4 ms·
Are you saying that you’re OK with corruption and an abuse of power as long as the target is someone you don’t like?
by innocentoldguy 4y ago
Are you saying that you’re OK with corruption and an abuse of power as long as the target is someone you don’t like?
- ltbarcly3 4y agoThat is exactly what they are saying, they want the police to illegally go after the people they disagree with politically, but not the people they agree with, without regard for due process, civil rights, or whether a crime has been committed.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoNope. See my followup response above.
- ltbarcly3 4y agoI don't know what is in your heart, but that is what you said? Lots of counter culture groups of the 60's were committing acts of terrorism, including bombings and kidnappings. Lots of right wing groups now are nothing more than political organizing. And vice versa. The way you said it, you didn't differentiate between 60's terrorist groups and modern peaceful right wing political groups.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoGreat job missing the point. The point is that the role of the FBI has to be considered on a case by case basis. They are neither the good/bad guys because they infiltrated the Weather Underground or SDS in the 60s, and they are not the good/bad guys because they are infiltrating right wing groups today. Likewise, just because Hoover used them for his own personal vendettas - incontrovertibly - doesn't make them a priori the good or the bad guys. The same is true in reverse: none of the groups are a priori the good or bad guys because they've been investigated or infiltrated by the FBI. BTW, the vast majority of the organizations the FBI infiltrated between 1963 and 1976 were non-violent and dedicated to peace.
- ltbarcly3 4y agoNo, I'm not missing the point. You can try to add nuance now, and you can claim you always meant that nuance, but that's what you said.
- bombcar 4y agoEveryone basically is, they just disguise it a bit.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoSpeak for yourself. Some of us think that people we vehemently disagree with deserve to have their rights upheld and be subject to due process. The real tragedy is that people like you who don't believe in equality under law poison the well for the rest of us. In a world where you people are happy to enable slimy things to get your way everyone else must behave similarly or be at a disadvantage.
- bombcar 4y agoThe fact that you have to use a throwaway tells volumes about how the world is despite how we may want it to be.
- renewiltord 4y agoAnonymous statements mean nothing. You can easily Sybil up multiple contradictory positions. And to be honest, I think you probably do. If your chosen anonymous identity were tied to persistent effort, one could validate, but in the absence of that, you could just use arbitrarily many "throwaway" accounts that all claim ideological consistency on as many issues as desired. Any claims to ideological consistency are therefore of zero value. It's like me claiming that I have given away $10 billion today to charity.
- innocentoldguy 4y agoNot everyone in the world is a consequentialist. A lot of people have morals and believe in equal rights and equal protection under the law.
- namelessoracle 4y agoNo bad tactics, just bad targets.
- goodpoint 4y agoThat's a very dishonest strawman.
- innocentoldguy 4y agoAsking a clarifying question is not a straw man argument. It isn't an argument at all. It's a question.
- goodpoint 4y agoAsking a leading question like that includes an implied statement. Let's think of an example: "Why do you think people cannot see through your attempt at manipulation?"