@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

being mean implies…

I don’t think this is true.

no harm no foul

I don’t think this is true, and I doubt you do either.

all “being mean” should become “violence”

I am quite sure that this doesn’t follow from the premises. Who is complaining that harm is avoidable?

I think that’s plausible, but not because of the revelations here.

Check out page 8. The government concedes that they were inconsistent because the order within boxes changed. Nothing else. They insist that the only other change to contents is the placeholder cards.

But nothing in the indictment, the sealing, the warrant depended on order! It was all about number of documents suspected to remain. Nothing I’ve seen in here casts doubt on that unless we assume that the boxes were made up wholesale. I’m not willing to bite that bullet.

Less antagonistic, please.

You can make this observation—it sure does look like that was already implied by MartianNight—without turning up the heat.

Right. Real classy.

What do you mean by this?

That it’s not true. I spent some time trying to dig up my response from the last time it came up, but had no luck. Reddit’s search tools have only gotten worse.

I believe my argument boiled down to “why does this cigarette have so much credibility?”

I'd say it's right there in your first sentence: a warrior class.

Americans are allergic to the concept. Or at least to talking about it openly. When something implies the existence of a class divide, we tend to get real uncomfortable real fast, and start casting about for alternate explanations. You can have military families just like you can have legacy admissions, so long as they're framed as pure personal preference.

"Warrior class" isn't the right word, anyway. We're not talking about kshatriyas or samurai or knights. Those classes are no longer economically viable. Back in the days of subsistence farming, feudal dues were one of the more effective ways to support specialization of labor. Peasants farmed, lords taxed, and when it came time for violence, the necessary logistics and command structures were already in place. As food production improved, and state capacity generally expanded, this relationship was no longer the only game in town. The standing armies of Renaissance Europe were already decoupled from retinue-of-retinues feudal structures.

Simultaneously, the proliferation of firearms and fire artillery was closing the technological gap between the aristocracy and the plebes. By the modern era, the warrior aristocracy was no longer load-bearing. Officers got down in the mud and choked on mustard gas just like their lowborn brethren. The most successful militaries coming out of the World Wars adapted to this reality by treating military expertise like any other economic niche. Career soldiers are no longer a class. They're a commodity.

So there is a class of Americans which makes up the tip of the spear. But they're not a warrior class. They're just another one of the socioeconomic strata which form our vast, Byzantine economy. As with doctors, lawyers, police officers and chronic welfare recipients, membership in this class is to some extent inherited. Members hail from certain regions and tend to hold particular political beliefs. Their parents were likely in the class, and their children may find themselves making suspiciously similar choices.

On the flip side, we don't allocate greater rights to our doctors and lawyers and other extreme specialists. At least not explicitly. The privileges of rank, and of choosing to commit oneself to a particular niche, are supposed to be folded into pure economics. If, on noticing your material wealth and stable retirement prospects, others choose to treat you better...well, that's their prerogative, isn't it? Once again, any implication of class barriers is swept under the rug.

I cannot stress how important this is to our national mythos! As such, I can't endorse giving the military class some sort of immunity or credibility. Just look at how much damage the perception of such immunity has done to American politics. The cult of personal responsibility may be one of our greatest pretensions, but it's also one of our most effective. I think we should be trying to repair it rather than work around it.

I’m sure this secretive black-hat conspiracy will make great use of the broke Mexicans they’re importing. How will all these lily-white Brits keep their resumes competitive?

It’s hard to find this exposé any more convincing than the various Russiagate conspiracy theories. The people flogging those surely also thought they could see Putin’s hand in every Facebook post. Why do you find this more credible?

Maybe I just haven’t forgiven Taibbi for posting most of his bombshell investigative reporting on Twitter. I guess this is a step up by comparison.

Tell me, when was the last time you and yours got oppressed by the big bad US military? Little Rock? The armed forces are a spectacularly bad tool for stomping on the citizenry. This is, of course, by design.

As for common cause…do you think China gives two shits about the who/whom within America? Do you think the people setting up Harvard admissions are desperate to please the CCCP? Because it’s very hard for me to see any common cause. The closest they get is China cheerfully benefiting from American internal tensions. And that’s just as easily ratcheted by convincing people like you to wail and gnash your teeth about race. If you don’t think you’re a pawn of Chinese interests, perhaps your outgroup would feel the same.

Yes, there’s a point at which lawful exercise establishes probable cause.*

What’s important is that the decision is made post facto. Given that two men died, Rittenhouse’s presence and equipment merited suspicion. In @Gdanning’s example, the Nazi larper is allowed to bear arms by a synagogue—but once police hear that there’s been a murder in the area, they have an obvious suspect.

This means yes, there is some protected speech which should constitute probable cause for arresting protestors once a crime has been committed. Or even before, judging by the “imminent lawless action” standard. If Mr. Alnaji had a “gas the Jews” sign, or was even reported joining some of the chants, I’d expect him to be taken in.

* If this is the wrong term, legally speaking, my apologies!

Equal protection implies equal crimes.

I am not basing my condemnation on Officer Sicknick. He’s not mentioned in these extreme charges, either. If anyone was charged in his death, I haven’t seen it—what was the resulting sentence?

Your bank robbery hypothetical smuggled in an innocent bystander instead of a willing accomplice. I’d think you would endorse the cops saying “live by the sword…” rather than demanding justice for a bank robber wounded by his conspirators. And it’s not like accidental injuries are a surefire way to get charged.

As for Dr. Davis, I observe she was in fact charged and acquitted. Perhaps the police bit off more than they could chew, charging her with kidnapping and murder? Or the CPUSA played dirty by defending her with jury selection and expert witnesses? If you’d like to argue that it was all witness intimidation and political pressure, be my guest—it’s always interesting to read about the wild days of the 1970s.

The Jan. 6 actions are obviously not the same as any of these. They were less violent, more coordinated, and targeted different people. You can’t find BLM protestors getting away with 40 USC §5104(e) for the same reason that you won’t see Proud Boys getting bargains for statue-toppling: they aren’t committing the same crimes. Different crimes, different charges, different outcomes.

the boomers were not white supremacist enough

No way! The Civil Rights movement was correct. It also doesn’t imply either 1. or 2. It is perfectly possible to move to the Midwest and dodge all those dirty minorities. Curiously, this isn’t enough to earn you a nice school and job. It does depress housing prices, because for some reason, Bumblefuck, Kansas isn’t actually that popular.

I don’t think it’s accurate to call Hispanic immigration a product of Boomer anti racism, either. More a corporate/laissez faire policy.

And the Deep South sucks ass. Alcoholism, teen pregnancy…

Correlation isn’t causation.

Modern new left liberalism is a very radical ideology that doesn't get sufficient negativity for it.

No it isn’t. The world bank, WHO, rules-based-international-order of neoliberalism? That’s about as nonradical as you can get. Aggressively not radical. It files the sharp edges off the communists and the reactionaries in order to keep things running a little more smoothly.

A South Africa that didn't allow parties like ANC and those more extreme, and such politicians found themselves in prison, and parties and organizations with such agenda banned

How do you think that’s enforced? How do you make sure the right people get suppressed? For every apartheid SA there’s a lovely Cambodia or North Korea or Rwanda descending into bloodshed. The best situation we’ve found, empirically speaking, is to weaponize tolerance. That’s liberalism.

By whom?

I'm sure you can find any number of groups who are proud to participate. I don't think any of them deserve much credit.

I assumed you were being facetious, and I started to write a response about the elite college mission. But it’s possible you’re dead serious, and have some alternative structure in mind. This is why we have a rule about speaking plainly.

In the interest of not misrepresenting you—do you believe elite colleges spend more or less time teaching people things than they did in the 1950s? And do you think that should actually change?

Maybe.

But he will generate some actual value along the way, which is more than can be said for a number of less visible contributors.

Sure, sure. No objections here. Rape bad.

You and KMC are not arguing the same issue as guesswho. He insists that making hay about prison rapists is an excuse to build outrage against a law-abiding majority. I don’t think you’re going to convince him otherwise by making more hay about prison rapists.

I understand that you are genuinely concerned about the rapist situation, which makes further concessions very unappealing! And guesswho shouldn’t expect to convince you otherwise by dancing around the issue.

It’s not a very productive conversation. Y’all are both producing the wrong kind of evidence.

I understand you’re going for hyperbole, but try to avoid caricaturing the positions you’re arguing against.

This is often referred to as the progressive stack,

By whom? The people I’ve seen insist on this term are not progressives, but critics interested in scoring rhetorical points.

Say I argued that Christians rely on a “religious stack.” I could probably come up with a half-decent ordering. Surely Christians tend to prefer Judaism to Islam, or insular Amish sects to rival missionaries, or spirituality to atheism. But it would be foolish to use a placement on this list—which I had just created—as an argument for Christians to do something differently. The model might be descriptive, but it is very much not prescriptive.

If progressives don’t pick their causes according to a stack, your strategy is dead on arrival. You will never gain mainstream support by fitting yourself into a model which the mainstream doesn’t use.

I appreciate a lot of what you’re saying, here. I guess I want to offer a mild defense of the tables and metrics.

There are responses elsewhere in this thread saying “I don't care about TTV, and I don't care about their evidence.” Great, fine, revert to a state of absolute Cartesian doubt. But that’s not the conclusion drawn. No, people are going to swap in their own preferred epistemology, for all the same strategic and tribal reasons as any other point of contention.

I find that…frustrating. It becomes very tempting to wade in with data. In normal, sane debates, that’s how you’re supposed to win, after all. Bring facts, and even if you can’t convince your opponent, the rational audience will come away with the correct conclusion. Ah, youth.

If we don’t have data, what’s left to try?

When you make inflammatory claims, you need to bring evidence. “Could,” “would,” “who knows”—elaborate on these, and use them to make it clear why you stand by your claims.

What are you on about?

If you’re determined to be a cynic, welfare is the bread and circuses required to stave off revolt. How does that describe education?

A more sympathetic description might be that welfare adds slack to the economy, allowing employees to take more risks without getting relegated to the debtors’ gaol (or revolting). It’s a hedge. This is also not a good description of public education.

Are you trying to argue that welfare recipients are drawing money from “ expanding the education system and increasing administrative burden on companies”? What does that mean?

I’d like to see you elaborate on Biden’s “promotion” of the crisis. I tend to agree with @hydroacetylene that the economic incentives are going to dominate; are the Feds not enforcing that? They’re still detaining and deporting significant numbers.

Yep. Good times.

It is obviously an example of the state doing exactly what WhiningCoil is afraid of. It’s also probably older than him. My point is that military intervention in American culture is so rare and awkward that it’s not why the army is “importing foreigners.” There’s a much simpler explanation, which is that the armed forces are desperate for anyone remotely resembling a fit human. Populations of poor young men from agriculture are recruiters’ bread and butter. Assuming it’s a ploy to “oppress the natives” is kind of ridiculous.