While it's true that there are already laws on the books against these sorts of things, I think an argument can be made that there needs to be a more focused and vigorous response.
The main answer to this is having vague enough laws and leaving it to the police to enforce it at their discretion, but it requires a lot of social capital and trust to do, which is precisely what you're running out of these days.
Hey, another person getting into Endfield! Enjoying it a lot so far, though I'm still in the honeymoon period, before the gacha system starts putting the squeeze on progression ressources, and before the game settles into a daily grind.
Trump has had… lots of appointees that didn't agree with him much. RFK wasn’t someone I would’ve expected to be on the Trump train.
I think the main consideration he has is for legacy setting, so his best shot is hiring outsider wonks who push for bold reforms. Not sure how Warsh fits there.
Agreed 100%.
But Alex Pretti was an intensive care nurse at a Veteran's hospital with a clean record
He probably did more good for the world in that role than he ever did wrong as a protestor, except to himself. I have no problem calling his death a tragedy, even if I don't think I can blame the officer for taking the shot (though that's from the limited information I do have). Defending ICE's goals and actions does not require celebrating or even attacking the character of Pretti (and Good) except in the specific actions they took before their deaths.
Logistically how do garbage men strike for a year? How are they paying their bills?
Usually they are bankrolled by their union's warchest.
Ok, let's put it this way. The nitty-gritty of use-of-force is mostly irrelevant. Innocents being summarily executed by the state deserves wide social reaction and reevaluation of the politics of those supporting it in a way that "person plays stupid game, wins stupid prize" doesn't. What the OP is doing is pointing that Pretti's shooting matches the second characterization better than the first.
Yes, of course the facts of use of force in a complex dynamic scenario are irrelevant here, that's not the game being played. The left never wants to play that game, you can see it with Rittenhouse, they'll rewrite the entire scenario so that they never have to play that game. The game being played, by the left, is "innocent mother who just confusedly found herself there" or "kind medic" shot by "fascist jackboot thugs". With no control over the media, the right can't chose the game to play, they can't reframe this on "let's just let the professionals do their job and we'll see if it was justified". So in the game we actually are playing, pointing out that Good was actually not accidentally there but willingly interfering, and that Pretti has a history of belligerent behavior towards ICE is fair.
Ended up with Jeffersonianism
My main beef with tests like this is that it doesn't distinguish well between things that are preferences and those that the test taker feels should be policy. For instance, on the question of traditional gender roles. I think they tend to work better and I think it's broadly good if people follow them, but I also don't think anyone has the moral ground to enforce them and that people who don't want to follow them should be allowed to (legally and socially). What would I answer? I could answer in the middle, but that would not capture my actual feeling (positive) towards the roles, and my opinion (negative) towards enforcement of them. My answer should push me more towards libertarian conservatism, not be neutral.
- Prev
- Next

One of the failure state of it is, but it doesn't have to be. Not every city/state/province/country that has loitering laws, for instance, is a police state. Loitering as a concept is vague enough that the police has to exercise judgement in removing people who are being a nuisance and those who aren't.
But when you run out of social capital, you end up on both sides with abuse (on the police side with abuse of authority and on the other side doing the maximum they can get away with despite going against the spirit of the law).
More options
Context Copy link