4 ms·
Telling someone advocating for the warrant-less probable cause-less kidnapping of dissidents by authorities to fuck off does nothing to discredit their position
by gpm 2y ago
Telling someone advocating for the warrant-less probable cause-less kidnapping of dissidents by authorities to fuck off does nothing to discredit their position. It does discredit this sites reputation for you to claim otherwise in your role as moderator though.
- dang 2y agoIt seems to me that what you're responding to here is the injustice and outrage of police raiding a Quaker meeting. That's fine, but it's not a response to the argument I was making. (Which I can understand, in a way, because I didn't spell it out—I only linked to it.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ranger_danger 2y agoIf you're referring to me, I absolutely was not advocating for that, I explicitly said nothing about it on purpose.
- gpm 2y agoUltimately I was referring to your comment, in the context of criticizing the comment criticizing the comment responding to your comment. Some nuance and charity that I would normally apply if responding directly to your comment naturally got lost with the indirection. To respond more directly to it, "reasonable suspicion" is a term of art in the law, and it's a term that explicitly refers to a lower standard of proof than probable cause, which is the term of art describing the standard of proof required to enter a house and arrest someone like this. It's not the case that police routinely arrest people on just this lower standard of proof (they're prohibited from doing so). Interpreted charitably your comment was merely using the term in a non-artful way, to refer to the different higher standard of probable cause. However given the context of the thread, article, and the current US government's recent actions, I don't think the comment dang responded to interpreted your comment that way - rather I think they interpreted it as you advocating for the government arresting people under this (unlawful, lower) standard. I don't think the comment Dang responded to strongly rebuking your comment under this interpretation weakened their argument - it's an interpretation that is out of line enough that a strong rebuke is the effective response. Hence why I objected to that part of Dang's reasoning in telling them off.
- ranger_danger 2y agoI'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but I did not feel like dang's comment was rebuking mine at all.
- gpm 2y agoDang's comment was rebuking the comment rebuking yours..