201–210 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monitoring an active riot seems pretty much what I’d expect the FBI to do. It doesn’t seem that there was any intimidation of peaceful protesters, which obviously would be concerning.
> Monitoring an active riot seems pretty much what I’d expect the FBI to do. What - if any - is the difference between a riot and a protest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you're saying, but on the other hand abortion protesters have a habit of assassinating doctors that perform abortions.
> abortion protesters have a habit of assassinating doctors that perform abortions What’s the prevalence of this occurring? Wikipedia calls out 7 in the US [0] with the most recent in 2015. This this seems like profiling protesters as assassins is about as rational as profiling members of a certain religion as terrorists. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Your very own link says 11:
> In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people
Also, perhaps not assassination but violence makes things look far worse than you handwaving it as a non-issue:
> there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Between 1977 and 1990, 77 death threats were made, with 250 made between 1991 and 1999. Attempted murders in the U.S. included: in 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity.
> property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").
(some overlap between both quotes).
So many people are okay with unconstitutional things as long as it supports their side and beliefs. It is genuinely unsettling. Personally, I don’t care about the underlying thing the protests are about, the important aspect is that if you allow unconstitutional government action like this, eventually it will be used against you. A decade from now we have no idea what the political climate will be. If the precedent i…
As with so many american issues, just amend the fucking constitution!
I swear this country needs to stop everything and do a constitutional convention (can be done, never be done before).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally, I don’t care about the underlying thing the protests are about, the important aspect is that if you allow unconstitutional government action like this, eventually it will be used against you. Words won't protect you. Precedent won't protect you. Guns won't protect you. If you are in a society where others want you surveiled or dead or removed or heavily restricted, and you're outnumbered, it's already t…
If guns will not protect you, why did Stalin, Hitler and Castro go to such lengths of seizing privately owned firearms?
In contrast, democracy is protected by transparency, not guns. Guns are required only to the point where there are people who suppress transparency with threat of violence, which is usually only organized crime or foreign state actors.
So many people are okay with unconstitutional things as long as it supports their side and beliefs. It is genuinely unsettling. Personally, I don’t care about the underlying thing the protests are about, the important aspect is that if you allow unconstitutional government action like this, eventually it will be used against you. A decade from now we have no idea what the political climate will be. If the precedent i…
> If the precedent is allowed to be set, there’s a good chance the power will be used against your cause in the future. I've become deeply cynical about this argument. The Constitution is a weapon, used by the powerful against the powerless. I think it's pretty clear that in many cases the Supreme Court decides cases on purely ideological grounds, then goes back and creates post hoc justifications from precedent and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't communicate well. They use the word "spying", when "surveillance" would be more appropriate. How would you feel if you found the past three weeks, there was someone parked outside your home, who followed you to work, and logged when and where you left? I mean, it's all public information, right? How would you feel if they did this, specifically because of your political beliefs?
That's what Google does, pretty much. People seem OK with ubiquitous surveillance these days. "Hey wiretap, got any good recipes for risotto?"
https://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-chase-employees-des...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not letting people discuss this and instead insisting that that no, communism can't be given any mental space when to accurately describe the reality of the system we currently have requires knowing how it affected us throughout history strikes me as somewhat shortsighted. Kindly point out where I said that. You can't. Because I did not. General education is invaluable and good for society. Indoctrination is worthl…
> Kindly point out where I said that. You can't. Because I did not. I interpreted you as being upset that a class about Karl Marx being required, which I interpret as about communism, as being unacceptable. Am I wrong in that assumption? What's your complaint here? > I was reading Plato, Kant and Descartes, while my US counterparts were, well, fucking off. > Today, I have to supplement my kids' education by exposing…
Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions.
That's why people can't have conversations. They hear what they want and read what they want into what others are saying.
My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study.
It's also about wasting people's time and adding tens of thousands of dollars in debt that will never be useful to them. If this XYZ is useful, by all means, make it available as a degree-enhancing class to be chosen freely and not as a condition for graduation.
If someone just wants to get a bachelors in three years and go to work, they should be able to do it.
This is where European education diverges from the US.
In Europe (and other parts of the world) kids exit high school having covered more material and ready for university. Next, once at Uni, they focus 100% on degree-relevant coursework. No English (language), History or almost anything that isn't relevant to the degree.
They are organized to receive a quality education before university. A bachelors degree in the US is four years, in Europe, typically three.
We make them waste a whole year to make-up for what our secondary schooling failed to deliver. No employer in the STEM fields values this at all.
In this country there's a severe failure to understand that our system of education is seriously broken. A high school graduate should be useful to society right out of school. We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee.
I was just in Singapore visiting a friend for couple of weeks. The level of education his 15 year old is receiving in state-run high school is nothing less than mind-blowing when compared to a 15 year old in the US. The system of education in this small country puts the US to absolute shame. It's embarrassing, really, truly embarrassing.
We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening, or we can be honest in assessing how we have gone wrong and fix it.
Your trade-school vs. university argument is empty. Universities in throughout Europe manage to graduate Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Biologists and myriad other STEM professionals in three years...because they cut out the bullshit and provide quality education before university.
We have a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kindly point out where I said that. You can't. Because I did not. I interpreted you as being upset that a class about Karl Marx being required, which I interpret as about communism, as being unacceptable. Am I wrong in that assumption? What's your complaint here? > I was reading Plato, Kant and Descartes, while my US counterparts were, well, fucking off. > Today, I have to supplement my kids' education by exposing…
> I interpreted which I interpret as assumption Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions. That's why people can't have conversations. They hear what they want and read what they want into what others are saying. My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study. It's also about wasting p…
1984 and A Brave New World were written as warnings, not how-to manuals, but that's what the governments of the world are clearly doing.