701–710 of 731 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify hosts Joe Rogan, so I'm having a hard time seeing how they're leftist. If they were activists, they would have left that money on the table and never signed a contract with Rogan in the first place. It seems to me that they follow the money like most companies.
Dude Joe Rogan voted democrat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that parents getting into a shouting match with a particularly dense school board functionary is defined as "terrorism" now I think this can only lead to the terrorism accusation losing its sting. If every petty political squabble is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism.
In which law can I find such behavior defined as terrorism? Because there's a big difference between a law on the books and a politician spouting off.
Now, what is "dangerous"? There's no objective standard to it. Some people say publicly disagreeing with the government is "dangerous" for our democracy. A lot of people thinking Twitter and Facebook not banning everybody to the right of Nanci Pelosi is "dangerous". Other people say using wrong pronouns is "dangerous". Yet other say disagreeing with CRT is "dangerous". It all depends on how the law enforcement would define it.
Next is "influence or affect government policy". If you protest the government, you obviously want to influence its policy, right? Otherwise, what's the point of it? So, as long as FBI is willing to consider you "dangerous" - and again, there's no objective definition of it, and they will suffer absolutely zero consequences if they're wrong or overzealous in it - they have lawful authority to treat you as a terrorist.
Of course, there's a serious step to overcome - "criminal act". Only the court can decide if an act is "criminal". But for the FBI is would be impossible to enforce the law if they had to wait for a court conviction to do anything - so obviously, they are given a lot of leeway in persecuting acts that they think are "criminal" - and as long as they can prove there's not a law that explicitly says what you were doing is not criminal and FBI is explicitly forbidden from prosecuting you - even if you ultimately prove your innocence they suffer zero consequences. It's called "qualified immunity", look it up. And when we're talking about "terrorism", they could do a real lot of damage to you without ever taking matters to court. The process is often the punishment, and they can ruin your life very thoroughly way before you ever see the inside of a courtroom. And we know for a fact they are willing to lie in court documents - including outright fakery - to achieve their goals. You personally probably wouldn't be big enough fish for them to need to do that - but if they need to, they will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify hosts Joe Rogan, so I'm having a hard time seeing how they're leftist. If they were activists, they would have left that money on the table and never signed a contract with Rogan in the first place. It seems to me that they follow the money like most companies.
what? why do people keep calling a person who endorsed Bernie Sanders right wing? can someone explain this to me?
You'll also note that I didn't actually call Rogan right wing, but it does seem that many/most of his listeners tilt right.
The point I was making is that it's highly unlikely that any leftist activist organization/company would support Rogan by platforming him, regardless of his actual beliefs (to me, it seems that he's just playing to an audience).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which disease, flu? They've likely been spreading that for decades.
Various disease, actually. Not the flu, but most borders will ask that you're vaccinated for a whole host of diseases if you come for professional reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you also against the other laws that we have governing our behaviour as a collective society? For instance, you are "coerced" into driving your vehicle within a certain measure of sobriety.
This is a false equivalency. Getting vaccinated does not stop me from getting or spreading SARS-CoV2. At best these vaccines reduce severe symptoms in an individual.
The vaccine reduces the amount of hospitalizations necessary to treat COVID infections which means we don't overrun our hospitals.
Much in the same way that the hospitals would be overrun if everyone was driving drunk and sending a high number of people to the hospital via car accidents.
Thanks for that!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it exactly that then? You were shoved into a snowbank once and put this forward as an example of people not being peaceful. Unsuspecting and uninvolved people are being shoved by protesters. Therefore, this is not a peaceful protest.
I think most would agree that not every single protester has been peaceful at all times. Now what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Various disease, actually. Not the flu, but most borders will ask that you're vaccinated for a whole host of diseases if you come for professional reasons.
Were Canadian truckers previously required to prove vaccination against various diseases?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every truck union and federation has denounced the protests. Despite the protests, everything is operating logistically completely normally. It isn't "truckers". Some participants brought trucks because they a) have sleeping facilities, b) have big loud horns, c) take a lot of space and are hard to remove. That doesn't make it a trucker protest anymore than someone riding a bicycle there would make it a bicycle prote…
How many people that aren't truckers just happen to have that kind of truck laying around for the occasional protest? Are you aware of the cost of a truck like that?
Again, all logistics are happening like normal through this whole event. Cross border traffic (despite vaccine mandates on both sides) at normal levels. National traffic at normal levels.
You can take virtually any field and find some subsection with these sorts of "beliefs". Coders against mandates. If someone smeared all coders because some subsection of HN stood honking horns at parliament, wouldn't that embarrass you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In which law can I find such behavior defined as terrorism? Because there's a big difference between a law on the books and a politician spouting off.
The law is vague enough so that if FBI wants, it can declare a real lot of things to be domestic terrorism. The official definition is "dangerous criminal acts intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence or affect government policy or conduct within the jurisdiction of the United States". Now, what is "dangerous"? There's no objective standard to it. Some people say publicly disagreeing wit…
And, you're awfully fixated on American policy on this story about a situation going down in Canada. We are not the 51st state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people that aren't truckers just happen to have that kind of truck laying around for the occasional protest? Are you aware of the cost of a truck like that?
I didn't say these people don't have trucks or employment driving trucks. Clearly they do. But that the misrepresentation that they represent truckers , instead of just being some small subsection that have trucks, is misleading. Again, all logistics are happening like normal through this whole event. Cross border traffic (despite vaccine mandates on both sides) at normal levels. National traffic at normal levels. Yo…
In reality they represent at least as many truckers as are present (and who knows how many that aren't: what a union's PR department says and what its members think aren't necessarily the same thing), and presumably a large chunk of the people out there cheering them on.
If someone smeared all of a group of people for something that some individuals in that group did, I'd probably assume that their takes on things aren't very useful. I'd be frustrated to the extent that their pontificating affected my life negatively. I wouldn't be embarrassed.