2 ms·
Maybe I'm just getting old but I dislike these implicit call to destructive action articles, even if I don't like the surveillance. It is not incumbent upon the
by guywithahat 8mo ago
Maybe I'm just getting old but I dislike these implicit call to destructive action articles, even if I don't like the surveillance. It is not incumbent upon the public to destroy surveillance cameras, and it's probably a bad sign for society if they are. If you destroy one of these cameras you will probably be arrested, and it will ruin your life. We can elect officials who oppose these cameras, and encouraging people to destroy city property is not the move.
- recursive 8mo agoA lot of the people doing it would probably agree that it's a bad sign that it's necessary. And further that most elections have become a false choice, and aren't effective, as they're so far removed from the changes necessary.
- guywithahat 8mo agoIt’s not necessary though, that’s the point. You can vote and voice your opinion. You may have to compromise on other things but you can simply vote for candidates with better solutions to crime and/or who want to remove the cameras