4 ms·

I'm totally in favor of holding the current administration accountable for what they are doing and clamping down on all the authoritarian actions as much as pos

I'm totally in favor of holding the current administration accountable for what they are doing and clamping down on all the authoritarian actions as much as possible. But I'm not in favor of compromising principles to do it. There are plenty of things that they're doing that are documented that are evil. There's no need to waste energy and credibility speculating about things that aren't yet understood or documented, unless you personally have the means to investigate Wang's disappearance and shed light on what happened.

NomDePlum 2y ago
There is a point where "benefit of the doubt" is not appropriate though. Personal opinion is that point is past.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  Benefit of the doubt is relative to both the item and setting though. What prior evidence do we have that would cause us _not_ to extend benefit of the doubt to the US government in the specific context of disappearing people? I can think of plenty of examples of shady things various official bodies in the US have done within the past century, but regular occurrences of "extrajudicial kidnapping without a paper trail" isn't one of them. If you go through proper channels and leave a paper trail then regardless of whether or not you agree with what's been done it can't reasonably said to be "disappearing" someone.
  - watwut 2y ago
    US did not used to do whole host thing it is doing now - like trying to destroy law companies that sued politicians. Or, removing security from former government family members while stroking hate. Or, illegally extraditing people because someone misrepresented a tattoo. Or, attacking judges the way current administration do. Or, threatening to annex Canada and parts of Europe. Or, opening damm because there is fire in a place where water does not go. Something not happening in the past is not a reason for it to not happen again.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  There is never a time where it's appropriate to give up benefit of the doubt in general toward an entity. If your starting position is that they most likely did any and every bad thing you can think of, you quickly reach absurdity.
  - trod1234 2y ago
    You are wrong about that. You have never dealt with malevolent entities where that cannot be given. Decision-making, and its related presumptions change when the threat becomes existential. Deceivers with resources who abuse the public trust and its presumptions towards individuals, take advantage of societies understanding, towards destructive ends, and continue doing so regardless. They corrupt the systems meant to protect and keep destructive outcome dynamics in check usually for personal or political benefit. The entities are not entitled to the same benefit of the doubt when they have a history of malfeasance, and lack of credibility. This is true of anti-trust, government corruption, and government in general when you consider the many other things like Tuskegee, or what happened to the Inuit women who were involuntarily sterilized following eugenics programs in the late 60s early 70s, along with other indigenous peoples under the guise of beneficial programs promoting public health. You can see just how well fines do in curbing corruption like JPM's silver manipulation over a decade, or Egg price fixing over the past 10 years, or medical equipment providers who have defects that kill patients, and then claim they fix them falsely (in bad faith). There is a point where you cannot presume innocence, especially with regards to non-person entities (like corporations), who will pay the fine and continue business as usual passing the cost on. Eventually you hit a critical saturation point where the presumption and benefit of the doubt must necessarily flip. When related systems break enough, there is a point where people realize the rule of law has failed, and consider alternatives like the brass verdict, and act on it. These are not good things, but they happen when the dynamics to correct fail as a whole. When people start objectively finding foundational violations, it becomes and is a societal existential threat and should be treated as such. Failure to react from that point forward then becomes opting out of continued survival, which is well beyond any considered point of absurdity. Evil is blind to the natural destructive consequences it creates, and sometimes evil needs killing just as it did with the Nazi's. When the rule of law can no longer fulfill the obligations under social contract, and act as a non-violent conflict resolution, the alternative is natural law and chaos, and it is something that no good person would wish on anyone.

NomDePlum 2y ago

There is a point where "benefit of the doubt" is not appropriate though. Personal opinion is that point is past.

fc417fc802 2y ago
Benefit of the doubt is relative to both the item and setting though. What prior evidence do we have that would cause us _not_ to extend benefit of the doubt to the US government in the specific context of disappearing people? I can think of plenty of examples of shady things various official bodies in the US have done within the past century, but regular occurrences of "extrajudicial kidnapping without a paper trail" isn't one of them. If you go through proper channels and leave a paper trail then regardless of whether or not you agree with what's been done it can't reasonably said to be "disappearing" someone.
- watwut 2y ago
  US did not used to do whole host thing it is doing now - like trying to destroy law companies that sued politicians. Or, removing security from former government family members while stroking hate. Or, illegally extraditing people because someone misrepresented a tattoo. Or, attacking judges the way current administration do. Or, threatening to annex Canada and parts of Europe. Or, opening damm because there is fire in a place where water does not go. Something not happening in the past is not a reason for it to not happen again.
Dylan16807 2y ago
There is never a time where it's appropriate to give up benefit of the doubt in general toward an entity. If your starting position is that they most likely did any and every bad thing you can think of, you quickly reach absurdity.
- trod1234 2y ago
  You are wrong about that. You have never dealt with malevolent entities where that cannot be given. Decision-making, and its related presumptions change when the threat becomes existential. Deceivers with resources who abuse the public trust and its presumptions towards individuals, take advantage of societies understanding, towards destructive ends, and continue doing so regardless. They corrupt the systems meant to protect and keep destructive outcome dynamics in check usually for personal or political benefit. The entities are not entitled to the same benefit of the doubt when they have a history of malfeasance, and lack of credibility. This is true of anti-trust, government corruption, and government in general when you consider the many other things like Tuskegee, or what happened to the Inuit women who were involuntarily sterilized following eugenics programs in the late 60s early 70s, along with other indigenous peoples under the guise of beneficial programs promoting public health. You can see just how well fines do in curbing corruption like JPM's silver manipulation over a decade, or Egg price fixing over the past 10 years, or medical equipment providers who have defects that kill patients, and then claim they fix them falsely (in bad faith). There is a point where you cannot presume innocence, especially with regards to non-person entities (like corporations), who will pay the fine and continue business as usual passing the cost on. Eventually you hit a critical saturation point where the presumption and benefit of the doubt must necessarily flip. When related systems break enough, there is a point where people realize the rule of law has failed, and consider alternatives like the brass verdict, and act on it. These are not good things, but they happen when the dynamics to correct fail as a whole. When people start objectively finding foundational violations, it becomes and is a societal existential threat and should be treated as such. Failure to react from that point forward then becomes opting out of continued survival, which is well beyond any considered point of absurdity. Evil is blind to the natural destructive consequences it creates, and sometimes evil needs killing just as it did with the Nazi's. When the rule of law can no longer fulfill the obligations under social contract, and act as a non-violent conflict resolution, the alternative is natural law and chaos, and it is something that no good person would wish on anyone.