3 ms·

"They did it first!" is the reasoning of a child.

by mindslight 1y ago

dkkergoog 1y ago
[dead]
rayiner 1y ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 1y ago
  Except your "two-way street" just runs between two different camps of authoritarians, writing off the criticisms from those of us earnestly interested in individual liberty. Your rationalization is essentially a high-worded version of the bog standard mutual partisanship.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 1y ago
      I can't tell how you intend to apply that concept to form an actual argument. It seems like you're just grasping at any straw that might justify continuing to support this anti-American neofascist movement, even as the plain reality keeps on revealing itself.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 1y ago
        [flagged]
        mindslight 1y ago
        So you were merely rephrasing the same "both sides" false dichotomy in terms of yet another abstract concept, to continue rationalizing your support for fascism? If the system of autocratic authoritarianism has merit on its own, then why the need to continually sugar coat it? At least Yarvin had the guts to advocate for autocracy directly (old Yarvin, that is. before he got corrupted by the taste of power).
        rayiner 1y ago
        [flagged]
        mindslight 1y ago
        Why do you keep trying to avoid responsibility for what you are directly supporting by trying to blame this "other side" ? It's pathetic. From the perspective of individual rights and liberty, there is only one side that is destroying our country right now. If this "other side" were in power, my quarrel would be with them. But they are not - "your side" is.
        mdhb 1y ago
        [flagged]
        rayiner 1y ago
        Are you a partisan? Do you think "emanations from penumbras" is valid constitutional reasoning?
        rayiner 1y ago
        > From the perspective of individual rights and liberty, there is only one side that is destroying our country right now. "Individual rights" is the tail on the constitution's "democratic republic" dog. It's just as bad when the public's right to regulate individual conduct is incorrectly limited in service of "individual rights," as when individual rights are incorrectly limited in service of expanding government power. > If this "other side" were in power, my quarrel would be with them. But they are not - "your side" is. The other side is in power, insofar as we are living with 60 years of precedents based on "emanations from penumbras." And about 30 years before that sanctioning an unconstitutional administrative state. If we are playing Calvinball, why should I be upset that the government isn't adopting a textualist-originalist view of the suspension clause?

"They did it first!" is the reasoning of a child.

dkkergoog 1y ago

[dead]

rayiner 1y ago

[flagged]

mindslight 1y ago
Except your "two-way street" just runs between two different camps of authoritarians, writing off the criticisms from those of us earnestly interested in individual liberty. Your rationalization is essentially a high-worded version of the bog standard mutual partisanship.
- rayiner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 1y ago
    I can't tell how you intend to apply that concept to form an actual argument. It seems like you're just grasping at any straw that might justify continuing to support this anti-American neofascist movement, even as the plain reality keeps on revealing itself.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - mindslight 1y ago
        So you were merely rephrasing the same "both sides" false dichotomy in terms of yet another abstract concept, to continue rationalizing your support for fascism? If the system of autocratic authoritarianism has merit on its own, then why the need to continually sugar coat it? At least Yarvin had the guts to advocate for autocracy directly (old Yarvin, that is. before he got corrupted by the taste of power).
        rayiner 1y ago
        [flagged]
        mindslight 1y ago
        Why do you keep trying to avoid responsibility for what you are directly supporting by trying to blame this "other side" ? It's pathetic. From the perspective of individual rights and liberty, there is only one side that is destroying our country right now. If this "other side" were in power, my quarrel would be with them. But they are not - "your side" is.
        mdhb 1y ago
        [flagged]
        rayiner 1y ago
        Are you a partisan? Do you think "emanations from penumbras" is valid constitutional reasoning?
        rayiner 1y ago
        > From the perspective of individual rights and liberty, there is only one side that is destroying our country right now. "Individual rights" is the tail on the constitution's "democratic republic" dog. It's just as bad when the public's right to regulate individual conduct is incorrectly limited in service of "individual rights," as when individual rights are incorrectly limited in service of expanding government power. > If this "other side" were in power, my quarrel would be with them. But they are not - "your side" is. The other side is in power, insofar as we are living with 60 years of precedents based on "emanations from penumbras." And about 30 years before that sanctioning an unconstitutional administrative state. If we are playing Calvinball, why should I be upset that the government isn't adopting a textualist-originalist view of the suspension clause?