3 ms·

You edited this comment into a suit and tie, but I saw the earlier versions. Since you want to lecture about “unhinged rhetoric,” let’s use your words, not mine

You edited this comment into a suit and tie, but I saw the earlier versions. Since you want to lecture about “unhinged rhetoric,” let’s use your words, not mine: “idiot woman” “better than fine” (about a woman being killed) "we voted for this" “not a tragedy” “she f-ed around and found out” plus the usual “mentally ill” drive-by accusations I’ve got screenshots, so don’t bother pretending that tone-policing is your principle rather than your tactic. You’ve pivoted from “this isn’t illegal” to “your rhetoric is unhinged and causes violence.” That’s not an argument about lawfulness; it’s an attempt to make dissent morally punishable. A liberal system doesn’t work by outsourcing “truth” to whoever has a badge and the first press release. It works by evidence, due process, and oversight (especially when force is used). So when you write up a killing as a fully-adjudicated morality play (“self-defense,” “lawful order,” “predictably”) before the investigation is even meaningfully complete, you’re not defending the rule of law, you’re defending the rule of narrative. Same with the “domestic terrorist” inflation: labeling people that before adjudication, and then hand-waving when the case collapses, isn’t “the system working.” It’s the state’s most severe rhetoric being used as a substitute for proof. And none of this is “not relevant to HN.” Expanding biometric/DNA collection to people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request (including petitioners/sponsors/signatories, often U.S. citizens) is a concrete expansion of state power. So are U.S. citizens being detained by immigration agents, and agents obscuring identity during arrests. Those are governance-and-technology questions, not “breathlessness.” If you want to defend the scope and authority, do it: cite the statutory basis and explain why compelled biometrics/DNA for citizens in a civil process is appropriate. If you’d rather keep litigating tone and assigning responsibility for hypothetical violence to your political opponents (while excusing actual state violence with “FAFO”), then you’re not arguing policy; you’re trying to delegitimize criticism. “Law and order” isn’t obedience to enforcement; it’s power restrained by law, and you keep arguing for the power while scolding anyone who asks about the restraint.

frumplestlatz 9mo ago
Congratulations, you saw my earlier versions. They were much less kind. Post the screenshots if you like. > you’re trying to delegitimize criticism. Violence isn't criticism. And yes, if you try to run over law enforcement, that's violence from which one will absolutely "FAFO". If you choose to support the kind of lawless violence that led to that women's death, any culpability for the obvious and natural consequences doesn't fall on our heads.
- willmarch 9mo ago
  Just so HN can see what was later edited out, here’s the earlier “mask off” version of your most recent comment: > Congratulations, you saw my earlier versions. They were much less kind, because you're frankly rather a dishonest and unlikable human being of a particular sort that I think our country and society would be better without, and my lesser nature originally won out. Post the screenshots if you like, I can't imagine why you think I'd care. > Violence isn't criticism. And yes, if you try to run over law enforcement, that's violence by which one will absolutely ‘FAFO’. > Dress up your extremism however you like. We're not engaging in debate on the battlefield of your choosing, we're enacting and enforcing the law on our terms. If you don't like it, vote. > If you choose to instead support the kind of hysteria and lawless violence that led to that women's death, the obvious and natural consequences are on your head. For the record: saying things like “society would be better without people like you” and “we’re not engaging in debate… enforcing the law on our terms” is not a defense of the rule of law, it’s contempt for pluralism dressed up as seriousness. The American project (very explicitly influenced by Enlightenment liberalism) doesn’t rest on “our terms,” loyalty tests, or treating dissent as culpable. It rests on the opposite: argument, equal rights, due process, and state power constrained by transparent rules and oversight. When someone’s instinct is to skip debate and sanctify enforcement, that isn’t “law and order.” It’s the anti-Enlightenment impulse the Constitution was designed to restrain. If you want to defend policy, do that: cite the authority and justify the scope. If you want to argue that disagreement itself is illegitimate and that enforcement answers to “our terms,” then you’re not defending America, you’re arguing against the principles it was founded to protect.
  - frumplestlatz 9mo ago
    Imagine believing this is a gotcha; not that anyone else has followed this thread this far, but if they have, I'd point them to your original posts about "boots on the neck" and this being the rise of a new nazism. And no, we're no longer engaging in debate with those who do not engage earnestly or honestly, but who instead foment violence and call it protest. On that note, have a nice day and next few years.

frumplestlatz 9mo ago

Congratulations, you saw my earlier versions. They were much less kind. Post the screenshots if you like. > you’re trying to delegitimize criticism. Violence isn't criticism. And yes, if you try to run over law enforcement, that's violence from which one will absolutely "FAFO". If you choose to support the kind of lawless violence that led to that women's death, any culpability for the obvious and natural consequences doesn't fall on our heads.

willmarch 9mo ago
Just so HN can see what was later edited out, here’s the earlier “mask off” version of your most recent comment: > Congratulations, you saw my earlier versions. They were much less kind, because you're frankly rather a dishonest and unlikable human being of a particular sort that I think our country and society would be better without, and my lesser nature originally won out. Post the screenshots if you like, I can't imagine why you think I'd care. > Violence isn't criticism. And yes, if you try to run over law enforcement, that's violence by which one will absolutely ‘FAFO’. > Dress up your extremism however you like. We're not engaging in debate on the battlefield of your choosing, we're enacting and enforcing the law on our terms. If you don't like it, vote. > If you choose to instead support the kind of hysteria and lawless violence that led to that women's death, the obvious and natural consequences are on your head. For the record: saying things like “society would be better without people like you” and “we’re not engaging in debate… enforcing the law on our terms” is not a defense of the rule of law, it’s contempt for pluralism dressed up as seriousness. The American project (very explicitly influenced by Enlightenment liberalism) doesn’t rest on “our terms,” loyalty tests, or treating dissent as culpable. It rests on the opposite: argument, equal rights, due process, and state power constrained by transparent rules and oversight. When someone’s instinct is to skip debate and sanctify enforcement, that isn’t “law and order.” It’s the anti-Enlightenment impulse the Constitution was designed to restrain. If you want to defend policy, do that: cite the authority and justify the scope. If you want to argue that disagreement itself is illegitimate and that enforcement answers to “our terms,” then you’re not defending America, you’re arguing against the principles it was founded to protect.
- frumplestlatz 9mo ago
  Imagine believing this is a gotcha; not that anyone else has followed this thread this far, but if they have, I'd point them to your original posts about "boots on the neck" and this being the rise of a new nazism. And no, we're no longer engaging in debate with those who do not engage earnestly or honestly, but who instead foment violence and call it protest. On that note, have a nice day and next few years.