6 ms·

It seems to me that vigilantes use this technology, not "normal people". Most normal people still have ethical concerns about tracking others, even in exceptio

It seems to me that vigilantes use this technology, not "normal people". Most normal people still have ethical concerns about tracking others, even in exceptional circumstances like this one.

jaywalk 6y ago
Listen, it's not like these people burned and looted small businesses like acceptable rioters. They scared politicians!
- _benedict 6y ago
  Even if looting had been considered "acceptable" (which, broadly, it was not): Scared (for their safety) politicians is a societal failure mode. It should be more urgent and pressing than almost anything else.
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    > Scared (for their safety) politicians is a societal failure mode. When the government fears the people, it's an institutional failure mode, just like allowing people burn and loot small business with near-impunity, which, broadly, it was.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > When the government fears the people, it's an institutional failure mode Governments and politicians should always fear the people. Not in terms of violence (although I do understand why BLM felt the need to resort to violence, given that police has undeniably committed grave acts of violence specifically against people of color for generations), but at the very least they should always fear not being re-elected so that they have an incentive to work for the people. If the people don't hold their politicians accountable and keep voting only because of the party letter (and not voting in primaries...), the end result is Qanon believers like Greene in Congress.
      - loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >Governments and politicians should always fear the people. Not in terms of violence (although I do understand why BLM felt the need to resort to violence, given that police has undeniably committed grave acts of violence specifically against people of color for generations) Why are people so myopic in their blame for police, when its politicians who are ultimately responsible for creating the drug war, mass incarceration, and police militarization? The current POTUS has a long history of being a major champion of the drug war, the military police state, and voting for wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent "people of color", and yet he is seen as a hero by many people who hate the police and claim to care about "people of color". How is that not deeply ironic?
        mschuster91 6y ago
        > Why are people so myopic in their blame for police, when its politicians who are ultimately responsible for creating the drug war, mass incarceration, and police militarization? I fully agree that the issue goes deeper than police, but still: it was a conscious choice that led to George Floyd's death. It was and is a conscious choice of a police officer to conduct racial profiling. Politicians must be held responsible, and yes that includes the current Presidency, but that does not absolve individual actors at the bottom of the ladder.
        loveistheanswer 6y ago
        Indeed, individual actors should stand trial for breaking the law. It seems like some people are consciously or unconsciously using the police as a scapegoat, though, as a means of avoiding genuinely addressing the root causes of police militarization and mass incarceration which are politically taboo to discuss: the war on drugs, and to a lesser extent, the war on terror.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    What is it when non-politicians fear for their safety? Why should that be less urgent and pressing than everything else? Do we now elevate the political class above regular citizens?
    - rlpb 6y ago
      The most urgent and pressing thing is democracy and the rule of law, since everything else that I value flows from that. I therefore elevate democracy and the rule of law over everything else, because without those, all else is lost. If politicians can be coerced with violence, the only politicians left will be corrupt ones, and democracy and the rule of law will be lost. Then regular citizens will no longer have any say over the situation anyway. If a regular citizen can be coerced with violence, they still have recourse to the polling booth.
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    Whether the Capitol protesters had a legitimate grievance is one matter, but if what they believed was in fact true, making the politicians that enabled it afraid for their safety is in my mind a good thing; those in power should fear that, if they abuse their power, and the people can't redress that wrong in any other way, e.g. through the courts, they may resort to force. Again, I don't believe the protesters were correct, but they believed that widespread election fraud was being ignored by their representatives and state and federal courts. In their minds, resorting to force --- fairly mild force, in all honesty --- was not an unreasonable step.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- netsharc 6y ago
  I can see a difference between rage leading to property destruction and rage leading to "I'm going to execute [politician whom their conspiracy theory outlet have made to be a traitor, pure evil, pedophile, etc, etc]". OK you're going to say only a minority of the Capitol invaders had such thoughts, but that's the same with BLM "rioters" as well (what you're obviously refering to).
  - hn8788 6y ago
    I don't support what happened at the Capitol, but it made more sense to me than what was happening over the summer. They thought they were betrayed or whatever by the government, so they took it out on the government. What sense does it make for BLM "protesters" to burn cars and buildings, loot stores, etc., to protest police violence?
    - EvilEy3 6y ago
      But, b-but... stop asking racist questions! Billions of generations suffered from raysism! Cars, buildings and police are all part of the problem!
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      It's not a monolith like the capitol insurrection was and you're conflating the riots with the protests when they are two different things. When the protestors were outside hearing the president speak it was a protest. When they tried to storm the capitol it was an insurrection. There are clear, easy lines to be drawn. People don't draw these lines though because they want to further their political agenda.
      - leesalminen 6y ago
        > It's not a monolith like the capitol insurrection was I don’t think what happened at the Capitol was a monolith either. There were 10,000s of people in DC that day and only 100s (?) entered the Capitol illegally. So, it’s entirely similar to what happened over the summer with BLM where there were 10,000s of peaceful protestors and 100s of violent rioters.
- prepend 6y ago
  It seems pretty reasonable that a few hundred scared politicians is more important than a larger number of small businesses burned. I think both are bad, but the difference between a “competent coup” that kills the scared politicians and the stupid incompetence that was the capitol riot can only be known afterwards. I think this fits into the concept that political violence is worse than regular violence.

It seems to me that vigilantes use this technology, not "normal people". Most normal people still have ethical concerns about tracking others, even in exceptional circumstances like this one.

jaywalk 6y ago

Listen, it's not like these people burned and looted small businesses like acceptable rioters. They scared politicians!

_benedict 6y ago
Even if looting had been considered "acceptable" (which, broadly, it was not): Scared (for their safety) politicians is a societal failure mode. It should be more urgent and pressing than almost anything else.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  > Scared (for their safety) politicians is a societal failure mode. When the government fears the people, it's an institutional failure mode, just like allowing people burn and loot small business with near-impunity, which, broadly, it was.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > When the government fears the people, it's an institutional failure mode Governments and politicians should always fear the people. Not in terms of violence (although I do understand why BLM felt the need to resort to violence, given that police has undeniably committed grave acts of violence specifically against people of color for generations), but at the very least they should always fear not being re-elected so that they have an incentive to work for the people. If the people don't hold their politicians accountable and keep voting only because of the party letter (and not voting in primaries...), the end result is Qanon believers like Greene in Congress.
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      >Governments and politicians should always fear the people. Not in terms of violence (although I do understand why BLM felt the need to resort to violence, given that police has undeniably committed grave acts of violence specifically against people of color for generations) Why are people so myopic in their blame for police, when its politicians who are ultimately responsible for creating the drug war, mass incarceration, and police militarization? The current POTUS has a long history of being a major champion of the drug war, the military police state, and voting for wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent "people of color", and yet he is seen as a hero by many people who hate the police and claim to care about "people of color". How is that not deeply ironic?
      - mschuster91 6y ago
        > Why are people so myopic in their blame for police, when its politicians who are ultimately responsible for creating the drug war, mass incarceration, and police militarization? I fully agree that the issue goes deeper than police, but still: it was a conscious choice that led to George Floyd's death. It was and is a conscious choice of a police officer to conduct racial profiling. Politicians must be held responsible, and yes that includes the current Presidency, but that does not absolve individual actors at the bottom of the ladder.
        loveistheanswer 6y ago
        Indeed, individual actors should stand trial for breaking the law. It seems like some people are consciously or unconsciously using the police as a scapegoat, though, as a means of avoiding genuinely addressing the root causes of police militarization and mass incarceration which are politically taboo to discuss: the war on drugs, and to a lesser extent, the war on terror.
- eplanit 6y ago
  What is it when non-politicians fear for their safety? Why should that be less urgent and pressing than everything else? Do we now elevate the political class above regular citizens?
  - rlpb 6y ago
    The most urgent and pressing thing is democracy and the rule of law, since everything else that I value flows from that. I therefore elevate democracy and the rule of law over everything else, because without those, all else is lost. If politicians can be coerced with violence, the only politicians left will be corrupt ones, and democracy and the rule of law will be lost. Then regular citizens will no longer have any say over the situation anyway. If a regular citizen can be coerced with violence, they still have recourse to the polling booth.
- JasonFruit 6y ago
  Whether the Capitol protesters had a legitimate grievance is one matter, but if what they believed was in fact true, making the politicians that enabled it afraid for their safety is in my mind a good thing; those in power should fear that, if they abuse their power, and the people can't redress that wrong in any other way, e.g. through the courts, they may resort to force. Again, I don't believe the protesters were correct, but they believed that widespread election fraud was being ignored by their representatives and state and federal courts. In their minds, resorting to force --- fairly mild force, in all honesty --- was not an unreasonable step.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
netsharc 6y ago
I can see a difference between rage leading to property destruction and rage leading to "I'm going to execute [politician whom their conspiracy theory outlet have made to be a traitor, pure evil, pedophile, etc, etc]". OK you're going to say only a minority of the Capitol invaders had such thoughts, but that's the same with BLM "rioters" as well (what you're obviously refering to).
- hn8788 6y ago
  I don't support what happened at the Capitol, but it made more sense to me than what was happening over the summer. They thought they were betrayed or whatever by the government, so they took it out on the government. What sense does it make for BLM "protesters" to burn cars and buildings, loot stores, etc., to protest police violence?
  - EvilEy3 6y ago
    But, b-but... stop asking racist questions! Billions of generations suffered from raysism! Cars, buildings and police are all part of the problem!
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    It's not a monolith like the capitol insurrection was and you're conflating the riots with the protests when they are two different things. When the protestors were outside hearing the president speak it was a protest. When they tried to storm the capitol it was an insurrection. There are clear, easy lines to be drawn. People don't draw these lines though because they want to further their political agenda.
    - leesalminen 6y ago
      > It's not a monolith like the capitol insurrection was I don’t think what happened at the Capitol was a monolith either. There were 10,000s of people in DC that day and only 100s (?) entered the Capitol illegally. So, it’s entirely similar to what happened over the summer with BLM where there were 10,000s of peaceful protestors and 100s of violent rioters.
prepend 6y ago
It seems pretty reasonable that a few hundred scared politicians is more important than a larger number of small businesses burned. I think both are bad, but the difference between a “competent coup” that kills the scared politicians and the stupid incompetence that was the capitol riot can only be known afterwards. I think this fits into the concept that political violence is worse than regular violence.