3 ms·

ok but those agencies look for enemies, and you have just made yourself one, and anyone else that agrees with you essentially, by the conflict "us or them" lang

• zionic 4y ago
  > but the wording here is impossible to agree with Why? You haven’t disagreed with my argument, only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit and hope for incremental improvements by submitting extra hard. These agencies only exist and operate (in theory) with the consent of the governed. In reality almost no one consents to this, so these agencies rely on mass apathy and ignorance. If we talk about what they’ve done wrong, and how they actively harm America a few things happen: 1) it becomes less socially acceptable to work for them, and they struggle to attract talent 2) it becomes more politically feasible to argue for their removal The us-vs-them language is a feature, not a bug. People in large groups are (mostly) incapable of being both passionate and nuanced on the same subject. So sure, bringing up the children murdered by FBI and ATF at Waco doesn’t directly relate to ending mass illegal surveillance but it does help achieve the goal.
  • mistrial9 4y ago
    > only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit that is most definitely not what I said at all
  • donthellbanme 4y ago