding, composition, and other aspects of the caravan. And on this front the journalists were/are not only witnesses but witnesses with video, photographic, and audio evidence as well as first person accounts. Like the article states, "[The investigators] said that I [journalist] was on the ground and they’re not, which I thought was really interesting.". The really important question is whether the investigation has gone from investigation to intimidation, which would be an issue. So is the government doing their due diligence, or are they intimidating journalists? Perhaps it's even a bit of both. But I don't think this article is enough evidence to really determine one way or the other and so I think the wisest course of action would be to await further information. [1] - https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-migrants-guatemala-20181019-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-m...
    - pjc50 8y ago
      The classification of the caravan is itself politics. The classification of refugees as criminals is extremely political. As is the question of why they're fleeing Honduras in the first place. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-honduras-democracy-has-roots-in-us-tacit-support-for-2009-coup https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-hond...
      - rjf72 8y ago

rjf72 8y ago

I don't think he's suggesting blind fealty so much as avoidance of the opposite - blind opposition. Good individuals (or governments) can do very bad things. And bad individuals (or governments) can do very good things. When one immediately jumps to one conclusion or another, it leaves one open to being trivially manipulated. In political jargon - being made into a useful idiot [1]. In this case it was particularly bad since it wasn't "one" but rather entire groups of people either blindly supporting or blindly opposing the caravan based on political ideology. Comments running contrary to the groupthink tended to be simply attacked instead of considered. Are there reasons to support the investigation into the caravan? Absolutely. Are there reasons to oppose it? Absolutely. But people are increasingly becoming simple minded on political issues and will simply go full-on one way or the other. This (to borrow from a peer comment) is what is "completely incompatible with functioning democracy." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

renholder 8y ago
>I don't think he's suggesting blind fealty so much as avoidance of the opposite - blind opposition. The OC's statement came across as, "The government is doing this for you, so don't question it." To me, it didn't come across as including the facet of being pro/against the caravan in question, whatsoever, but - to the OC's credit - maybe it was there and I just missed it...
wsy 8y ago
Please apply this to the case at hand. The case at hand is not about supporting or opposing the caravan, or its investigation. It is about how journalists reporting on it are marked for special treatment at the US border. I fail to see any complex pro/con political issue there. Free press is a constitutional right for a reason.
- rjf72 8y ago
  The first critical point is to classify the caravan. This is something you have to step outside of politics for, for a minute. This caravan had already illegally broken past the border between Guatemala and Mexico. [1] There's every reason to believe they planned to attempt similar behavior at the US border. This is the definition of criminal conspiracy. In this case it would likely have also been a politically destabilizing event in the US. You would have had far right vigilantes work to 'apprehend' the trespassing individuals which likely would spark 'anti-vigilante' action from far left individuals. Violence would have been inevitable due to the fact you have loonies on both ends meeting up with emotions flaring high. This could have been an organic action, but it could also have been driven by actors who would benefit from such instability. In any case it would be absolutely remiss for the government to not investigate the funding, composition, and other aspects of the caravan. And on this front the journalists were/are not only witnesses but witnesses with video, photographic, and audio evidence as well as first person accounts. Like the article states, "[The investigators] said that I [journalist] was on the ground and they’re not, which I thought was really interesting.". The really important question is whether the investigation has gone from investigation to intimidation, which would be an issue. So is the government doing their due diligence, or are they intimidating journalists? Perhaps it's even a bit of both. But I don't think this article is enough evidence to really determine one way or the other and so I think the wisest course of action would be to await further information. [1] - https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-migrants-guatemala-20181019-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-m...
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The classification of the caravan is itself politics. The classification of refugees as criminals is extremely political. As is the question of why they're fleeing Honduras in the first place. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-honduras-democracy-has-roots-in-us-tacit-support-for-2009-coup https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-hond...
    - rjf72 8y ago