I for one, think we should not normalize a gestapo state and should absolutely push back on all forms of intrusion. Police have been caught planting drugs on suspects and it's really foolish to think they cannot plant digital evidence too.
If no one is testing the rights we're supposed to have, then it's unclear that we actually have them. Auditing should seem eminently sensible to all the engineers here.
It's generally advised to not talk to the police because anything can potentially be incriminating. Given that, your advice effectively becomes "don't have/use a phone in the first place," and I don't fault someone who doesn't want to settle for that.
True, but I accept the possibility that what is legal today may not be legal tomorrow and ignorance of the law is no excuse as they would say. I like having options.
True, Portland, Ore. police department are documented white supremacists and clan sympathizers, and there's not many places bluer than PDX. But my last statement is 100% true. There's only one side in the corrupt police debate, regardless of your feelings of "both sides are the same". Show me where the liberal cops standing up for social justice and BLM are hiding, please, I'd love to live in that town.
It's not about standing up for BLM. It's that there can be corrupt liberal cops, or cops supporting liberal ideals in a corrupt manner.
One issue that this can be common with is gun rights - people lawfully carrying/owning a firearm who are harassed by police who support the liberal policies related to gun control. This has been a common thing in Philadelphia.
I'm trying to have a factually correct and thoughtful conversation. My talking points are not bullshit. They are not obfuscating "it". In fact, it's an important part of the conversation - showing that "both sides" should come together to support reforms that are universally protective. The root cause is not one side or the other. The root cause is insufficient oversight and a broken system.
The first half of that quote (omitted) provides important context that is missing here.
The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process - the main point that I was trying to make. If we just blame everything on the "other" side, we will drift further apart, get less done, and become weaker as a country. I should also add that we are using simplified stereotypes of the sides here as there is a spectrum of positions and willingness to work together within either side.
It seems you are implying that only one of the major parties has proposed justice reforms. Do you have anything to back up that? I seem to remember both parties suggesting varying reforms. I also seem to remember one party rejecting the proposals of the other party just because they didn't go far enough - an all-or-nothing mindset rather than an iterative or collaborative approach. We could come together on the common ground and pass the lesser bill as a step in the right direction while continuing to investigate and debate the finer points involved with the further reaching bill.
> The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process
That is great, but has a requirement: Both sides operating in good faith. That's just not happening now and hasn't happened in many years. We need to deal with that reality or keep suffering dire consequences, including a possible end of democracy.
It can be hard to tell when a side isn't operating in good faith due to differences of perspective and the heavy political rhetoric. If we assume the other side isn't operating in good faith, then we create a situation where neither side will ever trust the other, and the concern for addressing details and edge cases will be gone. This will lead to partisan laws that ignore the needs of a relatively large part of the population. Often times the two major parties want similar end goals, but have different opinions on what the strategy/implementation should look like.
I think we can go a level deeper than your prerequisite and say that we should be viewing the proposals of others in a charitable way and assume the best possible meaning - similar to the guideline on this site. Once a side assumes the other isn't acting in good faith (whether right or wrong), then it's already too late for democracy. I don't know what the fix would be, since people continue to vote for the representatives of both sides,
and want the things either side fight for. So it seems it would require an undemocratic change, or a complete mindset shift within the population.
> It can be hard to tell when a side isn't operating in good faith due to differences of perspective and the heavy political rhetoric.
It can be hard, but it's not impossible. I am very familiar with your points and have made them myself, over long years, in other circumstances. This circumstance isn't one of them. If you aren't willing to draw that conclusion at some point, you are facilitating the worst in people, the bullying, the political violence and oppression; the division and hate; by giving them an infinite free pass, by eliminating any opposition. If you give the same answer every time, it's also not rational, intelligent analysis, but reflexive rhetoric.
And if you don't see it now, in the US (and many other places), you never will. You will never see stronger signals. People openly say they are out to destroy you at all costs.
It seems as if people were conditioned, over a generation of more 'reasonable' politics, to respond this way no matter what. It's obvious what your enemies will do, tactically, to take advantage of that. The world has shifted under your feet; it's like disruption in industry - things have changed, you need to adjust or the disrupters will destroy you.
Sometimes, hopefully as little as possible, but sometimes you have to fight.
It seems you are assuming I respond this way no matter what and slare simply pushing your understanding/interpretation as truth. Instead of saying that it's just one side and that if I don't see it now, then I never will, maybe you could give detailed examples? I did ask before if there was any evidence that only one side proposed legislation, yet there was no response. So it should not be that there is a free pass by eliminating opposition, but rather ensuring that any opposition is well based in facts and proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which can vary substantially).
You mention things like bullying, political violence, etc. Yet I see that sort of thing with both sides on a variety of issues. It's also important to note that in many cases the troublemakers are a very small minority and do not represent the true virtues of any movement. Yet we see the media portray the "other" side using those worst aspects rather than having a meaningful discussion.
Those are not the facts, and again show a false narrative of 'both sides'. Hate crime has increased greatly, and the great majority of it is from one side (per the FBI and ADF). Only one side controls a major political party, has controlled the White House, has multiple people in Congress advocating for them. Only one side attacked Congress, and has large movements such as QAnon (which has major political figures, of one side, appealing to it and even joining it). Very few on the other side advocate open violence, and there is hardly an organization to speak of.
I'm not sure which facts you say are not facts. Perhaps it was just that I should have used the word "side" instead of "movement", since there are organizations/movements within both sides that call for or imply violence.
"Only one side controls a major political party, has controlled the White House, has multiple people in Congress advocating for them."
I think we have different definitions of "side". Based on the root comment this was about conservative/liberals sides, and Republican/Democrat parties. Both of them have the things mentioned above.
"Only one side attacked Congress, and has large movements such as QAnon (which has major political figures, of one side, appealing to it and even joining it)."
We could say the other side has rioted and burned down cities via BLM protests that got out of hand, including antifa instigated violence. I think both statements are a stretch and are a great example of my prior comment around using a minority to represent the group.
"Very few on the other side advocate open violence, and there is hardly an organization to speak of."
Off the top of my head, there is antifa, which advocates for violence openly. There are representatives who support them. I remember eco-terrorist movements, but maybe those are no longer a concern. There have been plenty of liberals calling for or implying violence individually too, including representatives and presidents.
About the FBI comment, do you have any stats on the ideological background of the perpetrators? I didn't see the FBI compiling that. And sure, the the number of hate crimes has gone up in the past few years, but is fairly consistent with the '08 timeframe, so it's not necessarily a new phenomenon to see them around this level and they will likely fall again.
Your last comment didn't really add anything substantial for me. It was more along the same lines of the previous ones, where you tell me I'm wrong or following a false narrative, yet offer no evidence to illustrate that. I'm going to disengage at this point since I don't see any value coming out of this (facts I've asked for) and I'm a little tired of it being implied that I'm somehow stupid (for not seeing things, things that you also won't provide facts/data to support).
