[flagged]
Yeah ask this guy how he’d feel if a different party were in power and doing this.
He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
41–50 of 83 posts
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. I feel like it should be self-evident, that law enforcement and liberty are mutually exclusive, and that we have t…
> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it. > the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
[dead]
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. I feel like it should be self-evident, that law enforcement and liberty are mutually exclusive, and that we have t…
> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it. > the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#44[flagged]
A pre-emptive "both-sides"?
No, just a fan of people being informed.
People are being manipulated into outrage for political purposes. Many are unaware that previous administrations ( yes, on both sides ) prioritized deportations. The federal machinery in use has been in place over several presidencies and operated in many of the same ways. When given this information, people make less radical outbursts, which is good.
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it. > the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them. Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
I mean, one thing you can look at is news stories about the police grabbing the wrong person, trying to find someone who's as much like them as possible - but any example can be rationalized away.
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it. > the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them. Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
The Jews in Amsterdam had nothing to hide ... until they did.
Do you give everybody your tax returns? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your phone records? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your web history? No? Then you have something to hide.
etc.
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
A pre-emptive "both-sides"?
No, just a fan of people being informed. People are being manipulated into outrage for political purposes. Many are unaware that previous administrations ( yes, on both sides ) prioritized deportations. The federal machinery in use has been in place over several presidencies and operated in many of the same ways. When given this information, people make less radical outbursts, which is good.
Different bubbles for different folks, I guess. It was a big thing in 2024 that Biden deported more than Trump.
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#48[flagged]
This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. I feel like it should be self-evident, that law enforcement and liberty are mutually exclusive, and that we have t…
It is self-evident, and they are doublethinking. You can test this by telling them that police should be required to wear always-on body cams. See how they react to that.
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
A pre-emptive "both-sides"?
No, just a fan of people being informed. People are being manipulated into outrage for political purposes. Many are unaware that previous administrations ( yes, on both sides ) prioritized deportations. The federal machinery in use has been in place over several presidencies and operated in many of the same ways. When given this information, people make less radical outbursts, which is good.
the both sides does not hold water … imagine if Kamala was elected President and did 0.1% of the shit that was done in the last 14 months - like just imagine if she sent military to places where we have actual crime like Houston TX … the country would be literally burning right now. so “both sides” is very played argument I would stay away from
Re: He saw an abandoned trailer, then uncovered a surveillance network
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them. Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
The Jews in Amsterdam had nothing to hide ... until they did. Do you give everybody your tax returns? No? Then you have something to hide. Do you give everybody your phone records? No? Then you have something to hide. Do you give everybody your web history? No? Then you have something to hide. etc.
> Do you give everybody
The easy counter-argument to this, which Mr. Stanks alludes to, is that there's a difference between giving everyone data, and giving law enforcement data.
But Jews-in-Amsterdam is a pretty good example.