4 ms·

You specifically said "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You're either excusing or endorsing the government sending armed goons to people's homes in r

by slg 1y ago

You specifically said "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You're either excusing or endorsing the government sending armed goons to people's homes in response for saying something you/they don't like.

mycodendral 1y ago
[flagged]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > They're investigating a crime Source?
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      You're saying that because they're investigating, they must be investigating a crime. That doesn't really follow. Like, what if they're investigating this person because he went to a protest? > “We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June,” one of the agents said That's not a crime. Or did you mean something else? Or did the officers just forget to explain what crime they're investigating? If it's something like that, I would hope for a source that provides those details.
      - mycodendral 1y ago
        It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent to do so. Revealing details risks compromising the investigation or tipping off potential subjects. "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened. Actually, I'm acting like you said that, which you have. You've claimed that it is necessarily the case that the FBI is investigating a crime by virtue of the fact that they are criminal investigators investigating something. The thing the FBI said they're investigating is a protest. Ergo, you are saying the FBI is investigating the crime of protesting. Going back a few comments, you wrote > They're investigating a crime That's not true. You have no reason to believe they're investigating a crime. In fact, there is reason to believe they are not investigating a crime because they said they are investigating something that is not a crime. > "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. Investigative work, yes, but not of a crime.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole reaction is performative victimhood, like saying ‘Oh, I guess I can’t even go out to eat anymore because of government tyranny.’ That’s absurd. The FBI’s legal mandate confines it to investigating potential criminal activity. Assuming otherwise without evidence implies they’re operating outside their authority, which would be a serious breach. If that’s what you believe, show proof, it would be front page news.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. So just to be clear, I know this. I'm not acting like the government did something illegal, I'm acting like someone told me a crime is being investigated necessarily because the FBI is doing the investigating. No shit, dude, I know what the FBI does. If someone asks for a source when you say the FBI is investigating a crime, they're not asking what the FBI is, they're asking what the (potential) crime is. If you don't know, don't answer; certainly don't answer with something you know is unhelpful. Answering like that makes it seem like you think they're investigating because they can, not because they should. So, to clarify with this particular case, they're investigating assaults that occurred at the protest, which they should do because that's a crime (and trying to tie it to aNtIfA because they're morons, assuming it isn't malice). One should not trust that the FBI are working within the bounds of the law, one should verify that they are. Hope that helps.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ This video depicts several assaults on officers outside the facility, including someone throwing a metal barricade.
- slg 1y ago
  You're acting like we can't see your original comment anymore. The words are right there, "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You weren't referencing any crime or investigation, you said that the wrong speech makes you an enemy of the state.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    The FBI, by nature, investigates crimes, that doesn't need to be said. To quote my other post: I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.
    - slg 1y ago
      >speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category Yeah, and that idea is fundamentally in opposition to free speech. A person shouldn't become a government adversary because of their speech. If they threaten violence or some other immediate harm, the government can investigate. But simply voicing opposition should never result in a government crackdown.
      - mycodendral 1y ago
        You're hyperbolizing and mischaracterizing events to fit a delusional victimhood narrative. 1) No one prevented anyone from engaging in free speech. 2) In this case "government adversary" just means you may become person of interest, not a criminal to be charged. Free speech doesn't exempt you from that. 3) No "government crackdown" occurred. A conversation or interview isn’t a crackdown, it’s routine fact-finding. No arrests, charges, or penalties followed for this individual.
        hypeatei 1y ago
        You're in favor of a police state and see nothing wrong with law enforcement "just asking questions" over someone exercising their right to free speech. Got it. I, too, think we should send police to question dissenters because how could they not like the current regime?

by slg 1y ago

mycodendral 1y ago

[flagged]

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> They're investigating a crime Source?
- mycodendral 1y ago
  here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    You're saying that because they're investigating, they must be investigating a crime. That doesn't really follow. Like, what if they're investigating this person because he went to a protest? > “We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June,” one of the agents said That's not a crime. Or did you mean something else? Or did the officers just forget to explain what crime they're investigating? If it's something like that, I would hope for a source that provides those details.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent to do so. Revealing details risks compromising the investigation or tipping off potential subjects. "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened. Actually, I'm acting like you said that, which you have. You've claimed that it is necessarily the case that the FBI is investigating a crime by virtue of the fact that they are criminal investigators investigating something. The thing the FBI said they're investigating is a protest. Ergo, you are saying the FBI is investigating the crime of protesting. Going back a few comments, you wrote > They're investigating a crime That's not true. You have no reason to believe they're investigating a crime. In fact, there is reason to believe they are not investigating a crime because they said they are investigating something that is not a crime. > "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. Investigative work, yes, but not of a crime.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole reaction is performative victimhood, like saying ‘Oh, I guess I can’t even go out to eat anymore because of government tyranny.’ That’s absurd. The FBI’s legal mandate confines it to investigating potential criminal activity. Assuming otherwise without evidence implies they’re operating outside their authority, which would be a serious breach. If that’s what you believe, show proof, it would be front page news.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. So just to be clear, I know this. I'm not acting like the government did something illegal, I'm acting like someone told me a crime is being investigated necessarily because the FBI is doing the investigating. No shit, dude, I know what the FBI does. If someone asks for a source when you say the FBI is investigating a crime, they're not asking what the FBI is, they're asking what the (potential) crime is. If you don't know, don't answer; certainly don't answer with something you know is unhelpful. Answering like that makes it seem like you think they're investigating because they can, not because they should. So, to clarify with this particular case, they're investigating assaults that occurred at the protest, which they should do because that's a crime (and trying to tie it to aNtIfA because they're morons, assuming it isn't malice). One should not trust that the FBI are working within the bounds of the law, one should verify that they are. Hope that helps.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ This video depicts several assaults on officers outside the facility, including someone throwing a metal barricade.
slg 1y ago
You're acting like we can't see your original comment anymore. The words are right there, "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You weren't referencing any crime or investigation, you said that the wrong speech makes you an enemy of the state.
- mycodendral 1y ago
  The FBI, by nature, investigates crimes, that doesn't need to be said. To quote my other post: I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.
  - slg 1y ago
    >speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category Yeah, and that idea is fundamentally in opposition to free speech. A person shouldn't become a government adversary because of their speech. If they threaten violence or some other immediate harm, the government can investigate. But simply voicing opposition should never result in a government crackdown.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      You're hyperbolizing and mischaracterizing events to fit a delusional victimhood narrative. 1) No one prevented anyone from engaging in free speech. 2) In this case "government adversary" just means you may become person of interest, not a criminal to be charged. Free speech doesn't exempt you from that. 3) No "government crackdown" occurred. A conversation or interview isn’t a crackdown, it’s routine fact-finding. No arrests, charges, or penalties followed for this individual.
      - hypeatei 1y ago
        You're in favor of a police state and see nothing wrong with law enforcement "just asking questions" over someone exercising their right to free speech. Got it. I, too, think we should send police to question dissenters because how could they not like the current regime?