5 ms·

> Personally, I don’t care about the underlying thing the protests are about, the important aspect is that if you allow unconstitutional government action like

> Personally, I don’t care about the underlying thing the protests are about, the important aspect is that if you allow unconstitutional government action like this, eventually it will be used against you. Words won't protect you. Precedent won't protect you. Guns won't protect you. If you are in a society where others want you surveiled or dead or removed or heavily restricted, and you're outnumbered, it's already too late. As you say, for many people already "Constitutional" is just a weapon to be wielded when it suits them and ignored when it doesn't. But the reason why that's bad needs to be much more than "because this piece of paper says so," it needs to be "because these are things we all agree are important."

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Yes, absolutely. And what's changed is that we now have a massive number of people (on both sides) who no longer agree that these things are important, or at least who think that other things are more important - so much more important that "these things" (constitutional protections) can be circumvented when they get in the way of the "more important things". Constitutional protections are largely running on institutional inertia at the moment. That's good - the institutions were supposed to do that - but it won't last forever.
- colpabar 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Do you evaluate everything based on how you can label the people who made it or just this?
    - nebulousthree 3y ago
      I agree that the expression is tired but it is not wrong. The context has changed.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        The argument goes: Premise 1) Person came up with Idea. Premise 2) I do not like Person. Conclusion) I do not like Idea. It's not actually a good argument against Idea, it's just a preference.
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        You are absolutely right, even though you were downvoted at least three times in under a minute for some reason.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        Probably, assuming you upvoted. The comment was at -1 when I read this.
  - millzlane 3y ago
    I've pondered this before. If a thief tells you that a all men deserve a right to own their own possessions and be secure in their ownership. Would you say he was wrong? Sure, he's a hypocrite but is it not true what the thief said?
- JellyBeanThief 3y ago
  It's not that the sides no longer agree that these things are important. They do. The problem is they don't believe they agree that they're important. They believe the other side has abandoned the constitution, and they know that puts their own side at a disadvantage if they stay with it. The two sides are so frightened of each other at this point that all assumptions of good faith are off the table. So, note for next version of the constitution: Make sure the first amendment establishes strict separation of speech and money.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    Money vs speech is a good example, I think, of people not agreeing that these things are important or not. And that the "Constitution" part is not the important part. How would you get a Constitution to separate money when there are so many well-funded pushes for exactly the opposite, resulting in the situation where the courts say money needs to be protected? Before you can do that you need to get everyone on board with the dangers of money in politics, and then if you can do that, you've solved the problem because now your judges won't interpret "protection of speech" as "protection of buying political influence." You gotta win the debate either way.
    - JellyBeanThief 3y ago
      > How would you get a Constitution to separate money Not that I put a lot of effort into this formulation, but how about something like > A well-informed and reasonable public, being necessary to the security of a working democracy, the right of the people to free and quick access to public information must not be abridged, but protected. And then back that up with a multi-layer prescriptive dictionary to minimize judicial reinterpretation. The terms "right of the people", "free and quick access", "public information" would defined in layer N, while the terms "right", "people", "free", "quick", "access", "public", and "information" would be defined in some layers N - M. We've had some centuries now to get better at technical writing, language engineering, and lexicography, to say nothing of IT. We should use them.
  - locopati 3y ago
    It's pretty hard to have good faith to people who have bullied and been deceptive to attain their goal of undermining bodily autonomy.
dukeofdoom 3y ago
just scare people enough and they will turn in their family members. Especially if you dress it up in being the right moral thing to do. we were so close during the lockdowns, one step away
- majormajor 3y ago
  Are you suggesting turning in family is never the right thing to do? What act would you draw the line at?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > never I don't think that's what they're saying. I interpret that they believe the issues being faced during the pandemic hysteria weren't ones worthy of turning in family.
    - majormajor 3y ago
      We weren't talking here about the pandemic OR turning in family so it's a confusing thing to bring up unless painting it as some sort of example of something where "government" should always come second?
      - dukeofdoom 3y ago
        Have you turned in your family members before? Just curious what it would take for you to do that? Jay walking or murder? I know in Quebec they had a curfew, and neighbours were ratting out neighbours. I come from the position that lockdowns did more harm than good. The damage to the economy and personal freedom, and eroding trust in government.
        majormajor 3y ago
        You're asking me what crime would be enough for me but not answering my question of if there's one that's enough for you? Cause for sure, murder. Quite likely others. It scales with family distance too of course. Where's your line?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
WeylandYutani 3y ago
Very true. I have my issues with the Netherlands (no country is perfect) but the majority is atheist and religion holds no power here.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  You're reaping the dividends of a much, much higher level of public education which I don't know when we'll see in a country as vast, federated, and new worldy as the U.S. :c
pauldenton 3y ago
If guns will not protect you, why did Stalin, Hitler and Castro go to such lengths of seizing privately owned firearms?
- the_optimist 3y ago
  The reality is that guns will protect you because 1) the sheer count of citizens is substantially and necessarily higher than military, and 2) citizens themselves are a critical part of the spoils of war. Poll Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria for more information. Disarming is an essential predicate for coercion.
- js8 3y ago
  The primary thing that keeps dictators in power is small number of allies, who help them control information (mostly the message "rebellion will be supressed"). Guns are only a tool, without the operators, they are useless. In contrast, democracy is protected by transparency, not guns. Guns are required only to the point where there are people who suppress transparency with threat of violence, which is usually only organized crime or foreign state actors.
  - the_optimist 3y ago
    There is no basis for the “usually only” assertion and distinction, either historically or in the future.
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > If guns will not protect you, why did Stalin, Hitler and Castro go to such lengths of seizing privately owned firearms? Yeah: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/08/viral-imag... Chenoweth et al did a study of over 600 movements since 1900, and found those that used violence/force succeeded about 25% of the time, and those that did not succeeded in their goals about 50% of the time. The list is in Appendix A of: * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 Americans learn the wrong lessons: the War of Independence wasn't won on the battle fields, but in the years leading up to it in the change of thinking (Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson on this; Chenoweth discusses in the above book).

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Yes, absolutely. And what's changed is that we now have a massive number of people (on both sides) who no longer agree that these things are important, or at least who think that other things are more important - so much more important that "these things" (constitutional protections) can be circumvented when they get in the way of the "more important things". Constitutional protections are largely running on institutional inertia at the moment. That's good - the institutions were supposed to do that - but it won't last forever.

colpabar 3y ago
[flagged]
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Do you evaluate everything based on how you can label the people who made it or just this?
  - nebulousthree 3y ago
    I agree that the expression is tired but it is not wrong. The context has changed.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      The argument goes: Premise 1) Person came up with Idea. Premise 2) I do not like Person. Conclusion) I do not like Idea. It's not actually a good argument against Idea, it's just a preference.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        You are absolutely right, even though you were downvoted at least three times in under a minute for some reason.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        Probably, assuming you upvoted. The comment was at -1 when I read this.
- millzlane 3y ago
  I've pondered this before. If a thief tells you that a all men deserve a right to own their own possessions and be secure in their ownership. Would you say he was wrong? Sure, he's a hypocrite but is it not true what the thief said?
JellyBeanThief 3y ago
It's not that the sides no longer agree that these things are important. They do. The problem is they don't believe they agree that they're important. They believe the other side has abandoned the constitution, and they know that puts their own side at a disadvantage if they stay with it. The two sides are so frightened of each other at this point that all assumptions of good faith are off the table. So, note for next version of the constitution: Make sure the first amendment establishes strict separation of speech and money.
- majormajor 3y ago
  Money vs speech is a good example, I think, of people not agreeing that these things are important or not. And that the "Constitution" part is not the important part. How would you get a Constitution to separate money when there are so many well-funded pushes for exactly the opposite, resulting in the situation where the courts say money needs to be protected? Before you can do that you need to get everyone on board with the dangers of money in politics, and then if you can do that, you've solved the problem because now your judges won't interpret "protection of speech" as "protection of buying political influence." You gotta win the debate either way.
  - JellyBeanThief 3y ago
    > How would you get a Constitution to separate money Not that I put a lot of effort into this formulation, but how about something like > A well-informed and reasonable public, being necessary to the security of a working democracy, the right of the people to free and quick access to public information must not be abridged, but protected. And then back that up with a multi-layer prescriptive dictionary to minimize judicial reinterpretation. The terms "right of the people", "free and quick access", "public information" would defined in layer N, while the terms "right", "people", "free", "quick", "access", "public", and "information" would be defined in some layers N - M. We've had some centuries now to get better at technical writing, language engineering, and lexicography, to say nothing of IT. We should use them.
- locopati 3y ago
  It's pretty hard to have good faith to people who have bullied and been deceptive to attain their goal of undermining bodily autonomy.

dukeofdoom 3y ago

just scare people enough and they will turn in their family members. Especially if you dress it up in being the right moral thing to do. we were so close during the lockdowns, one step away

majormajor 3y ago
Are you suggesting turning in family is never the right thing to do? What act would you draw the line at?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > never I don't think that's what they're saying. I interpret that they believe the issues being faced during the pandemic hysteria weren't ones worthy of turning in family.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    We weren't talking here about the pandemic OR turning in family so it's a confusing thing to bring up unless painting it as some sort of example of something where "government" should always come second?
    - dukeofdoom 3y ago
      Have you turned in your family members before? Just curious what it would take for you to do that? Jay walking or murder? I know in Quebec they had a curfew, and neighbours were ratting out neighbours. I come from the position that lockdowns did more harm than good. The damage to the economy and personal freedom, and eroding trust in government.
      - majormajor 3y ago
        You're asking me what crime would be enough for me but not answering my question of if there's one that's enough for you? Cause for sure, murder. Quite likely others. It scales with family distance too of course. Where's your line?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

WeylandYutani 3y ago

Very true. I have my issues with the Netherlands (no country is perfect) but the majority is atheist and religion holds no power here.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
You're reaping the dividends of a much, much higher level of public education which I don't know when we'll see in a country as vast, federated, and new worldy as the U.S. :c

pauldenton 3y ago

If guns will not protect you, why did Stalin, Hitler and Castro go to such lengths of seizing privately owned firearms?

the_optimist 3y ago
The reality is that guns will protect you because 1) the sheer count of citizens is substantially and necessarily higher than military, and 2) citizens themselves are a critical part of the spoils of war. Poll Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria for more information. Disarming is an essential predicate for coercion.
js8 3y ago
The primary thing that keeps dictators in power is small number of allies, who help them control information (mostly the message "rebellion will be supressed"). Guns are only a tool, without the operators, they are useless. In contrast, democracy is protected by transparency, not guns. Guns are required only to the point where there are people who suppress transparency with threat of violence, which is usually only organized crime or foreign state actors.
- the_optimist 3y ago
  There is no basis for the “usually only” assertion and distinction, either historically or in the future.
throw0101c 3y ago
> If guns will not protect you, why did Stalin, Hitler and Castro go to such lengths of seizing privately owned firearms? Yeah: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/08/viral-imag... Chenoweth et al did a study of over 600 movements since 1900, and found those that used violence/force succeeded about 25% of the time, and those that did not succeeded in their goals about 50% of the time. The list is in Appendix A of: * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 Americans learn the wrong lessons: the War of Independence wasn't won on the battle fields, but in the years leading up to it in the change of thinking (Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson on this; Chenoweth discusses in the above book).