4 ms·

Perhaps they saw the take over of the Hart Senate building during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings? Or AOC leading a take over of Pelosi's office? There we

Perhaps they saw the take over of the Hart Senate building during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings? Or AOC leading a take over of Pelosi's office? There were some minor arrests, but not much more than slap on the hand stuff, as I recall.

sibeliuss 6y ago
I don't think -- for even a single microsecond -- that anyone anywhere close to those hearings feared for the lives. It's absolutely absurd to compare the two situations. This standard ("does anyone feel unsafe") should always be used as a check against ones haywire common sense.
- cptnapalm 6y ago
  I think that's a terrible standard. Actually, it's not even a standard at all as it can't be known until after an act, such as these, has begun taking place in which case it is too late. Unless something is known to everyone in advance to be "protest theater", so to speak, it is the act not an unknowable reaction that must be held to account.
  - sibeliuss 6y ago
    This is an after-the-fact tool. For example: - Kavanaugh confirmation hearings: did people feel unsafe? No. - AOC leading a take over of Pelosi's office: No, probably the opposite. People were likely laughing about it and mildly annoyed. - Mobs of people ransacking the capitol? Yeah, people felt _terrified_, and multiple people died. See the difference? There's non-violent peaceful protest, and there's threats of violence, or actual violence, that one can feel in their bones, and which color the situation and subsequent charges should events fall out of line with our tradition of protest. Though events can't be known ahead of time, it's fairly easy in retrospect to judge intent -- i.e, AOC didn't enter Pelosi's office dressed in tactical gear and holding zip ties, with a mob of angry "Squad" members calling for the Senate minority leader's death. It's offensive to common sense and morally dubious to compare these things, or to even bring them up in this context.
    - cptnapalm 6y ago
      Was there a poll taken of the feelings inside prior and during these events which was then proclaimed to the protesting parties and the public at large? Is there any indication that the vast majority had any idea of the intentions and the contents of the pockets of those who sought to do harm? Does the moral quality of an action change depending upon the style of pants? The ethics of actions of others does not at all depend upon your feelings.
      - sibeliuss 6y ago
        > > Does the moral quality of an action change depending upon the style of pants No, maybe not, but perhaps there's something to be said when you look at the shirts people were wearing ("Camp Auschwitz") or the flags people were holding (Confederate, many), or the words people were speaking ("Hang Mike Pence!")? > Is there any indication that the vast majority had any idea of the intentions and the contents of the pockets of those who sought to do harm There's an enormous amount of testimony everywhere, in every major publication, on every news channel, about the feelings of those on the inside experiencing the mob enter from the outside. Your attempts to defend this are disingenuous.
        cptnapalm 6y ago
        Again, you mistake your feelings for rationality. Policy enforcement based on feelings is inherently arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law.
        sibeliuss 6y ago
        > Policy enforcement based on feelings is inherently arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law This is entirely not true in the real world. When a prosecutor brings a charge against someone, all sorts of factors are taken into account, based on prior law. The charge of "menacing" is a great example. How about "making threatening statements"? Or any number of other obvious examples that rely on subjective interpretation within a context.
      - 6y ago

sibeliuss 6y ago

I don't think -- for even a single microsecond -- that anyone anywhere close to those hearings feared for the lives. It's absolutely absurd to compare the two situations. This standard ("does anyone feel unsafe") should always be used as a check against ones haywire common sense.

cptnapalm 6y ago
I think that's a terrible standard. Actually, it's not even a standard at all as it can't be known until after an act, such as these, has begun taking place in which case it is too late. Unless something is known to everyone in advance to be "protest theater", so to speak, it is the act not an unknowable reaction that must be held to account.
- sibeliuss 6y ago
  This is an after-the-fact tool. For example: - Kavanaugh confirmation hearings: did people feel unsafe? No. - AOC leading a take over of Pelosi's office: No, probably the opposite. People were likely laughing about it and mildly annoyed. - Mobs of people ransacking the capitol? Yeah, people felt _terrified_, and multiple people died. See the difference? There's non-violent peaceful protest, and there's threats of violence, or actual violence, that one can feel in their bones, and which color the situation and subsequent charges should events fall out of line with our tradition of protest. Though events can't be known ahead of time, it's fairly easy in retrospect to judge intent -- i.e, AOC didn't enter Pelosi's office dressed in tactical gear and holding zip ties, with a mob of angry "Squad" members calling for the Senate minority leader's death. It's offensive to common sense and morally dubious to compare these things, or to even bring them up in this context.
  - cptnapalm 6y ago
    Was there a poll taken of the feelings inside prior and during these events which was then proclaimed to the protesting parties and the public at large? Is there any indication that the vast majority had any idea of the intentions and the contents of the pockets of those who sought to do harm? Does the moral quality of an action change depending upon the style of pants? The ethics of actions of others does not at all depend upon your feelings.
    - sibeliuss 6y ago
      > > Does the moral quality of an action change depending upon the style of pants No, maybe not, but perhaps there's something to be said when you look at the shirts people were wearing ("Camp Auschwitz") or the flags people were holding (Confederate, many), or the words people were speaking ("Hang Mike Pence!")? > Is there any indication that the vast majority had any idea of the intentions and the contents of the pockets of those who sought to do harm There's an enormous amount of testimony everywhere, in every major publication, on every news channel, about the feelings of those on the inside experiencing the mob enter from the outside. Your attempts to defend this are disingenuous.
      - cptnapalm 6y ago
        Again, you mistake your feelings for rationality. Policy enforcement based on feelings is inherently arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law.
        sibeliuss 6y ago
        > Policy enforcement based on feelings is inherently arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law This is entirely not true in the real world. When a prosecutor brings a charge against someone, all sorts of factors are taken into account, based on prior law. The charge of "menacing" is a great example. How about "making threatening statements"? Or any number of other obvious examples that rely on subjective interpretation within a context.
    - 6y ago