SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
dalek (15489)
I'm posting this journal because I've read far too much violent rhetoric on this site and seen far too many people making excuses for this sort of behavior. The Civil War was more than a conflict between the Union and Confederate armies, and militia groups were responsible for many of the worst atrocities. I fear that many people are far too eager to see a repeat of this brutal and ugly conflict.
History books tend to describe the Civil War through a series of battles between the Union and Confederate armies. Although those battles certainly happened, they ignore a large part of the violence that took place.
Today, the rivalry between the Missouri Tigers and Kansas Jayhawks is one of the most bitter in all of college sports. Until the mid-2000s, the rivalry was officially referred to as the Border War. Although many rivalries use the word "war" in their names, this rivalry is unique in that much of the tradition around the rivalry traces its history to an actual war. Both the Tigers and Jayhawks are named for Civil War militia groups. The University of Kansas campus in Lawrence includes Mount Oread, which is a large hill where one militia group organized before burning Lawrence to the ground. To this day, this event is unofficially referenced by many fans.
Missouri and Kentucky were somewhat unique during the Civil War in that their government officially remained loyal to the Union while illegitimate shadow legislatures voted to secede. Slavery was legal in Missouri, but it is misleading to suggest that the state was uniformly loyal to the Confederacy. In fact, Saint Louis was a Union stronghold, as well as many other cities around the state such as Columbia.
The Old Courthouse in Saint Louis is the site of two trials where Dred and Harriet Scott sued for their freedom from slavery. In the first trial, their request was denied. They requested a retrial where they were awarded their freedom from Irene Emerson. Following the second verdict, Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court which overturned the circuit court decision and sent Dred and Harriet Scott back into slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 1857 to deny freedom to Dred and Harriet Scott. This ruling also invalidated the Missouri Compromise, meaning that slave owners could continue to own slaves even after moving to states where slavery was illegal. Today, the Old Courthouse is maintained by the National Park Service and has exhibits about the Dred Scott case. I've visited the courtroom where Dred and Harriet Scott were initially awarded their freedom before higher courts ruled that they were the property of Emerson.
Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was between militia groups. Some of these militia groups were organized to fortify and defend cities while many others roamed through the states committing acts of violence. Militia groups that supported the Confederacy were known as Bushwhackers. There were also militia groups that organized in Kansas in support of the Union, and they were known as Jayhawkers. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for conducting brutal raids and engaging in lawlessness.
One well-known raid occurred in 1861 when James Lane organized a group of Jayhawkers to sack the town of Osceola in western Missouri. The town was burned to the ground, nine residents were court-martialed and executed, and 200 slaves were freed. Lane and his militia plundered from Osceola, stealing food and resources. The Jayhawkers were known for their brutality and were harshly criticized by Union commanders. In 1862, Union Major General Lorenzo Thomas wrote about Charles Jennison's group of Jayhawkers that they were "no better than a band of robbers; they cross the line, rob, steal, plunder, and burn whatever they can lay their hands upon. They disgrace the name and uniform of American soldiers and are driving good Union men into the ranks of the secession army."
One of the responses to Lane's raid was conducted by William Quantrill, a Bushwhacker who organized a group of raiders that included "Bloody Bill" Anderson to go into Kansas and attack the town of Lawrence. On a night in August 1863, a group of about 450 raiders organized near Mount Oread before entering Lawrence to burn it to the ground. Banks and stores were looted, 150 men and boys were killed, and the town was completely burned by the raiders. Prior to the raid, Quantrill compiled a list of people purported to be in Lawrence whom they planned to capture and execute, though some on the list such as James Lane successfully fled and avoided being put to death.
Jennison was also known for brutal raids in western Missouri, where his raiders devastated five counties. In many cases, all that was left from Jennison's attacks were stone chimneys known as Jennison monuments, where the houses had been burned to the ground and only the chimneys remained.
Many Bushwhackers not only conducted raids in Kansas but also against Union strongholds in Missouri. In September 1864, "Bloody Bill" Anderson and his group of Bushwhackers massacred the city of Centralia, which is located in central Missouri, about 15 miles northeast of Columbia. Anderson's band of raiders that attacked Centralia included Jesse James, who would go on to be a particularly famous outlaw. Concerned that Columbia would also be targeted by Bushwhackers, Congressman James Rollins organized a militia known as the Columbia Tigers in support of the Union to fortify the city and protect it against Bushwhacker raids. Anderson and his raiders never attacked Columbia, and the Tigers are often credited with discouraging Bushwhackers from raiding the city. As far as I can tell, history remembers the Tigers favorably, and unlike the other militia I've discussed, they were not associated with lawlessness and brutality.
Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was not between the Union and Confederate armies, but between militia groups on both sides. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for looting, arson, and mass murder. The conflict was much more complicated than Missouri being a slave state and fighting against Kansas, which was a free state. In fact, a significant portion of Missouri was loyal to the Union and faced many brutal raids by the same Bushwhacker militia groups that attacked Kansas.
Not all militia groups were associated with lawlessness, and some were organized by people protecting their homes and cities against raiders. However, many of these groups on both sides of the conflict were incredibly brutal and indiscriminately killed people. Although the Jayhawkers supported the Union, many of the atrocities they committed were just as horrible as the raiders conducted by Bushwhackers.
When modern militia groups stockpile weapons and prepare for combat, these are not necessarily idle threats. There is historical precedent in the Civil War of these militia groups looting, burning cities to the ground, and committing mass murder. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable, whether it's sarcastically calling for attacks on NRA leadership or wishing for the deaths of fifty million progressives. I have no problem with people using guns for self defense to protect themselves from being attacked by criminals. The problem is that there are many people and militia groups arming for war, and we should not treat this as an idle threat. If we're going to learn from history, we need to remember that the Civil War was incredibly brutal, and many of the worst atrocities were committed by militia groups using their political affiliation as an excuse to engage in lawlessness.
When people are stockpiling weapons, conducting paramilitary training, and promoting anti-government ideas, we would be fools to dismiss this as hyperbole. There is no place for violence or violent threats, serious or otherwise, in civilized society. I'm posting this because I'm very troubled by some of the awful comments and journals that have been posted here recently. I fear that many people are eager to repeat the atrocities of the Civil War, and none of us will benefit if that happens. This needs to stop.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by canopic jug on Tuesday May 09, @04:48AM (35 children)
There are five factors riling things up from what I can see. Trying to enlighten people about the education they missed in school only addresses point four below:
Each of these factors feed on each other and combine to make the situation far worse. Yes the goal seems to be to goad social control media users into launching violent uprisings. However, who gains? Where does the money lead?
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @06:06AM (6 children)
*cough* Voice of America.. We got 'em beat by a long shot. Where is the Soviet Union today?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:10AM (3 children)
I do wonder what you think Voice of America does. I doubt it runs any farms of fake personas spreading similar quality news, but I guess some people expect that if Russia does something then somehow the US does it worse.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @06:44AM (1 child)
Why? They exist to spread American propaganda
Of course you do... But this time you're kinda right, the quality is much higher
This time you're wrong again. The US does it much better!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 10, @12:28PM
Which is just a bit you set. Like the percentage of chocolate in your candy or how old you are.
The allure of the wizened cynic, blind to any flaws in their argument. "The quality is much higher" means it's different. And perhaps you should look at the remarkable lack of linking to VoA articles in SN. I bet there's more linking to RT and other Russian propaganda sources than there is to VoA. There's not much point to complaining about a propaganda source nobody uses, right?
There's a simple fix to this, should your country be interested: rule of law, and mostly tell the truth. Russia just isn't doing well with that. US has its flaws, but as you say, it does it much better.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @11:04AM
Death to khallow, and his recondrite views! Jesus and Justice demands it.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @08:37PM
Highly biased moderator there. Must be the Kremlin's fault, right? To the rational person, a direct response to what was said is not "offtopic"..
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 11, @05:00PM
Call me when VOA starts pretending to be Russian citizens or offering Russian political figures fake documents to help them in their campaign.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:19AM (26 children)
I doubt that is even remotely the case (particularly since Newsmax is mostly cable channels which have plenty of competition). My bet is that viewers self-select for these outlets - they're looking for sources that confirm their biases.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @06:48AM (25 children)
Talking about yourself there...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:52AM (24 children)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @07:10AM (21 children)
You are one of the more active users in political drama discussions. Prove? Lol, bro fyi everyone can see your posts
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @07:34AM (20 children)
I have evidence that shows libtards melting down over the salient and obvious takes that khallow makes. The evidence is littered throughout the Soylent News, but you're not capable of finding it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @09:03AM (19 children)
Really? You're posting mindless insults like calling people libtards? Either grow up, or take your shitposting elsewhere. It's not welcome in my journal.
The same goes for the AC above your post. If you have a comment that's relevant to the substance of khallow's post, then make your point. If your only responses to khallow are mindless personal attacks, post them somewhere other than my journal. Your shitposting isn't welcome here, either.
As I said in my journal post, I'm absolutely opposed to the violent rhetoric that's all too common in political discourse, if we can actually call it discourse. Mindless drivel like what you two are posting isn't helpful, either. All too often, attempts at meaningful discussion are quickly derailed by moronic insults, just like what you two are doing. It gets in the way of people having any opportunity to find common ground and reach any sort of understanding. Either contribute to the discussion in a useful way by discussing the substance of what people have posted, or get out of my journal.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @04:28PM (18 children)
I want to take the high road, but the rightwing nutters have stuck to the low road so down we go. Users like khallow are the worst offenders, pretending to be simple objective commentators while pushing rightwing lies. Calling out their hypocrisy may work against the lossibility of decent discussions, but the chance of that with certain users is zero. Bad actors should be pushed against and lengthy discussions where you back them into a corner are a waste of time as they just keep repeating the lies in later discussions.
The most beneficial thing is to announce these bad actors so everyone is at least i formed. Khallow can shape up any time and stop defending the fascist take over of the USA. Best block ACs in your journal like Runaway1956 because personally I will not stop calling them out when they will not stop shitposting propaganda or take responsibility for lies.
They need to be shamed because they know their positions are immoral and authoritarian. Civility only fuels their trolling as they get to keep pushing their views by making bad faith arguments. We leave it to you to have the heart felt debates where you try and educate, it is very admirable, but you should let the low quality garbage slide past with a downmod or short condemnation. If not then prepare to just generally be annoyed at every discussion.
I am shamelessly antifa and am done with hoping civility or facts will change the fascists. Ball is in their court, they can defend freedom and democracy any time.
TL;DR when people lie and refuse to acknowledge reality there is no high ground to take
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09, @05:54PM (2 children)
While I agree that it is not offtopic to bring up someone's posting history in a discussion about toxic rhetoric I don't believe I have ever seen khallow post anything violent in nature (unlike a certain other poster).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @09:55PM
True, worst was meant in the manner of denying facts. Runaway is much more violent, but usually shuts up when called out by facts. Khallow honestly seems like a pure propagandist that shifts viewpoints slightly to better match with the prevailing sentiment. Maybe khallow actually shows growth, but the core issues and ideological stubborness on strange topics, like whether an insurrection is an insurrection or whether an obvious criminal is a criminal. Yes we reserve punishment for a judge with a trial, but the crimes were done publicly or we've gotten the details like the infamous Georgia election vote call.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 10, @09:07PM
Seconded.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @09:32PM (10 children)
I couldn't block AC posting in my journal even if I wanted to. There appears to be a glitch that prevents me from doing so, and so I'm limited to the choices of either enabling comments for everyone or disabling them for everyone. I reported the issue to janrinok awhile back, but the cause of the issue remains undetermined. Even if I could block AC posting, I don't believe I would choose to do so.
I absolutely support holding people accountable for what they've said. If you look at my posting history, I've had plenty to say about a certain awful comment discussing fifty million dead progressives. I support calling people out for hypocrisy, but that means calling them out for actual specific things they've said. The posts I saw looked like vague retorts and moronic insults, such as the AC using the term libtards, and that's why I responded critically. For example, I support directly criticizing khallow for consistently downplaying January 6 [soylentnews.org] and saying things like "It wasn't very violent. Only one person died from violence in the protest. Further, they didn't do much to the Capitol - mild vandalism was about it. Nor did they try to discard anyone's election results. I'll buy that Trump is a large fascist loser, but there's bigger losers out there even now (and the ones of the past were truly epic in scale). So no, not buying the narrative."
When the RNC censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, they described the entire events of January 6 as "legitimate political discourse." That's a ridiculous statement. When khallow denies that this is a GOP problem [soylentnews.org], that's ridiculous [soylentnews.org]. There's also khallow's statements about pretrial detention of January 6 rioters [soylentnews.org], which as I documented is very misleading [soylentnews.org].
I have no problem with pointing out absurd and/or hypocritical statements. I'm just drawing a distinction between vague insults and retorts versus actually holding people accountable for specific ridiculous things they've said.
By the way, I modded your post here up as insightful.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @10:02PM (9 children)
Thanks for the upmod but I was also the ass calling out khallow's criticism of echo chambers while he pushes blatant nonsense like j6. I am just done arguing in good faith with bad faith trolls. I try to only do so when deserved by the comment, not just because khallow participated. I actually appreciate some of their posts, few humans are worthless.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @04:37AM (8 children)
I think it shows some mental deficiency to reduce complex events to a single two letter term.
I doubt you ever started.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Thursday May 18, @06:47PM (7 children)
Nobody had posted in this journal for five days until you showed up to post this bit of flamebait. I told the two ACs that low quality personal attacks weren't welcome in my journal. That applies to you, too, khallow. Take your shitposting elsewhere. Don't post garbage like this in my journals again. SN has said that journal authors get to decide what comments are welcome or unwelcome in their journals. I am exercising that right.
I disagreed with the way the AC posted their thoughts, but their assessment of you is correct. The sign of an honest person is being able to tell the truth even when it's unfavorable to their position. You seem to have a problem doing that.
I've read a lot of your comments, and I've noticed some patterns in how you interact with people. It's fine that you have conservative views, but with the exception of the pandemic, you always seem to take the position that's most favorable to the right. In the case of January 6, you downplay the riot, focusing on that only one person arrested at the Capitol was carrying a firearm. But you insist that there's a large scale problem with speedy trials for people arrested in conjunction with the January 6 riot despite only one reported violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Then you make excuses for why it's not a GOP problem despite the abject refusal of Republicans in Congress to hold Donald Trump responsible for weeks of angrily tweeting disinformation about the 2020 election and his willful decision not to act to stop the riot on January 6. Although you admit that there was large scale lawlessness on January 6, you can't bring yourself to criticize the RNC's censure of Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney characterizing those events as "legitimate political discourse." Instead of discussing honestly, you always choose the most favorable interpretation for the right, even if it means contradicting yourself.
The next step is to discredit people who disagree with you, characterizing them as unreasonable. You do this with loaded language, accusing them of things like being hysterical. This is an example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. If you make the person who disagrees with you seem unreasonable, it's a way to avoid addressing their arguments and any facts that they present.
After that, you try to muddy the waters, so to speak. During the 2016 election, the term "fake news" was used to refer to completely fabricated stories, typically crafted by foreign entities attempting to influence our election. This term was then co-opted as a way to dismiss unfavorable news stories, regardless of their accuracy. In the case of the Steele dossier, it was accurate to characterize it as fake news. However, it was also misused to denounce any unfavorable reporting, even when that reporting was completely truthful. You've done the same thing with Azuma Hazuki's journal about intolerance. You've co-opted that term and are misusing it to accuse people who disagree with you of stoking intolerance. Your use of the term "intolerance" would be reasonable if it was in response to someone dehumanizing their political opponents. But that's not what's actually happening. Moreover, you use it in a very one-sided manner, saying that the left is exaggerating the threat of right-wing violence and causing intolerance, but you don't use the same rhetoric when right-wing posters exaggerate threats from the left. This is an attempt to confuse people about what "intolerance" actually means, and to misuse the term so that it effectively becomes meaningless.
In short, there's a pattern to your commenting, and it consists of 1) always arguing the position most favorable to your side, even when it means contradicting yourself, 2) discrediting those who disagree with you and provide evidence that's contrary to what you post, and 3) muddying the waters to create confusion. I've noticed this after reading a lot of your comments about a variety of topics.
While your approach is no way to have an honest discussion, I supported letting you express your opinions in my journal. However, shitposting like this is not welcome in my journal.
Now, let's be clear about some things. The riot on January 6 was an embarrassment and it was absolutely illegal, but the charges that prosecutors are bringing against the rioters are reasonable. It was an angry protest that got way out of hand. The rioters were mostly using makeshift weapons, and only a single person who was arrested at the Capitol was actually carrying a gun. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it was intended to be a lawful protest, but it got way out of hand. The riot does appear to have been a one time issue.
There's a separate issue of militia groups, who had amassed large caches of weapons just outside of Washington. They had plans to use those weapons to directly influence the legislative proceedings on January 6, but none of these plans were executed. The most serious charges with respect to January 6 have generally been brought against leaders of these militia groups. Still, many militia groups have continued to amass weapons and could use them in the future. Unlike the riot, these are coordinated and well-planned efforts. As long as people are arming for war, there is a real threat. I hope those weapons never get used, but the violent rhetoric concerned me enough to write this journal.
While I strongly disagree with your methods, I still support letting you express your opinions in my journal. However, if you're going to shill in my journal, at least refrain from posting mindless drivel like this.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 19, @12:04AM (6 children)
I'll think about it - you are right about the shitty quality of my post. And while I don't recognize any such right (particularly when the poster criticizes me), the administrators have repeatedly alleged (for example, here [soylentnews.org] that journal owners control who can access their journals which supports your case.
I've been posting here on SN for the better part of a decade, and you haven't seen my non-conservative positions yet? I have repeatedly been accused of being conservative merely because I occasionally take a position that sides with conservatives. This wouldn't be the first. I'll just say that the above is a weak list of concerns (I simply don't care about most of it) and a remarkable lack of detail to these accusations.
I mostly agree. But I doubt the protest was intended to be legal by a fair number of its participants - for example, there was removal of barricades early in the protest combined with at least one speaker with a megaphone encouraging people to enter the Capitol. That's in addition to the Proud Boy plotting.
I'm not seeing much cause for concern here. Plans not executed, weapon caches not used, and a vague assertion of coordination and well-planning. Little in the way of actual harm. As to the future threat, keep in mind those plans and weapons can be used in defense of the US as well as against it. There's not one monolithic side arming up. My take is that this is little different from the extensive gang warfare which the US has endured ever since Prohibition. I think we could do better, but we already have a good idea of the threat level.
Ok, I'll refrain from posting mindless drivel in your journal.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Friday May 19, @01:03AM (5 children)
Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty about quality of the post I replied to. Thank you.
There's a problem with your argument here. I'm going to write a good faith reply and explain why I have a problem with your argument.
I read some comments on message boards like Voat during the interregnum between the 2020 election and January 6. Voat has been shut down, but it was another platform like 8chan that was basically unmoderated. People who are banned from other platforms tend to go to sites like those, which skews the types of discussions that take place on such sites.
I read some of the threads there. One of my observations was that many people viewed the outcome of the 2020 election as a battle between good and evil, which by itself isn't necessarily unlike a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the election in many other places. For example, Biden described the election as a battle for the soul of the country. Biden was speaking figuratively, saying that the outcome of the election would have a big impact on the future direction of the country.
The discussions on felt very different. They seemed to believe that Trump was the last hope for this country, or perhaps for the world, and that all would be lost if he wasn't sworn in for a second term. Some of the language seemed apocalyptic to me. Their language in some posts almost seemed to describe Trump as a Messiah. It wasn't just about ideology, but blind support of one man whom they believed was the actual winner of the election, and that if Trump wasn't sworn back in as president, the country would be doomed. To them, people like Biden and Hillary Clinton weren't just people whose ideas they rejected. The people on that message board seemed to believe that people like Biden and Clinton are actually enemies of the country.
One thing was very clear to me: the people talking about violence on Voat genuinely believed they were defending the United States against an enemy. To repel what they believed was an enemy attacking the United States, they were willing to turn to violence and to killing people.
When the Constitution was written back in the 18th century, it was written with the idea that militia would be ready to take up arms to repel foreign invasions and to stop rebellions and lawlessness. The authors of the Constitution believed that a standing army was not conducive to freedom, so the militia were effectively an army by the people and for the people. This works as long as the militia correctly identify the actual enemies of the United States.
The problem is that the people who were posting on this board don't just believe that some elected officials have awful ideas or are even engaged in criminal activity and need to be prosecuted. They believe that Democratic politicians are enemies of the United States. Some may believe that progressives and perhaps Democrats in general are enemies of the United States. I got a sense of that here with Runaway's explanation of his infamous "fifty million dead progressives" comment. In order to say something like that, he doesn't just believe that progressives are people with ideas that he thinks are terrible. He sees progressives as the enemy of the country. There are other comments here that express similar sentiment, that the United States is under attack from some of its own citizens.
I have no reason to think that the ideas expressed in the comments I read on Voat are somehow atypical of beliefs within a lot of modern militia groups. They don't believe they're actually taking up arms against the United States. They believe that the current government of the United States is illegitimate, and that they're really acting in defense of the country. It's fundamentally different from the Civil War, where the Confederacy seceded from the United States and formed their own government. The people in these militia groups believe they're preparing to defend the United States, and that the current government is more akin to the Confederacy.
The idea of citizens taking up arms to defend their country doesn't sound unreasonable as long as the people taking up arms correctly identify the enemy. The problem is that a lot of these people who are gathering weapons and training for combat have an extremely warped idea of who the enemy is. It's not comforting at all when you say that those weapons can be used to defend the country. That's exactly what groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters believe they're doing.
These militia groups haven't fundamentally changed their beliefs since January 6. Trump has fallen out of favor with many of them, but they still believe that Democrats and Progressives are enemies of the United States. As long as they continue to have a warped idea of who the enemy is, they are still a threat to become violent.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 20, @02:39AM (4 children)
My take is that tolerance is a long term strategy that works really well on this sort of problem when you combine it with firm, universal rules: we don't care what you believe or say, but if you start hurting people, we'll take you down. Then you have a choice. You can be a productive member of society no matter your beliefs, or you can be rotting in prison. I think we already see the success of this approach.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Saturday May 20, @05:12AM (3 children)
No, we don't punish thought crime. We punish speech, but only in very limited circumstances. There has to be a specific threat of violence.
However, you've managed to correctly identify the problem here:
As I posted elsewhere in this journal, private paramilitary groups are illegal in every state. Now, it's legal to obtain and carry firearms, but states can and most certainly do regulate how those firearms are used. If your group is wearing military attire, carrying long guns, and demonstrating like a military unit, that's illegal. If your group is conducting paramilitary training, that's also illegal. Again, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't prohibit regulating how those arms are used.
Now, the governor or the legislature of a state, depending on the law, can summon the unorganized militia to act in a lawful manner. But that's not what's happening here. These groups are breaking the law, and they're getting away with it. When groups get away with lawlessness, others follow along. That's how we've ended up with all these militia groups that are arming for war.
We would be fools to wait until serious harm occurs before acting. It wasn't no secret in the 1850s that states in the South were preparing to secede and were arming for war. It wasn't necessary to wait until Fort Sumter to decide that there was a real problem. The presidents during the 1850s knew that there was a problem but chose not to act. That has a large role in why Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and particularly James Buchanan are considered three of the very worst presidents in American history. You don't have to take my word for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]. If you read about them, you'll find that historians blame their ineptitude for allowing the Civil War to even begin.
The correct action here is to strictly enforce the law. It doesn't mean criminalizing thought or speech. It doesn't mean infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. It does mean enforcing the laws that ban private paramilitary organizations and shutting those organizations down permanently. If we don't enforce the laws and shut down these illegal militia groups, we're encouraging their growth and the spread of lawlessness.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 20, @11:58AM (2 children)
Not for lack of trying. My take is that the main reason such fails in the long term is that we can't agree on what thoughts to criminalize.
Reading your post [soylentnews.org] in question, that doesn't sound particularly illegal to me - only New York allegedly had laws on the books against paramilitary organizations. It's fairly easy to bypass such law by restricting one's activities so that they don't meet the threshold for the law. My bet is that's why no one is rounding up paramilitary militia these days.
And I'm dubious of your legal interpretation anyway when you then spend so much time on "well-regulated militia" a throwaway phrase from the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment doesn't require anyone to act in accord with that term. The actual meaning there is is to make two legally nonbinding claims: an implicit one that well-regulated militia are a good thing, and having people legally able to own and use weapons ("keep and bear arms") would further that. That's it.
In the 1850s, serious harm was happening. There was no waiting for it. And what should the US have done? Preemptively start an unpopular war? All that deciding won't matter, if you don't have serious options available to deal with the problem.
What's missed here is that Fort Sumter gave Lincoln political cover to declare war - any time in the previous few decades no such drastic course of action would have been justifiable. If instead the South had avoided military conflict until it had solid European support, then we might still be in a two country situation.
Waiting serves a twofold purpose: first, it allows the other side a chance to avoid conflict, and second, it forces the other side to start the conflict. In particular, if both sides adopt a waiting strategy, then conflict doesn't happen at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21, @06:16PM (1 child)
Ah yes, the "do nothing" approach to letting fascists consolidate power. Gave you a small benefit of a doubt before, but it becomes ever more clear you're shilling for rightwing fascism in the US. Otherwise you would not spend all your time defending the fascists, a pure libertarian would be raging against the current GOP but at best you offer demure critiques.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 21, @10:10PM
Let's review what I wrote:
There are two problems here. First, a misunderstanding of my strategy previously mentioned. Second, a peculiar lack of detail as to what "doing something" means.
Waiting is not doing nothing. In the Civil War example, was Lincoln doing nothing? Were police "doing nothing" prior to the January 6 protest? For example, you can prepare a defense against a fascist attack. You can "show the flag", make the fascists aware that you are prepared for any conflict that should happen. (I presume here that fascists are an actual thing and not your imagination.)
As to doing something about fascism, I remain underwhelmed by the approaches I see used. For example, I see two common strategies used: 1) retreating to an echo chamber and two minute hating fascists there, and 2) using the power of a corporate sponsor/ally to ban or obstruct speech which often turns out not to be fascist. I consider the former to fill the very definition of doing nothing and the latter to be more harmful than the fascists - consider this interesting example [judithcurry.com] from Judith Curry (notable climate skeptic):
Judith Curry happened to be on the wrong side of the climate change debate and was shadow banned for a year and a half. Not a fascist, but didn't stop Twitter from silencing her. Even worse, they didn't tell her. She had to find out this way.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 10, @12:43PM (3 children)
So how do we tell the difference between that hypothesis and the one where I'm more or less objective and you're a trashposter? Maybe start with you providing evidence and trashposting less? I can't address or correct problems alleged critics refuse to talk about.
What has this takeover actually taken over? The only big thing so far are the mean January 6 protesters who managed to take over some rooms in the Capitol building for a few hours. That's so two years ago. Random stuff has been blamed on fascists since, such as adverse Supreme Court rulings and US debt ceiling laws that nobody in power follows, including the fascists.
It would also help if you'd get rid of that tunnel vision and actually understand my arguments for once. I can only do so much to help with your ignorance. There's nothing here to condemn or downmod, except an AC wasting our time with nebulous accusations that he never manages to provide any details about.
Of course you are. That's why you're the Us versus Them guy in this thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @03:39PM (2 children)
If that makes you feel better about your lies and half baked excuses for runaway capitalism, then you do you. Conservatives have been attacking freedoms decade after decade, but any pushback and you cry like toddlers. Playing the martyr is extra slimey, but again you do you. Here I thought every red blooded American was against fascism, and this time you don't get to do you, fascism is bad mmkay?
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday May 10, @11:54PM (1 child)
You're not even wrong. With the existing degree of heavy regulation this isn't runaway capitalism.
Mean conservatives with mild hypocrisy. Will fix that right away.
Right, I keep forgetting your narrative. From where you've gone with it, I think continue to forget it remains the right choice.
I doubt you've started to think yet. Else we wouldn't have all this losing of shit over minor two year old news.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, @05:47PM
Nazi insurrectionist says what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @08:32PM
Not frivolous at all, it's simple fact, you see what you want to see, and call anything that disagrees "propaganda" and "whataboutism", that is what you project. Your own comments are proof enough
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @10:13PM
Provoked by sedition? Check, Trump & Frens riled up the j6 rally to go fight for freedom and overturn the election for Trump
Organized? Check, proud boys and others planned the attack with the help of GOP congressional traitors
Violent? Check, police assaulted and one insurrectionist shot while breaking through to get at congress members. The violence not being more intense does not change the intents of the insurrectionists.
The criterua are all met, you just do not want to accept how far Republicans have fallen in their quest for power. Oppressing people isn't cool, and if you find yourself on the wrong side of society being treated like an asshole, maybe try introspection and spiritual study.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by owl on Tuesday May 09, @01:09PM
Are you sure that is the goal?
You are mostly on the right track. Social media echo chambers, and social media engagement algorithms contribute significantly to the outcome, but were the engagement algorithms put in place with a goal of "violent uprising" -- or is "violent uprising" simply an unintended consequence of a different goal for those algorithms?
Consider that the point of social media and news publishers is to earn money from advertising payments. Those social media companies and news publishers then have a direct incentive to find ways to increase engagement because increased engagement directly leads to more advertising revenue.
One way to increase engagement is to create click-bait headlines and false boogeymen to generate a sense of urgency or fear in readers to get them to engage. I.e., there is a reason why grocery store tabloid (i.e., National Enquirer and the like) headlines and stories are written the way they are. Cultivating a false sense of insecurity or urgency creates an interest in learning what in the world is going on (i.e., "engagement"). This just plays on primal survival emotions.
So social media, and as well much of the news/press, has an incentive to create "National Enquirer" style headlines/stories because those types of headlines/stories grab eyeballs and increase engagement.
Now, combine that with the last 10-20 years of the internet and browsers and the ability of website analytics to report to a publisher (be that publisher a social media company or a news org) very fine grained data on "engagement" with their published items. I.e., if you let the analytics javascript run, it can not only report that you viewed a given page, it can report how long you were on the page, whether you scrolled down to read below the fold, if you did a search within the page for some words, etc.
The result of this level of "engagement analytics" is that over the course of years we get a feedback loop going. Publisher produces batch of stories, analytics reports which stories get more "engagement" (these being those that are more on the "rational enquirer" click-bait side). Those stores with more engagement generate more ad revenue. Publisher wants more revenue, so next batch of stories is a bit more "sensational" than the last, because that is what generated more engagement last time. The additional "sensationalism" itself generates more engagement -- which generates more revenue. Repeat the cycle daily over ten plus years and you have all these "social media" and "news orgs" creating sensational stories with false boogeymen to drive ever more ad revenue.
All of which occurred without ever having a goal of "violent uprising". Now, an unintended consequence of all of this is that some of the more gullible of the general population start believing that the boogeymen created by the click-bait publishers is real, and you begin to have the situation we see now, where the fringe is getting riled up enough that they might be becoming a danger -- not because the publishers set out to rile them up (i.e., it was never the goal) -- but because the chasing of ad revenue through engagement metrics resulted in them becoming riled up, and no one in the publishing houses has cared to notice the result of their chasing ever more ad revenue through ever more sensational stories. Their focus is simply on the next quarter's stock-market report.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:51AM (3 children)
This is a classic example of how to increase division.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @08:22AM (2 children)
There is some truth to what you're saying, in regard to conflicts leading up the Civil War. Instead of Congress deciding whether to admit Kansas and Nebraska as free states or slave states, it was placed on the ballot in those states and left up to the residents. People from Missouri crossed the border into Kansas to use violence to sway the vote in favor of becoming a slave state, and they also fraudulently voted in those elections as if they were residents of Kansas. When Quantrill and his raiders burned Lawrence in 1863, it wasn't the first time that Lawrence had been attacked. The Free State Hotel was attacked and burned in 1856.
It's unlikely that states would actually attempt to secede from the United States in the 21st century. The geographic divide in the United States is not so much between north and south but between urban and rural areas. Violent conflicts would not be fought between two armies as in a conventional war. It wouldn't take the form of the Civil War battles between the Union and Confederate armies. Instead, a civil war would probably take the form of an insurgency. This happened as well during the Civil War, and it's a fairly accurate description of a large portion of the conflicts in Missouri and Kansas. Instead of large scale battles between two armies, militia groups loosely aligned with the Union and Confederacy raided towns, looted from homes and businesses, committed arson, and indiscriminately killed people. Both the Jayhawkers and Bushwhackers were more than willing to steal from civilians, burn their homes and businesses to the ground, and to murder those civilians. In many respects, the conflict between Kansas and Missouri during the Civil War is more like what a 21st century civil war would look like in the United States.
My point is that when people are calling for violence and stockpiling weapons to wage war, I don't think they really understand the brutality of such a war, nor do they realize the atrocities that people would be subjected to. Unfortunately, I am concerned that there are enough people who either want a civil war or are unconcerned by the consequences that we would be foolish to ignore the threat. These people need to be very careful what they wish for. However, this is not an inevitable outcome. We can avoid it, but to do so, we need to stop arming for war, and we need to tone down the rage and the violent rhetoric. We need to stop the disinformation and propaganda. We can have differences of opinion on policy, but we need to agree on the facts and to resolve our differences through civil discourse and at the ballot box.
I am pleading with people to tone down the violent rhetoric and to be civil. Is that too much to ask?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 09, @02:51PM
I agree. Folks here in the US don't understand the devastation that warfare (whether declared or not) wreaks on the populace and infrastructure of a nation.
A point you didn't make in your journal entry is that not only was much of the south completely destroyed, but estimates (it's likely higher, but we don't have the data to confirm after 150+ years) are that something like 1% (the 1860 census [census.gov] counted ~32,000,000 US residents) of the US population were killed during the Civil War.
Translate that into today's population and we're talking about 3,400,000 or so dead Americans, not to mention the destruction of much of our infrastructure and society. That would be 10 dead Americans for every 1,000. Not to mention the knock-on effects of destroying much of our infrastructure and society.
For those who think the US is turning into a "third-world nation," that's the way to make sure it happens.
I imagine that folks who might consider such a conflict don't really understand what such a country would be like, as such devastation (at least in the US) is well beyond living memory.
Check out some photos/statistics on the devastation in Europe during and after World War II. That's not what I want my country to look like. Do you (a general 'you' there) want that?
Especially given that the vast majority of Americans agree about much more than they disagree. But those with an agenda (the folks trying to drive engagement -- and that's not a new thing -- "If it bleeds, it leads" has been a trope of the publishing industry for almost as long as we've had a publishing industry), including the politicos using ridiculous tropes to drive wedges between Americans for their own political gain and the [social]media organizations using those same tropes to drive engagement and ad revenue.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 10, @01:01PM
I agree that there was an aspect to this where the slave-holding faction thought it could gain through war what it couldn't through peace and basic economics. But they were much more powerful than the alleged Internet Tough Guy talk that has you riled up.
My take is that there will always be someone who'll be awesome in the coming conflict and they'll spare no effort to remind us of it. But there are simple fixes for actual problems such as understanding other peoples' points of view, addressing underlying grievances, and enforcing rule of law. Maybe we should try that some time?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 09, @11:32AM (31 children)
I've clearly stated that .8 million Americans died in the Civil War, by official count. And, I've stated that the numbers are certainly much higher, partly because of the type of guerilla war you've brought to light here. To lesser degrees, that guerilla warfare was happening all across America. Don't forget the Underground Railroad, and don't forget that people were routinely killed on that railroad.
Ya think maybe it's time to shut down all the silly bullshit circulating today? Things like Critical Race Theory, and lived experience, Antifa, Redneck Revenge, etc ad nauseum? Those are the people clamoring for a civil war. Those are the people who want to tear down the system, and replace it with - anarchy and chaos.
Gotta give you credit, you weird little cyborg critter. You're being far more honest than many of the progressive/liberal/socialist crowd. I encourage you to keep on researching.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09, @04:55PM (1 child)
The Projection is strong with this one!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09, @05:04PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @07:35PM (28 children)
We've had several entire generations to get our society on equal footing, we haven't, and that's why CRT hurts. It's not CLaMoRiNg for civil war, more like a bitter pill.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 09, @08:04PM (27 children)
Rome was built in a couple months, right? Or, was it more like two or three years?
While there is still a lot of shameful shit going on in the United States, regarding race relations, you can't pretend that no progress has been made in your lifetime. You can't pretend that progress ended in 1865, or in 1880, or 1900, or whichever date you might cherry pick.
I will point out once again: About 1990, the KKK was feeling the pain of irrelevance. They went on a recruiting drive. I witnessed representatives of the KKK being laughed out of town, right here in Arkansas, in multiple towns. No one was interested in their white supremacy bullshit. Anyone who might have been interested, was too embarrassed to talk to the KKK publicly. The KKK got verbal beatdowns all across the state, and almost everywhere, left town with their tails between their legs. That's Arkansas, mind you, not New York, or Wisconsin, or California.
Today? What has changed? I'll tell you what has changed. The rhetoric from the other side intensifies constantly, making white people fearful, and defensive.
In short, things were improving pretty steadily, until the socialists stirred the shit among the minorities. Anarchy and chaos like we saw in Portland didn't help matters at all. There are wrongs that still need to be set right, but riot and mayhem aren't the way to do that.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @08:19PM (26 children)
That 'rhetoric' is built on a massive mound of dead bodies, including several with police-issue bullets embedded in them. They are not defensive because what you call rhetoric is wrong, it's because it's correct. You're not trying to end racism, you're trying to fix what you see as PR problem.
Doing nothing didn't work. Instead it ended in death, over and over and over again, which is actually what brought riots. They didn't just magically appear one day like those armed idiots demanding haircuts during a pandemic-lockdown. Oh at least the protests brought bodycams to a number of PDs.
Bet you wish you had something better to bring to the table than "the criticism must end!"
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 09, @09:20PM (25 children)
The single biggest thing today, that will help to eliminate police racism, is technology. Body cameras that record every cop's entire working day is the answer to much of the problem.
Note that I don't say technology is going to end racism. Technology is merely going to shine a light on racism, enabling us to punish cops who act with racist motives.
Now - riot and mayhem? What's that gonna do? Most likely, it's going to make trigger happy cops fire their weapons even quicker. Think about it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @09:37PM (9 children)
Bring us bodycams. 🙄
Nope, "Shut up or the police will kill more people" is not an argument. Besides blatantly ignoring how those protests came about, you're outright admitting we've got people on the police force we shouldn't. Take your own advice, start thinking about it.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 10, @12:55AM (8 children)
You're getting a bit shrill, there. You can't justify rioting, and burning towns down. You can't justify the mayhem, or anarchy. If you try, you are no better than the savages on the police force who gun down whoever, just for kicks. What's that line about becoming the monster you were fighting? We can't replace injustice with a different injustice. Or . . . maybe you can?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 10, @01:20AM (7 children)
Oh and complaining about fighting injustice with injustice makes you a hypocrite, Cap'n BookBan.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 10, @01:36AM (6 children)
Now, tell that to that CNN fool who will live in infamy, describing the Kenosh riots as "mostly peaceful", while buildings burned in the background.
A protest is a bunch of people chanting, shouting, waving fists in the air, name calling, and demanding explanations and resignations, along with demanding change.
Burning, or trying to burn a city down is a riot.
Oh yeah - Cap'n Bookban wants to ban child grooming books in elementary schools, and he wants to ban pornography in school libraries. Isn't that just terrible? Cartoons of sucking cock don't belong in the public education system.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 10, @01:49AM (5 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 10, @03:44PM (4 children)
The books aren't banned - you're being hypocritical here. You can walk into any bookshop in Florida, or anywhere in the US, and purchase any of those books that are supposedly "banned". The issue here is, TAXPAYERS REFUSE to pay for the child grooming in elementary schools, and they refuse to pay for the pornography in higher levels of education. TAXPAYERS don't want to pay for your kid's smut.
Or, do you think taxpayers should have been paying for your kid's subscriptions to Playboy and Penthouse all along?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday May 10, @03:46PM (3 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 10, @05:30PM (2 children)
Oh, FFS, if you want to finance young children's pornography, you can always start a nonprofit for the purpose of doing so. Just don't bring it in the schools, and don't expect taxpayers to finance you. I'm not aware of anyone ever being arrested because little Tommy found his daddy's porn stash, and shared it with his buddies. Tommy may have been sent to detention, if he brought the stash to school, and the teachers stumbled over it. The only arrests and convictions likely would have been if Daddy's porn stash contained child pornography.
The public school system isn't supposed to be a pubic system.
And, stop the child grooming.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @05:41PM
Lies on top of lies, peak think of the children. You should know you sound like the most out of touch boomer possible. Yer a fascist pud larry!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 10, @05:49PM
The condition isn't where the funding came from. Your rationalizations aren't even air-tight.
If you're gonna preach like that start actually protecting children, we've got shooting-related issues going on right now. Hypocrite.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @07:09PM (14 children)
Please enjoy these shots of Minneapolis before and after the "mostly peaceful" summer riots of 2020 [notthebee.com]
Compare and contrast with J6.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @09:25PM (13 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @12:21AM (12 children)
Yeah, hundreds of riots, thousands of cops assaulted, billions in damages, millions shaken down from corporations then skimmed from BLM by its leaders, dozens of bystanders killed, empty stores to this day... let's see the pictures of all that J6 damage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @12:45AM (11 children)
Watch this, I'm going to do a magic trick: I'm going to declare that the people who committed violence and property damage during the BLM protests should face justice. Now here's the magic trick, I'm going to make you spin so fast you'll practically disappear: Would you please follow my example denounce the J6 participants?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @02:37AM (10 children)
Funny, I don't recall even bothering with discussing that nonsense with you.
What, the half-million American patriots in red baseball caps? No thanks. Now, if you want to talk about all the paid, embedded rabble-rousers, that's a whole different thing. But I still don't want to be raking your muck here. All it would do is smarten up the bots, and embolden the chumps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @04:02AM (9 children)
Your qualifiers purposefully left a LOT of people out. I didn't have to do that. (I also denounced violence and property damage while it was happening.) I also know the difference between a rioter and a protester and am enjoying watching you dance around exactly that issue while describing the j6 folks. pro-tip: False equivalences are awful risky for those who live in glass houses.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @05:12AM (8 children)
Because I don't
caregive a shit about your agenda. You want to parse every space between every word? Go ahead, have fun.(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @07:00AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @05:06PM (1 child)
Like the "guys" being held as political prisoners for two years without a trial? Doesn't sound like anybody could have been very effective sheltering the from the left's wrath.
Like the debate with "Dude" on CNN last night? Where they shut it down 20-min early because... well, maybe the ratings were too high for CNN to handle it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @06:06PM
Despite being directly challenged on it, you're still going by the playbook. You just won't get the bad apples out of your barrel but keep yapping away anyway.
> Like the debate with "Dude" on CNN last night? Where they shut it down 20-min early because... well, maybe the ratings were too high for CNN to handle it.
I haven't caught up on this particular topic but CNN's been raked over the coals by what you'd call 'leftists'. It sounds like they just gave that guy air-time, fuck CNN for that.
See how hard it is to land a hit on me when I don't blindly defend a particular political party at every single twist and turn? You've created your own liability... which is fucking weird because the big joke going way back even before Shakespeare's time was that politicians should never ever ever be trusted. Then again this is the same crowd that magically forgot what surgical masks are used for.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @06:40PM (4 children)
Bzzzzzt! Party over!
Marxists on the left, nihilists complaining that the left isn't far enough left. This web site is stuck in blue city blues, not just a feedback loop, but a doom loop from which there is no recovery.
New York Magazine Forced to Admit Democrat-Run San Francisco’s Doom Loop Is Real [breitbart.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @10:46PM (3 children)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @10:57PM
Oh... marxists, nihilists, and the misapprehensive eterna-kids.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @11:03PM (1 child)
Damn! I put my reply at the wrong level. Some apparently find a bizarre sense of pride and accomplishment from baiting people like khallow into posts forty levels deep.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12, @08:46PM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @11:53AM (29 children)
The militia predate the founding of the US, they were the standing armies of the colonial era. The process of establishing a colony was to settle a militia and then legitimize it in law (this is the sense in which "well regulated" is a legal term of art). The revolutionary war was fought by militia, such that nobody questioned 2A when it was ratified. So your concerns are valid but you're cherry picking and yeah, the civil war is one big cherry. It's also true that rhetoric is better than violence.
A reductionist take would be: "those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it". When we see mobs on the street, are we to forget the 1891 mob lynching of 11 Italian Americans who were acquitted at trial? Are we to forget that it's no more excusable for BLM to have torched businesses in 2020 than it was for the klan back then? And when we have "equity" pushes, are we to forget the horrors of socialist regimes? [youtube.com]
I fear we're seeing a social reversion to a situation where the threat of violence isn't enough for people to reconsider their course of action. An effective underlying threat of violence could be required for social cohesion. The Neely case in NYC is illustrative, if they prosecute Penny they give political licence to criminals and if not, then to vigilantes. Which is the correct choice?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @03:04PM (1 child)
What "license" might that give "criminals?"
Jordan Neely was being loud and obnoxious. Is that now a "criminal" act?
And the guy who murdered him (not to mention the folks who helped hold him down) need to be held accountable in our court system.
I'd note that it takes a long time to strangle someone to death. In this case, Neely was in a choke hold for ~15 minutes. That wasn't necessary even *if* (and that's a big 'if') Neely had been a physical threat to anyone *before* the choke hold.
And certainly after he lost consciousness he wasn't a threat, was he? And had Penny been black, he'd be in jail right now and you wouldn't be making such pronouncements. Rather you'd be screaming about how he needs to be punished for *murdering* someone else.
I pity you.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @04:18PM
You appear unfamiliar with the term "political license". It stems from ancient Greece where a permit of political affiliation was needed for rights of citizenship to be fully recognized. [ekathimerini.com]
Correct. [nysenate.gov]
Nobody with a passing familiarity with sanity has suggested Neely was murdered.
Mayor Adams said 6 minutes in a news segment I saw. Still too long for a chokehold, impossible in fact. This is how we know there was little pressure applied for most of that time period.
Penny and the other passengers realized this which is why there's video of Neely being placed in recovery position. I mean, holy-shit Columbo, was Albert DeSalvo well known for leaving victims still breathing in recovery position? But let's rewind....
What does a Moltov possessing mob have to do with functioning of the court system? See where we are and why I mentioned this incident?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09, @04:59PM (4 children)
Since its official establishment, June 14, 1775 — more than a year before the Declaration of Independence — the U.S. Army has played a vital role in the growth and development of the American nation. Drawing on both long-standing militia traditions and recently introduced professional standards, it won the new republic's independence in an arduous eight-year struggle against Great Britain. At times, the Army provided the lone symbol of nationhood around which patriots rallied. [army.mil]
Tell us more about history oh wise scholar
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @05:51PM (3 children)
What part of "Drawing on long standing militia traditions" failed to register for you in the text you quoted? Are you denying the Continental Army was recruited from and supplemented by local militias? Or are you claiming the 2nd Continental Congress created the United States Army in 1775 before the United States even existed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @12:42AM (2 children)
We deny that militias are not regulated by the state. US individualism via Reaganism has fucked up a lot of citizens who dream about enacting their personal justice via the barrel of a gun.
Plenty of 2A types are sane self defense humans, but more seem to be craving violence to quell their emotional turmoil created by liars like Fox News.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @01:54PM (1 child)
George Washington to independent militia in Virginia [archives.gov] thanking them for "the honor to place your Companies under my directions".
Here's James Madison in Federalist Papers #46.
The people are the State, as Jefferson reminded us.
Now you should understand why the operative clause of the Second secures a right for the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @04:02PM
That is no mystery and yes the power lies with the people. Turns out the majority of US people want better regulation of firearms, not banning ownership. Why are you trying to stop the people from making their own choices? Weird how you get to ignore not only a good chunk of the 2A but also the will of the people, all while falsely claiming the gov is gonna take your guns
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @10:26PM (7 children)
Jesus Christ should whip you around the temple a few times.
Criminal license? The guy was just ranting not attacking anyone, needing help and understanding not violence. The fact you support murder over property is astonishing, specially when no one said rioting is ok. At most the pushback was "well support oversight on police so they stop murdering civilians and stop police from assaulting peaceful protesters." The police assaulted the protesters so the protest turned violent. Two wrongs don't make a right, but you cannot focus on the protesters when police are the ones starting the violence with constitutional rights violations.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @12:03AM (6 children)
Fascinating collection of strawmen you assembled. Issuing a verbal threat and throwing a jacket on the floor is a blatant pre-attack indicator. [policemag.com] As that article mentioned, clapping the hands is another. [youtube.com]
In Jordan Neely's case, three individuals thought it reasonable to restrain him. Nobody with any level of self awareness should ignore a pre-attack indicator from someone acting irrationally. Never turn your back on a schizophrenic or sociopath behaving like that. As if there's any more obvious indicator of imminent assault than the "throw down" (no gauntlet required).
Just ranting and needing understanding? I think not, it's a tragedy he died but he was not randomly or unjustifiably attacked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @05:54PM (1 child)
So we should imprison aka restrain all Republicans for imminent fascism. Thank you for that helpful point!
By the way, restraint should not include choking someone out. Funny how every time a non-republican is murdered like this you lot chime in to somehow defend the murder. You say it is a tragedy while defending the actions by saying prosecuting the murderer would give license to criminals. Gross rightwing rhetoric to defend bloodlust over crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @07:11PM
You overlook my initial mention of vigilantism as you continue to pummel your strawmen.
Relevant NY law is here [nysenate.gov] and I bolded the part you clearly struggle with.
The UK (original common law jurisdiction) charging guidance details legal and social considerations. [cps.gov.uk]
This is how prosecutors address an issue, not throwing out accusations of "muh murder" or grabbing a Moltov to go tongue the third rail with a mob in tow.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 10, @10:32PM (3 children)
Imagine that, "policemag.com" thinks dropping your jacket means the police shooting you is justified! Who could have possibly seen that one coming!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @12:51AM
Not what the article says but as I inferred "throw down" is literally common slang for a fight. Perhaps Krav Maga provides some superfuckinghuman means of pre-emptive defense that doesn't risk injuring an adrenaline fueled assailant?
Verbal threat
Removal of restrictive clothing
Aggressively throwing item onto floor
All pre-attack indicators. If you're not ready, you'll be overpowered before you get blood to your muscles. Now imagine the aggressor could be about to pull a knife.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @03:15AM (1 child)
Who? Anyone who's ever seen a fake, a distraction, a hey-look-over-there!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @07:05PM
> a distraction, a hey-look-over-there!
Also common pre-attack indicators although normally at the point of engagement.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Wednesday May 10, @12:23AM (12 children)
A well-regulated militia has a simple meaning. It means that 1) there must be laws to regulate militia, and 2) that the militia follow those laws. It's that simple.
All 50 states have laws regulating militia. There are laws in 48 states requiring that militia are subordinate to civil authority, which generally refers to the governor and/or the legislature. The only exceptions are Georgia and New York, which impose other strict regulations on the activities of militia. Georgia prohibits any groups that aren't either organized militia (referring to the National Guard), the U.S. armed forces, or police organizations from acting as a military unit. New York limits military organizations to independent militia that formed prior to April 23, 1883, the National Guard, or the U.S. armed forces. New York law also explicitly bans paramilitary organizations in the state.
The bottom line is that militia must be subject to the law and to civilian government. The issue here is not so much about militia as it is about lawlessness. Every state has lawful, organized militia, and this is not a problem at all. As I stated, there were militia during the Civil War that acted lawfully. However, there were also many other militia groups that acted outside the law and inflicted tremendous atrocities. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers acted as if they were unaccountable to civil authority and proceeded to engage in rampant lawlessness. When modern militia groups declare that they are accountable to the Constitution but not to civilian government, they are not acting in accord with the term "well-regulated militia" in the second amendment. The second amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. It does not permit militia to ignore the law when it's convenient for them.
If state law says that private paramilitary organizations are illegal, it means you don't get to have your own paramilitary organization in that state. If state law says that militia are subordinate to civil authority, it means that militia aren't allowed to act without lawful orders from civil authority.
By the way, here's a good summary of state laws pertaining to militia: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public-Rallies.pdf [georgetown.edu].
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @10:24AM (11 children)
Not quite, well regulated meant "in working order". The colonial practice was to settle the militia (form it) and then to fix it (legitimize in law). This is what "well regulated" meant both in common usage and as a legal term of art. [constitution.org]
I'm sure King George III and his parliament would have been delighted if that was actually the principle the Founding Fathers operated under and intended to enact in law. Historians love to cite the Coercive Acts but ignore the reality of that coercion. [ssrn.com]
Your problem here is conflating established civil authority with legitimate civil authority. To understand the difference is to understand why certain rights shall not be infringed. If only there were a demonstrative example from the middle of the 20th Century... [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @04:11PM (2 children)
When you get to the point of rebellion then it doesn't matter what the law says. Also, no one is going to ban guns so this false narrative of needing to fight the government is rightwing hysteria and or fear based propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @06:04PM (1 child)
That would be to ignore the distinctions between malum prohibitum and malum in se. There's a reason just war theories [wikipedia.org] exist.
Was John Brown a murderous criminal, on the right side of history or both?
Was John Locke guilty of "right wing hysteria" when he wrote...
Was Vladimir Lenin guilty of "right wing hysteria" when he wrote...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @08:24PM
Looks like you take your political terrorism very seriously #FBI
(Score: 1) by dalek on Wednesday May 10, @08:24PM (7 children)
One definition I've seen from the Heritage Foundation is, and I quote:
Their own definition includes the words "official service." This implies that the militia are subordinate to civil authority. The Constitution also explicitly says this. Let's look at Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to:
This gives Congress and the states authority over the militia, meaning that they are regulated by law, and subject to those laws. It specifies what those laws are, in organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing the militia. That is effectively the Constitution's definition of a "well-regulated militia."
With respect to civil authority, the state and federal government is a legitimate civil authority. They are elected by the people, as opposed to an unelected monarch.
I've also talked about what civil disobedience means. I'll quote an earlier post I made discussing this:
Civil disobedience means rejecting parts of the law that are unjust. It's not the same as lawlessness, which involves ignoring the law whether it's just or unjust.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 10, @10:37PM
What does a well regulated militia do if they catch the janitor carrying around an unauthorized firearm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @11:50PM (5 children)
Yes but the prefatory clause of the Second was ruled non-limiting. [britannica.com] The second Militia Act of 1792 required citizens provide their own equipment, something they couldn't have done without an individual right to keep and bear arms.
If the federal and state governments already had that power, why would they repeat it via amendment? The Senate rejected the wording "for the common defense" as a limitation when they ratified 2A. Vermont's 1777 constitution has it as "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State". Pennsylvania's 1790 constitution says "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned". Clearly citizens also have the right to protect themselves against the state.
A brief history of independent militia [libertarianinstitute.org] puts any contrived definitions to bed.
I addressed the ethics of rebellion in reply to an AC earlier but civil disobedience isn't permitted under authoritarian states - you'd just be executed.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Thursday May 11, @01:31AM (4 children)
The Constitution cannot be interpreted the same way as it was in, say, 1800. The Bill of Rights only applied against the federal government when it was originally written, meaning that they were not binding against states. That changed with the 14th amendment and subsequent incorporation of many parts of the Bill of Rights against the states. The original idea was that the federal government couldn't ban the people from keeping and bearing arms, but that this was left to the states, which were unchecked by the Bill of Rights.
In modern English, the second amendment might read something like the following: Because a well-regulated militia is essential for freedom, the government cannot prohibit people from owning or carrying weapons.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress and the states the authority to regulate the militia. It doesn't distinguish between organized militia (e.g., the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, where the unorganized militia refers to the general population. The second amendment places limits on these regulatory powers, meaning that the government doesn't get to take away the right to own or carry weapons. Put differently, the government can impose reasonable regulations but cannot disarm the people.
The second amendment does not stop the government from regulating how weapons can be used, nor does it take away their power to regulate how militia are organized. At a minimum, the law has to distinguish between things like lawful homicide in self defense versus murder. The government also regulates things like brandishing weapons and how they can be used. In many cities, there are regulations against unlawfully discharging firearms within city limits. States can ban private paramilitary organizations because they are given the right to regulate how militia are organized. There's also nothing in the Constitution requiring that laws apply equally to organized and unorganized militia. The Constitution also doesn't specifically mention guns or firearms, nor does it require that all weapons be regulated in the same way.
As for what constitutes reasonable regulations with respect to owning and carrying weapons, that's a matter of balancing compelling state interests (e.g., public safety) against liberty. This applies to the ability of people to own and carry weapons. But the second amendment doesn't ban states from restricting how weapons are used or how militia are organized. If a state wants to ban the use of weapons in certain instances, they can do so. If the state wants to ban private paramilitary organizations, they can do so. If the state says that militia must be subordinate to civil authorities, they have that right as well.
The standard of reasonable regulations applies to other amendments, not just to the second amendment. As an example, the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, and this has also been incorporated against the states. But this doesn't invalidate reasonable laws that restrict things like libel, slander, and violent threats.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @06:57PM (3 children)
You're nearly there. When considering the Bill of Rights, it's important to remember that Government doesn't have rights, only the People have rights. The phrase "bear arms" comes from the Latin "arma ferre" which used as metonym is "go to war". If the state exists to secure liberty for the people and the people are the state, why would we take up arms against the state? No we'd take up arms against Government, exactly like the Founders did against the British and subsequently enshrined as a right.
Public safety is a component of liberty. If Government is refusing to deal with criminals, they don't get to use that as an excuse to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. Don't piss on my leg and try telling me it's raining.
The people are the civilian authority, the people are the state, the government are employees tasked with defending liberty. Disagreement begins getting into Hegelian veneration of the authoritarian state (meaning government and it's appendages) and the mass murder that followed. I'll defer to Schopenhauer who was unfortunate enough to have made his acquaintance...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @07:28PM (2 children)
So you're a sovereign citizen libertarian type, how cute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12, @10:42AM (1 child)
No, I'm a liberal [libertyfund.org] as opposed to a subordinate. [britannica.com] Governments are the most prolific mass murderers in history. Have you never read... a book?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12, @05:54PM
Wow so insightdul!! Lololol
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @11:17PM
Nice. Those who never learn of the Minuteman of our American Revolution, are doomed to... exactly what's coming. One if by land, two if by sea... how many if by internet?
Look at the moderation of your post: 0, Troll=2, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=4
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @08:41PM
This is no longer a civilized society.