7 ms·

Sit down. The right wing is actively zip-tying entire apartment complexes of poor people, even US citizens, while pointing guns in their faces. Thats violence,

Sit down. The right wing is actively zip-tying entire apartment complexes of poor people, even US citizens, while pointing guns in their faces. Thats violence, and exactly what the left has been ringing the alarm for for years.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.
- scoopdewoop 1y ago
  A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith. My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.
    - scoopdewoop 1y ago
      https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweeps-citizens-families-chicago-crackdown-intensifies-2025-10-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of? I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality. I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her
      - zaphar 1y ago
        There are plenty of people in poverty who do not put themselves in a postion to have a government put guns in their face. It is not poverty by and large that causes a government to put guns in their face in America. Poverty may at times be used as a justification for the actual reason that a gun was put in their face but it is not in fact the reason. Neither is it in the general case a good justification either.
        scoopdewoop 1y ago
        What are you talking about? Literally, what? Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later. What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detained until proven innocent. What did they do to put themselves in that position? Was I wrong to say its poverty? Or do you mean they should have been rural poor? Or white and poor? What was their trespass? I'm not talking about "by and large", I'm not talking about "may at times". These are real lives of citizens with "inalienable rights" If you think state sanctioned violence is permissible, tell it to Nuremberg
        zaphar 1y ago
        I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look for them. Chicago as a group has positioned itself as welcoming to immigrants here illegally and antagonistic to finding and taking the appropriate legal action regarding people who aren't following the rules. This wasn't caused by poverty. This was caused by the combination of Chicago's political position putting them in conflict with ICE regarding the immigrants who don't follow the rules. If you want to prevent this sort of thing blaming it on poverty is concentrating on the wrong problem. The political climate in Chicago and Nationally is a much more useful place to put your focus on fixing.
    - worik 1y ago
      > My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face. There you are blaming the victims. That is not cool
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        Hmm. You actually raise an interesting issue. What is, in your mind, cool?
        worik 1y ago
        Blame the perpetrators.
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        Interesting. Perpetrators suggests a crime. Separately, it suggests that you believe there is a known cause and a source of the malady. - If true, who, do you believe, the perpetrators are ( be as specific as you think you can be )? - If true, what do you believe the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )? - If true, who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators?
        mindslight 1y ago
        In another comment, you said "You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears". I don't know if that was just a ploy to appear reasonable, but if you really care about that as you purport to then you already know the answers to those questions. As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it.
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        Friend, whether I know or not is not relevant to this discussion. If you were following my conversation with parent then you know the questions were for his benefit, not mine. << As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it. That is fair. What would you propose to do about this?
    - ehaliewicz2 1y ago
      Damn, so you can just choose to not have guns pointed in your face? Regardless of where you live? Everyone who has had a gun pointed in their face must have been really stupid then.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        You can. The people in that story could too. All they had to do is not be there. They were there illegally. It took effort and multiple decisions to get them there. So yes friend. It genuinely is a choice.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Yeah. State-sanctioned violence is a fuckton scarier. Do you think state-sanctioned violence can't be described as "political violence" or that it can't be used to murder political opponents? If so, may I introduce you to most of history?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    I think, and I would like to think it was covered in civics, that state sanctioned violence is one of the few types that society allows for practical reasons. What I personally think the problem in this conversation is oddly simple: severe conflation of various related issues. You may be well-intentioned, but you are not exactly convincing me to 'your side'.
    - wat10000 1y ago
      Political violence performed by random civilians and political violence performed by the state are not exactly the same thing, but both are very bad, and the latter is much worse. If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens (blatantly false, but even if we grant it) then saying the right is currently doing political violence by the state is a perfectly response even if they are not exactly the same thing.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        << If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens It is not. The argument is: this is not political violence. If it is, then technically every single traffic stop is(edit: and the whole definition falls apart, because if everything is political violence then nothing really is --- as in: it is not a useful marker for anything ). We can go over specifics of this action if you really want, but: 1. This was not ICE ( so default boogeyman is missing ) 2. Information is missing ( so by default we have conflicting narratives floating ) The entire conversation borders on pointless.
        wat10000 1y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago

Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.

scoopdewoop 1y ago
A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith. My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.
  - scoopdewoop 1y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweeps-citizens-families-chicago-crackdown-intensifies-2025-10-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of? I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality. I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her
    - zaphar 1y ago
      There are plenty of people in poverty who do not put themselves in a postion to have a government put guns in their face. It is not poverty by and large that causes a government to put guns in their face in America. Poverty may at times be used as a justification for the actual reason that a gun was put in their face but it is not in fact the reason. Neither is it in the general case a good justification either.
      - scoopdewoop 1y ago
        What are you talking about? Literally, what? Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later. What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detained until proven innocent. What did they do to put themselves in that position? Was I wrong to say its poverty? Or do you mean they should have been rural poor? Or white and poor? What was their trespass? I'm not talking about "by and large", I'm not talking about "may at times". These are real lives of citizens with "inalienable rights" If you think state sanctioned violence is permissible, tell it to Nuremberg
        zaphar 1y ago
        I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look for them. Chicago as a group has positioned itself as welcoming to immigrants here illegally and antagonistic to finding and taking the appropriate legal action regarding people who aren't following the rules. This wasn't caused by poverty. This was caused by the combination of Chicago's political position putting them in conflict with ICE regarding the immigrants who don't follow the rules. If you want to prevent this sort of thing blaming it on poverty is concentrating on the wrong problem. The political climate in Chicago and Nationally is a much more useful place to put your focus on fixing.
  - worik 1y ago
    > My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face. There you are blaming the victims. That is not cool
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
      Hmm. You actually raise an interesting issue. What is, in your mind, cool?
      - worik 1y ago
        Blame the perpetrators.
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        Interesting. Perpetrators suggests a crime. Separately, it suggests that you believe there is a known cause and a source of the malady. - If true, who, do you believe, the perpetrators are ( be as specific as you think you can be )? - If true, what do you believe the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )? - If true, who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators?
        mindslight 1y ago
        In another comment, you said "You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears". I don't know if that was just a ploy to appear reasonable, but if you really care about that as you purport to then you already know the answers to those questions. As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it.
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        Friend, whether I know or not is not relevant to this discussion. If you were following my conversation with parent then you know the questions were for his benefit, not mine. << As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it. That is fair. What would you propose to do about this?
  - ehaliewicz2 1y ago
    Damn, so you can just choose to not have guns pointed in your face? Regardless of where you live? Everyone who has had a gun pointed in their face must have been really stupid then.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
      You can. The people in that story could too. All they had to do is not be there. They were there illegally. It took effort and multiple decisions to get them there. So yes friend. It genuinely is a choice.
wat10000 1y ago
Yeah. State-sanctioned violence is a fuckton scarier. Do you think state-sanctioned violence can't be described as "political violence" or that it can't be used to murder political opponents? If so, may I introduce you to most of history?
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  I think, and I would like to think it was covered in civics, that state sanctioned violence is one of the few types that society allows for practical reasons. What I personally think the problem in this conversation is oddly simple: severe conflation of various related issues. You may be well-intentioned, but you are not exactly convincing me to 'your side'.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Political violence performed by random civilians and political violence performed by the state are not exactly the same thing, but both are very bad, and the latter is much worse. If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens (blatantly false, but even if we grant it) then saying the right is currently doing political violence by the state is a perfectly response even if they are not exactly the same thing.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
      << If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens It is not. The argument is: this is not political violence. If it is, then technically every single traffic stop is(edit: and the whole definition falls apart, because if everything is political violence then nothing really is --- as in: it is not a useful marker for anything ). We can go over specifics of this action if you really want, but: 1. This was not ICE ( so default boogeyman is missing ) 2. Information is missing ( so by default we have conflicting narratives floating ) The entire conversation borders on pointless.
      - wat10000 1y ago