5 ms·

The argument you have presented is a classic tactic that the state uses to justify censorship and its abuse of power. Present scary group of people and then use

The argument you have presented is a classic tactic that the state uses to justify censorship and its abuse of power. Present scary group of people and then use it to justify taking away everyone's rights. it is a nonsense because. Firstly There simply isn't enough for these people to be politically relevant. The number of KKK members in the US IIRC is approximately 10,000 in a country of ~350 million. That is 0.002% of the population. Nobody likes these people, they are abrasive and have abhorrent views. They are not going to gain power and start a genocide through airing their views. The hate speech laws in the UK was sold to the public as stopping islamic extremists, however many of the people that have been affected are ordinary people that pose no threat to anyone saying stupid stuff on social media, usually while drunk. That was not the original intent of the legislation yet it has been abused (and we were promised this wouldn't happen). Secondly most abuses of power come from the state that is already in power. Over the last two years they have made it illegal in some cases to leave your home or not to wear a mask under the guise of the "greater good". In some cases people been have arrested people for organising protests against such measures, or even been visited by the police for questioning the orthodoxy of the state mandates on social media. In the US I heard they can literally take your property if they suspect (have no proof) that it might be used in illegal activity. This childish idea of white nationalists taking over the western world if you don't curtail speech is simply the state justifying why it can take away your liberty. You shouldn't be worried about white nationalists they are a statistical anomaly now. What you should be afraid of is how the state is going to abuse its power with new legislation.

jacquesm 5y ago
- YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
  How disingenuous. All this tells me is that you don't have an argument against my position. If you are have an rebuttal, I am quite willing to hear it.
kgwxd 5y ago
That might be the number of card carrying members, the number of people who are cool with their general ideas but smart enough to not go around advertising it to everyone is far greater.
- YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
  That maybe correct. However even if was ten to hundred times the number it would not be a significant percentage.
honkdaddy 5y ago
You make an excellent case. It's a shame that /u/jacquesm realizes they've been proven wrong but doesn't have the decency to admit it.
Clubber 5y ago
>In the US I heard they can literally take your property if they suspect (have no proof) that it might be used in illegal activity. It's called civil asset forfeiture. Many police departments use this as a tactic to fund their departments. Some have been said to fund police parties and drink machines with it, among other things. The federal government incentivizes this as a "cut" needs to be send to the federal government while the local and state departments need to keep the rest. In 2010, estimated $2.5 billion in assets was seized. They made no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate seizures. Here's a recent example of an innocent man (and former marine) getting around $80k seised and left with $10. The corruption is at all levels. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar... Also, in the US, all civil servants have what's called qualified immunity, which means they can't be sued for wrongdoing unless the exact thing happened before qualified immunity was enacted in the 60s. This is an example of a corrupt government protecting itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
- YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
  Thanks for the information. I've seen Civil Asset Forfeiture discussed about before on message boards and couldn't remember for the life of what it was called. Civil Asset Forfeiture is just state sanctioned theft from what I can tell. > Also, in the US, all civil servants have what's called qualified immunity, which means they can't be sued for wrongdoing unless the exact thing happened before qualified immunity was enacted in the 60s. This is an example of a corrupt government protecting itself. I didn't know about this. But yep it is another example of the state protecting itself at the detriment of the citizenry.

jacquesm 5y ago

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
How disingenuous. All this tells me is that you don't have an argument against my position. If you are have an rebuttal, I am quite willing to hear it.

kgwxd 5y ago

That might be the number of card carrying members, the number of people who are cool with their general ideas but smart enough to not go around advertising it to everyone is far greater.

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
That maybe correct. However even if was ten to hundred times the number it would not be a significant percentage.

honkdaddy 5y ago

You make an excellent case. It's a shame that /u/jacquesm realizes they've been proven wrong but doesn't have the decency to admit it.

Clubber 5y ago

>In the US I heard they can literally take your property if they suspect (have no proof) that it might be used in illegal activity. It's called civil asset forfeiture. Many police departments use this as a tactic to fund their departments. Some have been said to fund police parties and drink machines with it, among other things. The federal government incentivizes this as a "cut" needs to be send to the federal government while the local and state departments need to keep the rest. In 2010, estimated $2.5 billion in assets was seized. They made no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate seizures. Here's a recent example of an innocent man (and former marine) getting around $80k seised and left with $10. The corruption is at all levels. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar... Also, in the US, all civil servants have what's called qualified immunity, which means they can't be sued for wrongdoing unless the exact thing happened before qualified immunity was enacted in the 60s. This is an example of a corrupt government protecting itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
Thanks for the information. I've seen Civil Asset Forfeiture discussed about before on message boards and couldn't remember for the life of what it was called. Civil Asset Forfeiture is just state sanctioned theft from what I can tell. > Also, in the US, all civil servants have what's called qualified immunity, which means they can't be sued for wrongdoing unless the exact thing happened before qualified immunity was enacted in the 60s. This is an example of a corrupt government protecting itself. I didn't know about this. But yep it is another example of the state protecting itself at the detriment of the citizenry.