3 ms·

"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 wha

by 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.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    I think the effect would be good: the military would handle the situation better and fewer people would get hurt. They're used to operating in hostile situations under restrictive rules of engagement, they aren't the people being protested against, and people who've seen combat wouldn't find thrill or threat in a confrontation with unarmed protestors. In other words, I think your final paragraph is a false dilemma based on an unsupported assumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

by bagels 6y ago

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.
- leereeves 6y ago
  I think the effect would be good: the military would handle the situation better and fewer people would get hurt. They're used to operating in hostile situations under restrictive rules of engagement, they aren't the people being protested against, and people who've seen combat wouldn't find thrill or threat in a confrontation with unarmed protestors. In other words, I think your final paragraph is a false dilemma based on an unsupported assumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma