6 ms·

Of course news agencies should report that the US Senator has that opinion. There are plenty of news agencies that reported on the fact that the NYT published t

by baddox 6y ago

Of course news agencies should report that the US Senator has that opinion. There are plenty of news agencies that reported on the fact that the NYT published this opinion piece, for instance, and I don’t think people are too upset about those reports. It’s the publishing of the opinion piece that is the issue.

leereeves 6y ago
News agencies shouldn't report that because the Senator didn't say that. He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors: > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. And nowhere in the op-ed did he call for murdering or killing anyone.
- bagels 6y ago
  "One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" Killing is what the military does. Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa". The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters. I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    >I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people. It could mean that you do a show of force so strong that the opposing side gives up. In this case he was probably referring to putting so many policemen/national guard out there that they could disperse and detain all of the looters and rioters. This would likely prevent further looting and rioting as people would see that they would likely get caught.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    You're trying to imply something that's contrary to his statement, literally right there in the bit you quoted: > disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      What, specifically, do you think an “overwhelming show of force” by the military implies?
      - mc32 6y ago
        To me that reads as they’d send enough personnel to flood an area such that it would deter people from the worst aspects we’ve seen while allowing non violent protests. So any troublemakers would think twice about trying to hit an area to sew chaos (looting, rioting, setting property on fire, etc.)
        x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
        When people talk about "overwhelming force" in military context, it's always lethal force.
        mc32 6y ago
        When the national guard is sent in there it’s there to maintain order. Militaries are also trained for peacekeeping missions. It’s not all about trigger happy gun toters. If it’s an all out rebellion that’s different. I don’t see a ruby ridge or Waco incident coming, but maybe you do.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      That's offered as motivation but you're claiming it as effect and that ain't how the universe works. Suppose I tell you that my motivation for recompiling the new version of the software only as a 64-bit binary was to improve compatibility with 32-bit systems. Do you feel like that's compelling? Is the effect that now it doesn't work on 32-bit systems at all an unexpected consequence I just could not have foreseen? Or was my supposed "motivation" the thinnest possible excuse by someone who expects that their supporters don't care about the facts and are just looking for any excuse? The effect of Cotton's proposal would be to get people killed. Either you believe Tom Cotton is an idiot who didn't understand that, or you agree with him that getting people killed is a perfectly fine outcome so long as a "motivation" can be dreamed up to explain it.
- vkou 6y ago
  > News agencies shouldn't report that because the Senator didn't say that. He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors: Here in Seattle, it wasn't the rioters and looters who were attacked by police, it was mostly peaceful, non-violent protesters. One might even imagine that the two are deliberately conflated.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    I don't see how that comment relates to the op-ed. Suppose police in Seattle are deliberately conflating protestors with looters; that doesn't mean the Senator is or the military would. In fact, it sounds like a reason to send someone other than the Seattle police.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  When someone advocates for "taking no quarter", they're advocating for killing people. You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way, but a former Army captain like Cotton knows full well what it means. The thing about the whole argument of, 'we only advocate cracking down on rioters and looters' is how is someone supposed to get that distinction right in the fog of a chaotic situation? Arrest people and have them face trial. Advocating violent and potentially lethal crackdowns on people in situations like this is what brutal autocracies do.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jki275 6y ago
    Those words don't appear in the article.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    That's not from the op-ed, but since you brought it up, let's talk about it. > You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way Given that he used that phrase in a Tweet, and not in a military order, it's reasonable to assume he was speaking to "the average person" and using that phrase accordingly. And given that he has actually said that he was using the phrase colloquially, you're interpreting his words contrary to what he's clearly said. And given that he enlisted in 2005, and not in 1905, is it even reasonable to assume that he knew about this ancient meaning of the phrase? Does the military still use this phrase?
    - klyrs 6y ago
      The phrase is not outdated. It's not "used by the military" because that would literally be a war crime. Cotton's tweet may be a war crime -- it needn't be an order, even making that threat is a war crime. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule46 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul...
- DagAgren 6y ago
  > He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors People actually killing protesters always, without fail, claim to be trying to stop "rioters and looters". This is not a phrase to be taken at face value, ever.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Yes it is. We can’t make up things that people did not say and get mad at them for it. That’s absurd.
    - DagAgren 6y ago
      Nobody's made anything up?

by baddox 6y ago

leereeves 6y ago

News agencies shouldn't report that because the Senator didn't say that. He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors: > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. And nowhere in the op-ed did he call for murdering or killing anyone.

bagels 6y ago
"One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" Killing is what the military does. Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa". The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters. I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  >I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people. It could mean that you do a show of force so strong that the opposing side gives up. In this case he was probably referring to putting so many policemen/national guard out there that they could disperse and detain all of the looters and rioters. This would likely prevent further looting and rioting as people would see that they would likely get caught.
- leereeves 6y ago
  You're trying to imply something that's contrary to his statement, literally right there in the bit you quoted: > disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    What, specifically, do you think an “overwhelming show of force” by the military implies?
    - mc32 6y ago
      To me that reads as they’d send enough personnel to flood an area such that it would deter people from the worst aspects we’ve seen while allowing non violent protests. So any troublemakers would think twice about trying to hit an area to sew chaos (looting, rioting, setting property on fire, etc.)
      - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
        When people talk about "overwhelming force" in military context, it's always lethal force.
        mc32 6y ago
        When the national guard is sent in there it’s there to maintain order. Militaries are also trained for peacekeeping missions. It’s not all about trigger happy gun toters. If it’s an all out rebellion that’s different. I don’t see a ruby ridge or Waco incident coming, but maybe you do.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    That's offered as motivation but you're claiming it as effect and that ain't how the universe works. Suppose I tell you that my motivation for recompiling the new version of the software only as a 64-bit binary was to improve compatibility with 32-bit systems. Do you feel like that's compelling? Is the effect that now it doesn't work on 32-bit systems at all an unexpected consequence I just could not have foreseen? Or was my supposed "motivation" the thinnest possible excuse by someone who expects that their supporters don't care about the facts and are just looking for any excuse? The effect of Cotton's proposal would be to get people killed. Either you believe Tom Cotton is an idiot who didn't understand that, or you agree with him that getting people killed is a perfectly fine outcome so long as a "motivation" can be dreamed up to explain it.
vkou 6y ago
> News agencies shouldn't report that because the Senator didn't say that. He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors: Here in Seattle, it wasn't the rioters and looters who were attacked by police, it was mostly peaceful, non-violent protesters. One might even imagine that the two are deliberately conflated.
- leereeves 6y ago
  I don't see how that comment relates to the op-ed. Suppose police in Seattle are deliberately conflating protestors with looters; that doesn't mean the Senator is or the military would. In fact, it sounds like a reason to send someone other than the Seattle police.
GVIrish 6y ago
When someone advocates for "taking no quarter", they're advocating for killing people. You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way, but a former Army captain like Cotton knows full well what it means. The thing about the whole argument of, 'we only advocate cracking down on rioters and looters' is how is someone supposed to get that distinction right in the fog of a chaotic situation? Arrest people and have them face trial. Advocating violent and potentially lethal crackdowns on people in situations like this is what brutal autocracies do.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jki275 6y ago
  Those words don't appear in the article.
- leereeves 6y ago
  That's not from the op-ed, but since you brought it up, let's talk about it. > You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way Given that he used that phrase in a Tweet, and not in a military order, it's reasonable to assume he was speaking to "the average person" and using that phrase accordingly. And given that he has actually said that he was using the phrase colloquially, you're interpreting his words contrary to what he's clearly said. And given that he enlisted in 2005, and not in 1905, is it even reasonable to assume that he knew about this ancient meaning of the phrase? Does the military still use this phrase?
  - klyrs 6y ago
    The phrase is not outdated. It's not "used by the military" because that would literally be a war crime. Cotton's tweet may be a war crime -- it needn't be an order, even making that threat is a war crime. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule46 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul...
DagAgren 6y ago
> He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors People actually killing protesters always, without fail, claim to be trying to stop "rioters and looters". This is not a phrase to be taken at face value, ever.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Yes it is. We can’t make up things that people did not say and get mad at them for it. That’s absurd.
  - DagAgren 6y ago
    Nobody's made anything up?