3 ms·

You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents, so it's doubtful that any of your questions here are in

You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents, so it's doubtful that any of your questions here are in good faith. Nobody owes it to you to pick out the nuance from coy questions that culminate at the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".

zahlman 6mo ago
> You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents I have done nothing of the sort. I know exactly what threads you're talking about, and your characterization is false and frankly offensive. > the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law". It is clear and obvious that every single last tiny thing people are objecting to, ultimately stems from "enforcing immigration law". Nobody would have gotten shot had the people enforcing immigration law been permitted to enforce immigration law in a normal manner. As demonstrated by the fact that it exclusively happened in places where they were interfered with to an extreme degree. Similarly, people only got pulled out of cars because they refused to get out of cars when they were under arrest; they only got arrested for refusing lawful orders; they only faced lawful orders because they were physically obstructing the enforcement of immigration law. All of those things are normal consequences that could be demonstrated on a smaller scale, across time and in countries across the developed world. ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. This is objective fact that is trivially researchable and which I have repeatedly cited; yet you and others have repeatedly attempted to deny or ignore it, or the logical consequences of the fact.
- mindslight 6mo ago
  And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. I'm sorry that you're offended by the plain truth of the matter, but maybe that's a sign you need to reexamine your position. The "logical consequences" of being a federal law enforcement officer should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.
  - zahlman 6mo ago
    > And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. No, I am not. The entire point is that the killing is as an objective matter of fact not "murder". The word has an accepted, agreed-upon meaning. The definition is not met. You don't get to change that. When you try, you imply untrue things. > should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period. I did not say that the consequences include any such thing. When you phrase your overall complaint this way, you imply untrue things. I have explained countless times already, yet you continue to claim untrue things about what I have said, in a manner that ignores the meaning of what I have said. Please stop.
    - mindslight 6mo ago
      Your wanting to focus on a convenient definition of the word "murder" does not invalidate what I have said. It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide. So the technicality that the perps aren't being tried and convicted isn't particularly interesting, right? But sure, since you seem to be triggered by that specific word I'll restate it for you: You have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution of American citizens by government agents. If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
      - zahlman 6mo ago
        It is not a "convenient definition" of the word murder. It is what the word actually means. There is no discussion to be had here because you will not acknowledge it. > It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide In specific situations, yes. Those situations are of extreme relevance to the situation and you are being intellectually dishonest by glossing over them. There is no discussion to be had here because you skip over them. This is the exact same way that the laws have worked for decades if not centuries before Trump, both in the USA and across the entire developed world. Your argument depends on falsely pretending that this is somehow specific to Trump's governance or to ICE under that governance. There is no discussion to be had because of this. > you have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution This language amplifies the exact thing I object to, and of course you know it. This is trolling. There is no discussion to be had because of this. > If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications I experience no cognitive dissonance, because what you call a "direct truth" is objectively nothing of the sort; it is simply your dishonest framing that ignores things I have repeatedly explained to you. There is no discussion to be had because of this. Just to make sure: I do. not. care. if a police officer kills someone who presented what that officer reasonably perceived as a lethal threat to that officer. The law in many places says this is legal, and has said so for a very long time; and I agree with that law and think it is good and just; and I can see very clear and severe negative consequences for society of not having such law (in essence: a near-complete inability to prevent or prosecute violent crime). When you use language like "murder" to refer to this, you are ignoring common definitions understood by the general public as well as those understood by law; and you are doing it specifically to try to make me feel differently about this. It is purely an emotional appeal. It is not an argument, and it does not even attempt to address the reason why the laws are written as they are.

zahlman 6mo ago

> You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents I have done nothing of the sort. I know exactly what threads you're talking about, and your characterization is false and frankly offensive. > the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law". It is clear and obvious that every single last tiny thing people are objecting to, ultimately stems from "enforcing immigration law". Nobody would have gotten shot had the people enforcing immigration law been permitted to enforce immigration law in a normal manner. As demonstrated by the fact that it exclusively happened in places where they were interfered with to an extreme degree. Similarly, people only got pulled out of cars because they refused to get out of cars when they were under arrest; they only got arrested for refusing lawful orders; they only faced lawful orders because they were physically obstructing the enforcement of immigration law. All of those things are normal consequences that could be demonstrated on a smaller scale, across time and in countries across the developed world. ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. This is objective fact that is trivially researchable and which I have repeatedly cited; yet you and others have repeatedly attempted to deny or ignore it, or the logical consequences of the fact.

mindslight 6mo ago
And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. I'm sorry that you're offended by the plain truth of the matter, but maybe that's a sign you need to reexamine your position. The "logical consequences" of being a federal law enforcement officer should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.
- zahlman 6mo ago
  > And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. No, I am not. The entire point is that the killing is as an objective matter of fact not "murder". The word has an accepted, agreed-upon meaning. The definition is not met. You don't get to change that. When you try, you imply untrue things. > should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period. I did not say that the consequences include any such thing. When you phrase your overall complaint this way, you imply untrue things. I have explained countless times already, yet you continue to claim untrue things about what I have said, in a manner that ignores the meaning of what I have said. Please stop.
  - mindslight 6mo ago
    Your wanting to focus on a convenient definition of the word "murder" does not invalidate what I have said. It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide. So the technicality that the perps aren't being tried and convicted isn't particularly interesting, right? But sure, since you seem to be triggered by that specific word I'll restate it for you: You have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution of American citizens by government agents. If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
    - zahlman 6mo ago
      It is not a "convenient definition" of the word murder. It is what the word actually means. There is no discussion to be had here because you will not acknowledge it. > It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide In specific situations, yes. Those situations are of extreme relevance to the situation and you are being intellectually dishonest by glossing over them. There is no discussion to be had here because you skip over them. This is the exact same way that the laws have worked for decades if not centuries before Trump, both in the USA and across the entire developed world. Your argument depends on falsely pretending that this is somehow specific to Trump's governance or to ICE under that governance. There is no discussion to be had because of this. > you have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution This language amplifies the exact thing I object to, and of course you know it. This is trolling. There is no discussion to be had because of this. > If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications I experience no cognitive dissonance, because what you call a "direct truth" is objectively nothing of the sort; it is simply your dishonest framing that ignores things I have repeatedly explained to you. There is no discussion to be had because of this. Just to make sure: I do. not. care. if a police officer kills someone who presented what that officer reasonably perceived as a lethal threat to that officer. The law in many places says this is legal, and has said so for a very long time; and I agree with that law and think it is good and just; and I can see very clear and severe negative consequences for society of not having such law (in essence: a near-complete inability to prevent or prosecute violent crime). When you use language like "murder" to refer to this, you are ignoring common definitions understood by the general public as well as those understood by law; and you are doing it specifically to try to make me feel differently about this. It is purely an emotional appeal. It is not an argument, and it does not even attempt to address the reason why the laws are written as they are.