The past week has been a huge introspective journey for me as a person in relation to the events that have transpired lately.

I have never considered myself a racist, but up until a few days ago, in the midst of rhetorics such as "Black Lives Matter", "Blue Lives Matter", gender identity and sexual orientation acceptance movements, I would sit here and say "All Lives Matter". Not because I disregard that there are people who are suffering because of inequalities, but because I believe that all people should be treated equal.

After seeing both the mainstream media as well as social media continue to document the events happening in the world, as well as consuming the commentary of many people involved in the situations, I have come to understand something about these rhetorics: Extremists withheld, they are not there to say that other lives don't matter. They are there to draw attention to the people that need it because their lives, their opinions, and their freedoms are not being respected.

I grew up on IRC, a platform that I'm sure a lot of us here on the Fediverse are familiar with, but that maybe we have lost the feeling of. Once upon a time, online communication was not afforded such luxuries as picture, video and audio, at least not in a convenient matter. The people that you talked with were nameless and colorless, and it didn't matter one bit "what" they were, so much as "who" they were. I ended up on IRC because I never had many friends locally, and the one decent friend that I had when I was a kid was black. I wasn't allowed to talk to him, with no reason given to me by my parents, and my family ended up moving because of the fact that his family was black, but I was unaware of this until I was an adult. I've always seen the world to be full of equal people, and never really considered it to be a concern because I have never been blatantly presented with this kind of bias before. It's a mindset that I'd be happy to have if it weren't for the fact that so many others out in the world don't share the same, and now we're seeing the consequences.

While going through recent events, I came across Martin Luther King Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", readable at https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html . In school, we had learned that racial equality had been achieved by the actions of Dr. King, among others, but after reading this letter in contrast to so many of the things happening now, and in hindsight, it appears that just isn't so. Much of the literal imagery that he discusses is still visible in a less literal sense. I encourage anybody reading this to read his letter, as many sentiments that he expresses in there are still very applicable today.

I'm not going to deny that I'm privileged, because I here I sit, a cis white male, living in an area where we haven't seen any visible effects of protests or riots. And I also don't mean to detract from any of the minorities being affected by all of this with my following statement, but I believe it to be the truth: If you're an American, regardless of color or other distinguishing factor, your freedoms are at risk. Have a look online at any of the videos circulating and you'll see that governments and law enforcement are illegally taking our rights, and being told to do so by the people who claim to be giving us these rights. Privacy, 1st and 4th amendment rights are all going out the window. 2nd amendment rights are preserved as of the moment, because it furthers political agendas, but don't be surprised if you see those go along with everything else. People are being killed, pointlessly. People who have families that they need to take care of, and that love them, who will never see them again. People who are friends to others who will deeply mourn their death. It's not just blacks, either, so to anybody comfortable in your privilege, be wary.

I hate to be political in public as it can be so polarizing, but it's not about politics anymore. It's about the fact that basic human rights are actively being disposed of. History has shown, the events that lead to the kind of dystopian future that we don't want to see again are slow and incremental, and history is replaying itself right now. Not doing anything is just letting it happen. Everyone is responsible at this point. Stand up for what you believe in.

"History is written by the victor. History is filled with liars. If he lives and we die, his truth becomes written - and ours is lost." - Captain Price, Modern Warfare 2
It's a modern reincarnation of the original quote, but I feel that it applies here, and explains better. Make your voice heard, or someone else will determine what these events will go down in history as. Make sure our children know that we fought for the freedom of all, instead of having them taught in schools that the US rioted only for the government put them in their place.

@kitty
Here's the thing though. No matter how much BLM type activists claim that they're concerned for the rights and lives of everyone, that they're not saying that anyone else's lives don't matter, the reality is their rhetoric, their actions, their politics, everything is centered around "black" identity, "black" lives, "black" statistics and body counts.

They didn't start the movement by saying "corrupt and incompetent cops are killing people". They didn't start by saying "the government is taking away everyone's rights". From the very start they only framed everything with a racial lens. And heck, maybe if the statistics and studies actually supported the view that cops are overwhelmingly racist, maybe I could have supported them. But that's not the case.

Seriously, if cops are that god damned racist, why aren't Hispanics mixed into this thing too? I'm sure you can name plenty of black individuals killed by cops from the countless media coverage storms over the years. But how many Hispanics can you name? Am I to believe that cops are racist towards black people but not hispanics? I've yet to see protests and riots over hispanics losing their lives, let alone Asians or other ethnic minorities.

"Stand up for what you believe in."
Personally I am. I stand against an inherently racist movement, that is being used to undermine democracy and currently threatens the US 1st amendment more than anything else. Because right now, if you go out in public and express an opinion against the dogma of progressivism and BLM, you can say goodbye to your livelihood.

The more I examine USA, the more I realize that the government no longer has the most power over our individual lives. The ones you should look at as the ones ultimately responsible for your rights being trampled on are: activists that masquerade as journalists, the mainstream media and every large corporation that shares into the progressive ideology. They not only have power to influence our lives, by manipulating the information we have access to, and even destroy them through the use of mob justice, but they also have power to influence and control the politicians that will feel compelled to vote certain laws, or else they will be the ones destroyed in the name of "social justice".

You're right, human rights in USA are threatened more than ever. You're just not looking in the right place to see the ones who will be responsible for making 1984 real.

@alyx
To be brutally honest, my concern at this point isn't solely the racial inequalities as much as the overall injustice and brutality, to all individuals. At this moment, we have police out there who are trying to fight a battle against peaceful protesters, in the name of furthering political agendas and sport. Black people are not the only people who suffer from this, other races as well as whites, elderly individuals as well as children are being assaulted by law enforcement. Maybe blacks are just the first people to speak out about it.

Regardless, I was glad to see that so many people are getting out there and protesting, and frankly, I would be out there as well if things hadn't turned to riots and looting. I don't believe that's right, and I don't want to contribute the portrayal that this is about anarchy, so I stay home, but that's just my opinion.

People wide and far seem to have a large problem with generalization. Racism comes with a lot of stereotypes, and stereotypes are generalization. Police being bad is also a generalization. Not all police out there are bad, not all of them are racist, and not all of them are brutal. If you look at social media, you can see select incidents where police are out there protesting, just the same as the masses. But the ones who are being brutal need to be stopped. To play devil's advocate, not all black people are innocent, but at the same time, not all white people are innocent either.

I believe that the first amendment is important and crucial to the success of this country. However, it would seem that your portrayal of what the first amendment actually does is skewed. See https://xkcd.com/1357/. The issue at hand is that governments are trying to silence both journalists and individuals alike from being able to disclose their opinions. Governments are trying to create legal recourse for people who oppose them. People in the streets are being maced and gassed for stating their opinion in protest, an action that has a lot of history in America and is the basis for a lot of the freedoms that we have now.

By all means, you can walk out into the street and state opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement. And, if you aren't grouped in with the rest of the protesters who are being maced by police unfairly, you won't receive any legal recourse. What you will receive is social opposition, which is something that the first amendment would have never protected you from in the first place. I do not consider that a loss of first amendment rights.

Additionally, while I agree that much of the information that we may receive from mass media may have other influence in it, personal agendas and the like, would you consider it better to be receiving information from a variety of mass and social media outlets, or would you like to be receiving only the information that the government wants to you know. As of the moment, we have a sitting president who is very blatantly trying to claim that certain events haven't transpired, and calling the truth fake. We are facing propaganda, which the first amendment currently entitles us to a grain of salt to take with it.

And here we sit on the Fediverse, where, depending on where you are, literally anything goes. You can say things here that you couldn't say on Twitter or Facebook and have it viewed by masses. Hypothetically speaking, if we start losing first amendment rights, and social media companies start tightening up their rules and censoring what people are able to post, they might flock to platforms like the Fediverse. Putting these platforms in the spotlight, we start falling further down the 1984 rabbit hole. We lose the ability to legally encrypt, or governments must be given master keys. Everything that you put online is subject to inspection so that the "great leaders" of this country will be able to prevent your terrorist-like thoughts from infecting the minds of others and inciting the same kind of violence that they claim the protesters are starting today.

The people don't have the power to do that. The people don't have their hands in the pockets of corporations or the financial incentive to make those things happen. Only the law, which is supposed to be protecting us from these fates, has the power to set them against us.

If you have an unpopular opinion, you face the people you voice that to not liking you. If you break what certain leaders would like to be the law, apparently you face the military of your own country that's allegedly there to protect you. Our "superiors" are not being held to the standard that we ourselves are, and to me, that's what this is about.

@kitty
Why did you have to make such a long post? Do you have any idea how long it will take me to respond now?

>my concern at this point isn't solely the racial inequalities as much as the overall injustice and brutality, to all individuals
That's fine, but please understand that this is not what the protests/riots are about, this is not what the media's narrative is focusing on, and this is not what government and corporate policies will target. Everyone out there is putting this through a racial lens. You're basically a useful idiot, that is sitting idly by, while a perfectly normal and just concern is being twisted and perverted for other interests. Actually, that's wrong, you're not sitting idly by. You're actively defending a just concern being subverted.

>At this moment, we have police out there who are trying to fight a battle against peaceful protesters
1) I disagree
2) Peaceful protests have not existed at any point in time in this particular Floyd case. It's been a free for all from day one.
3) Once things go out of hand, even if there was just a single incident of someone looting or burning something, the police has no option than to assume that further incidents can appear at any time. Which is why from that point forward, they're gonna be twice as vigilant, twice as strict, twice as stressed out, and as such twice more likely to misinterpret something, twice more likely to panic, twice more likely to make mistakes. Why are we putting unrealistic expectations on police officers that they must be perfect when they are put in the middle of a collapse of civilization? They are still humans, and we're putting them in situations where they are outnumbered 10 to 1, and we're expecting them to do what exactly? We put them in situations where each of them might face 10 individuals that turn into animals at any point in time. No amount of training is gonna stop you in such circumstances to revert to your animal instincts too.
This is why I hate these riots so much. They are the cause of all the suffering happening during them. They are at a center of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>in the name of furthering political agendas and sport.
Let me know when you figure out that the riots also have fucked up political agendas behind them. And what do you even mean by sport? That part left me confused.

>Black people are not the only people...
Again, agreed. But once again, look at the narratives being woven. Look at the actions being taken. None of them are racially neutral.

>that this is about anarchy
It is about anarchy. Burning down housing? Destroying stores? Vandalizing a pub? None of that is about policy brutality. The only part of it that can arguably be defended as an action of outrage against policy action is the burning of the police precinct. And even that one was fucked up.
Even reactions from authorities are promoting anarchy: de-funding police, withdrawal of enforcement officers, etc.

>Police being bad is also a generalization. Not all police out there are bad
Sure, tell that to the "ACAB" crowd. See how well they'll receive it.

>However, it would seem that your portrayal of what the first amendment actually does is skewed
If you're quoting XKCD then you don't understand what freedom of speech is, and maybe don't even understand what rights themselves are.
First, freedom of speech is a fundamental principle that goes way beyond the 1st Amendment. Only thing the 1st Amendment does is to say the state won't silence you, but that doesn't make it right for anyone else to. Your next door neighbor has no right to forbid you to express your opinion just because it is not expressly stated in the Constitution that he is not allowed.
There's a reason I specifically said "freedom of speech" and not 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is incomplete. It was written at a time when it was thought that the only institution that could ever hold enough power over individuals as to be able to censor them was the government. Surprise! That's no longer is the case. Currently news media, corporations and mob rule has more power in shutting people up than the government. Trump did not forbid people from spreading whatever information they wanted about Covid-19, be it true or false. But the likes of Facebook and YouTube sure did. And don't give me the "muh private company" bs. Social media IS the main public space today. People protest over social media as much as they do IRL, and yet freedom of speech is not protected here. And it is not governments that infringe this human right. It's corporations.

>governments are trying to silence both journalists and individuals alike from being able to disclose their opinions.
Unless you're talking about some 3rd world, dictatorial country, I disagree. In western countries, they wouldn't be able to do it even if they wanted.

>Governments are trying to create legal recourse for people who oppose them.
Did you misspoke? I'm unclear what you're trying to say here. Are you complaining that the state can send people to trial who break the law? Because if you think that just because you're opposing what you think is a tyrannical government, then anything goes, you're gravely mistaken. Illegal action is illegal action. I don't care what the circumstance is.

>People in the streets are being maced and gassed for stating their opinion in protest
Again, I'll disagree that these are peaceful protests and that using things like mace is unwarranted. But I'm just repeating myself.

>By all means, you can walk out into the street and state opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement
Except you can't. Want to know what will happen? Want to know what the mob will do? You will get attacked. You will get doxxed. You will have your house and maybe family attacked. You will be harassed online and offline. They will have you fired. And anyone that might have been your friend will be frightened away from defending you or helping you in any way. And anyone brave enough to lend you a hand will become an instant pariah and be in danger of receiving the same treatment you are.

>you won't receive any legal recourse.
Oh yes. That was exactly my concern. (sarcasm) Read previous paragraph again. The government is unable to do all that. A mob out on a witch mob is able to do all that and maybe much more. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with a mob. There is no "judged by a jury of your peers". I'd take the state taking legal action against me over mob rule any day of the week.

>What you will receive is social opposition, which is something that the first amendment would have never protected you from in the first place.
As I said earlier, that's because 1st Amendment is incomplete. As for "social opposition", that's one hell of an understatement. Were the Salem witch trials also "social opposition" by any chance?

>we may receive from mass media may have other influence in it, personal agendas and the like,
Remove the "may"s and you're right on point.

>would you like to be receiving only the information that the government wants to you know
Did I give the wrong impression that I want a state funded information outlet?

>we have a sitting president who is very blatantly trying to claim that certain events haven't transpired
Not sure which events you're trying to talk about, so I'm not gonna comment on this for now, unless you make some clarifications.

>calling the truth fake
This is gonna depend a lot on a case by case basis, because "truth" is rarely easy to judge, and too many times what is advertised as "truth" is only a narrative. And Trump mostly counters with a different narrative.

>We are facing propaganda
The interesting part is, that removed from any context, this statement is 100% true. Put back into context, I'm given the impression that you're blind as to what the source of where most of the propaganda comes from.

>and social media companies start tightening up their rules and censoring what people are able to post,
THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS! Why are people so blind to this fact! The 1st Amendment is perfectly in place, and yet freedom of speech on the internet is rare. Yes, Fediverse is a good place for it. So are chan boards. But that's not where most people are having their public discourse currently. Most people are normies, and because of their ignorance of how vast the internet is, they are stuck being subjected to censorship.

>we start falling further down the 1984 rabbit hole.
We are already in the 1984 rabbit hole. Big Brother are the corporations that decide for you what is good for you to see or not, what you're allowed to say or not, what "hate speech" they need to protect you from, what information (true or false) you're allowed access to.
I don't think you get why people are putting the spotlight of social media companies.

>Everything that you put online is subject to inspection so that the "great leaders" of this country...
There's more inspection of what you do online being done by the corporations than by the "great leaders". IIRC, it was Blizzard that threatened to ban users based on what they say on Twitch chat.

>The people don't have the power to do that. The people don't have their hands in the pockets of corporations or the financial incentive to make those things happen.
I don't think you are aware just how pervasive the ideological activists are. How have you not seen the countless cases of mobs going after a corporation that didn't toe the line of progressive ideology and forcing them to basically flog themselves? Ideologues might not have the money to fuck things up, but they have other means, just as strong.

>Only the law, which is supposed to be protecting us from these fates, has the power to set them against us.
You are overestimating the power of the law, and underestimating the power of pretty much everyone else.

>If you break what certain leaders would like to be the law, apparently you face the military of your own country
If you behave like a terrorist you'll be treated like a terrorist. I'm sorry, but destroying things and creating terror and panic in the name of a political goal is the definition of terrorism.

>Our "superiors" are not being held to the standard that we ourselves are,
I disagree. I believe you are trying to hold them to much higher standards. And while I'd agree that superiors need to be held at higher standards than plebs, when those standards start reaching levels that are humanly impossible, I start having problems, because there's no way the overall system can go other than completely collapse. And that's not something that anyone wants. (although there are people who foolishly believe they do).

@alyx @kitty
> There have never been peaceful protests

The protests got violent because police initiated the violence. And yes, police should be held to a higher standard because we give them more privileges. We shouldn't allow people who are too impulsive or angry to be police. Recipe for disaster.

Looters are just taking advantage of the situation for themselves. you contradict yourself here, saying they're part of a fucked up political message but also that there weren't any peaceful protests. The peaceful protests were about the political message, the violence was people who don't care about it looting. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

News media and social media can't censor people entirely. If YouTube doesn't wanna publish your shit, they don't have to. Your ideas just have to be distributed the old fashioned way, by word of mouth - like they were for thousands of years. The founding fathers didn't fall to envision YouTube - they recognized that having a megaphone to blast your ideas to the world isn't the same as having the fight to share them.

> Trump mostly counters with a different narrative

There are objective facts that Trump is wrong about. Remember "alternative facts"? It was funny because people believed it. You're apparently one of them.


> Progressives going after corporations

Boo fucking hoo. I guess your pro freedom stance is that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize corporations that do thinks they dislike? And this is pro.free speech somehow?

@alyx @mewmew
>Why did you have to make such a long post?
To say everything I wanted to say.

>Do you have any idea how long it will take me to respond now?
I mean, if you don't want to respond, then you don't have to.

>a perfectly normal and just concern is being twisted and perverted for other interests.
Not quite sure what you're talking about here, but that probably applies to at least 3 different angles here. It's also the reason why I'm not on the streets. I believe that the public view of the situation has become so warped that trying to put myself on the front lines is only going to make the chance of success worse.

>You're basically a useful idiot useful idiot
Insult the person that you're arguing with. That'll get you pretty far in life, try asking the president.

>Peaceful protests have not existed at any point in time in this particular Floyd case.
Depending on the location that you are talking about, this may very well be true. If you take the time to look online, there is bountiful evidence to peaceful protests, protests turned violent by protesters, protests turned violent by "third party" bad actors, and protests turned violent by police.

>even if there was just a single incident...
There are at least 100 videos out there, that I have watched myself, where a police officer very clearly instigates violence in a peaceful situation. You are certainly correct, though, that when someone has to put up their guard and be alert, that they will do just that. I'm certainly not saying that all police are bad, and I'd like to believe that the bulk of them have good intentions, but it only takes one officer in a group to turn the whole squad rotten. A single officer can instigate a violent act, and when the other officers become aware of the situation, not knowing who started with it, they're obviously going to side with their own. I can't fault the rest of them for that, but something still needs to be done about the one.

>outnumbered 10 to 1
Again, situations where this is valid, and situations (with video proof) where it is not. At least two videos out there where 5+ officers have assaulted a single citizen who did nothing to antagonize them, one of those leading to an elderly individual being sent to the ER in critical condition.

>This is why I hate these riots so much.
I hate them as well. I don't think that it's the right way to go about handling this situation, regardless of how you view it. Again, we have bad actors on both sides. Citizens could be faulted for starting the issues, and so could the police. The reason why this is such a problem is because we should expect the police to stop the bad actors instead of becoming them.

>There's a reason I specifically said "freedom of speech" and not 1st Amendment.
We've been talking about the first amendment this entire time, and you suddenly changed it to "freedom of speech". I fear modification and misinterpretation causing overreach of the laws by current government entities.

>Social media IS the main public space today.
You're right about that, but I hold firm that public social media services can (dis)allow whatever they'd like. The Internet is well-enough free if you'd like to host your own content or find someone who will host it for you.

>Unless you're talking about some 3rd world, dictatorial country
And when the laws stack up to give a single man in this country dictatorial, "dominating" power?

>Governments are trying to create legal recourse...
The current administration is working through loopholes and ambiguity to be able to legally turn our own military against our citizens. At this current moment, the situation has escalated to the point where anybody who says that they don't like the president can be considered a terrorist and brought in and detained for questioning because a person effectively loses their rights when declared a terrorist.

>Again, I'll disagree that these are peaceful protests
Videos are out there. Find them. Stop being ignorant.

>Except you can't.
If you wanted to stick a bloodied hand into a tank of sharks, you certainly could. You will face the consequences, though. Intentionally putting yourself into that situation is just plain dumb, You are suggesting stirring a crowd of people who feel very strongly about a topic, and expecting them not to retort. I would fully expect police to protect you if you weren't diving into the deep end, and I don't group this with the mob rule because you're intentionally instigating a situation at that point. The "mob" isn't premeditating harassment upon you.

>1st Amendment is incomplete.
You're changing the topic here, again. We've been talking about laws and now you change to concept.

>calling the truth fake
As @mewmew said, there are objective facts that are being denied, often touted as "fake news" when he wants to deny that something happened, even when there is first party proof.

(5000 char limit)

@mewmew @alyx

>Facing propaganda
From everyone. From the president, calling objective facts "fake news" and his followers believing it just because he said it, from the news media outlets who have their own agendas to push, and from social media corporations who have their own agendas as well (which is why I'm here and not there).

>THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS!
You're right again, and there's also a reason why. It just so happens to be the reason why you're not going to go wander into a crowd of BLM activists and insult their movement. They have people who are going to judge them for hosting certain content. They have expectations that they are held to for content being suitable for a wide variety of people. They make money from people using their services, and will lose those people if they don't play the game of political correctness and public relations.

>We are already in the 1984 rabbit hole.
I agree. Things have gotten worse in the past few years and weeks, considering that we have a high government who is intent on monetizing and monitoring everything that we do online, and our representatives are so out of touch with technology that they're easily swindled into signing away our privacy, if not just for cash from lobbyists. Corporations have pull as well. Unfortunately, we (normies, anyway) are forced to trust them in the same regard as the police, expecting them to make the right decisions, and as we know, they don't always have the best intentions at heart.

>Blizzard banning users based on Twitch chat
I've gotten fired from a job for something that happened completely outside, separate from, and not related whatsoever to the job. Companies feel that your employment with them means that you represent them, and that's just how society works.

>You are overestimating the power of the law...
It's not unheard of. Have a look back at World War II, which started with a small ideology, and worked its way up through government by establishing "absolute domination" over the people, lying to the people time and time again until they believed it, and removing any of the individuals who were targeted or opposed by basically labeling them as domestic terrorists. The steps end up being so small and progressive that nobody notices until it's too late.

>If you behave like a terrorist...
At this point, I'm starting to question where you're getting your data from on the events that are transpiring. I don't know how you could be so blind to the unwarranted brutality that's occurring. Much in the same way that you claim that police are having to defend themselves from the masses, there are civilians who are having to defend themselves from police. Police are using tactics on our own citizens that are forbidden by the Geneva Convention; their actions are deemed inhumane. The protesters are NOT always the ones instigating, nor are they the majority.

>I believe you are trying to hold them to much higher standards.
Again, when there's a baseline of no physical violence and the police are running up to peaceful protesters and ripping off their masks to mace them, arbitrarily ramming them with vehicles while no protester has a vehicle, and kettling protesters who have done nothing wrong so that they can be further physically abused while the public believes that it's sanctioned by law is disgusting. Furthermore, there's also plenty of evidence showing that police are engaging in violent acts for sport. Police are trained that once a hostile individual is subdued, that no other controlling methods should be necessary unless the situation escalates. This was ignored with George Floyd himself, and continues to be plainly visible in videos displaying protesters on the ground crying with pepper spray in their eyes, as officers walk over to them and violently kick them to the ground, then walk away. If the standard was only *slightly* higher, they're still not meeting it.

@kitty @mewmew
This is gonna take a while…

>Not quite sure what you're talking about here
Long story short, mainstream news are turning concerns over violent police into narratives of racism for clickbait/ratings. Antifa types are using “muh racism” narratives to push for overthrowing of government and for anarcho-communism.

>Insult the person that you're arguing with. That'll get you pretty far in life
I mean, I could use “person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders” (source Wikipedia), but “useful idiot” is much shorter, and most people understand what it means. Not trying to use it in a derogatory way necessarily, I’m just aiming for what it describes in general.

>protests turned violent by "third party" bad actors
That’s something that needs to be proven. As it stands, this is basically a conspiracy theory. If “peaceful” protestors weren’t perfectly willing to turn violent, no matter how much incitement you put in, people would have dispersed immediately, and you’d just have 2-3 inciters sticking out like a sore thumb and immediately be arrested in the first day.
Considering I’ve participated in actual peaceful protests a few times, this kind of apologetics just don’t work for me. Someone peaceful doesn’t stick around if they see someone around them going violent, they don’t randomly just join in on violence just because someone near them does it, and there’s a high likelihood that they won’t return to a protest once they see there is danger involved with it.

>but it only takes one officer in a group to turn the whole squad rotten.
Are we doing the one drop rule? Because cause that’s how this phrasing sounds. Just letting you know.

>I can't fault the rest of them for that, but something still needs to be done about the one.
What exactly would you do though, if the situation is born out of a misunderstanding? Would you destroy a man’s life because in the heat of the moment he didn’t see something right? That’s BS man.

>At least two videos out there where 5+ officers have assaulted a single citizen
I’ve seen cases like this in the past, cropped videos, where the full videos showed officers told the people numerous times that they needed to leave an area, and they defied orders and maybe were even disrespectful in some way. Is it right to for the police to attack in those situations? I don’t know. Most times they should arrest these people. But these things can only be judged on a case by case basis, and neither me nor you are qualified to the the judging. These things need to be investigated by authorities and trialed in the court of law. Rushing to judgment on almost 0 context is not helping anyone.

>we should expect the police to stop the bad actors instead of becoming them
Once the rioting, burning, looting, destroying started, the police are very limited in the actions they can take to stop things without putting their lives at extreme risk. When people throw bricks at you, you can’t exactly go and try to stop them via hugs.

>We've been talking about the first amendment this entire time, and you suddenly changed it to "freedom of speech".
A bit of mistake on my part. I read your initial post as being about the rights themselves, that while inscribed in the constitution via amendments, in my view, they go beyond what is written in a document. These are fundamental rights that you posses, irrespectively if the government recognizes them or not. Then I mistakenly said “ currently threatens the US 1st amendment” as a shorthand for “threatens the right of freedom of speech”. Indeed only the government can “threaten” constitution amendments and change them, but your human rights can be infringed by multiple people/institutions. Later on I talk about “rights being trampled on” by different actors, in this idea that others besides the state can restrict you from exercising your rights even if they can’t change the constitution.

>I fear modification and misinterpretation causing overreach of the laws by current government entities.
From what I understand, it’s insanely hard to modify US constitution, so I wouldn’t worry about that. As for misinterpretation, judges have the ultimate word on that, and if you’re gonna say you don’t trust judges, then we have a completely different problem.

>The Internet is well-enough free if you'd like to host your own content or find someone who will host it for you.
I disagree. The internet is more restricted than ever. Hosts and domain providers are much too easily bullied into restricting you and denying service to you.

>And when the laws stack up to give a single man in this country dictatorial, "dominating" power?
But that’s not even close to being true in USA. What are we even talking about? Even in the Covid insanity Trump was saying that governors and local authorities need to take care of things on their local level.

>The current administration is working through loopholes and ambiguity to be able to legally turn our own military against our citizens.
What loopholes? You had cities in shambles, with police unable or unwilling to take action. Are you gonna argue that’s not a situation in which you need something like the national guard to help stabilize things and bring order? And if I understood correctly, they were already withdrawn. So much for dictatorial power.

>anybody who says that they don't like the president can be considered a terrorist
I think you mean anybody that behaves like a terrorist is interrogated to establish what’s going on there. Yeah, I think I would want that. Not familiar with how being declared a terrorist affects one’s rights in USA, but being detained and questioned does not automatically add someone in the terrorist list as far as I know. (if it does, that is a problem). I’m not gonna argue the definition of terrorism again. If you don’t think Antifa is a terrorist organization, then we’ll have fundamental disagreements here than I don’t see how we could reconcile.

>You will face the consequences, though.
I’m sorry, but the consequences to stating such an opinion are completely disproportionate. You might as well be saying that in North Korea, you are putting yourself in a dumb situation by saying the Supreme Leader isn’t a god, and you deserve the beatings and torture you’re gonna receive.

>because you're intentionally instigating a situation at that point.
That’s victim blaming, just fyi.

>The "mob" isn't premeditating harassment upon you.
When you know how others have been treated by the mob, you will automatically be terrified and intimidated against stating your legitimate opinion. Analogy: the mafia didn’t threaten you directly that they’ll attack you for not paying protection money, but you’ve seen them beat the shit out of your neighbors that didn’t pay.

>there are objective facts that are being denied, often touted as "fake news" when he wants to deny that something happened, even when there is first party proof.
Sure, and the same goes for the media. In fact, a lot of times the media is more insidious in how they lie and manipulate. I get that you don’t agree, but he is right in calling them “fake news”, even if he himself is guilty of being untruthful.

>They have expectations that they are held to for content being suitable for a wide variety of people.
That is an expectation that they’ve made for themselves. If they want to make money and play politics, I’ll allow it, with one condition: they need to make it clear that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT FREE SPEECH and open discourse. If they make that statement transparently, for everyone to see, they can do whatever they want. As they currently are, they are guilty of fake advertisement. They profit from claiming to be an open platform, because they know the users want that, but then they play politics for the advertisers. And don’t be fooled, the average user will not leave if Twitter isn’t politically correct. It’s the advertisers these platforms try to please.

>Companies feel that your employment with them means that you represent them,
But playing WoW and saying something stupid on Twitch isn’t exactly representing Blizzard, now is it? Hardly the same thing.

>It's not unheard of.
Please don’t tell me you’re doing a “Trump is Hitler”. Here’s the thing you’re missing, even though you were so damn close. You said it yourself, it “started with a small ideology”. The current government has no ideology to speak of. Trump is just stupid Trump. If you’re interested in seeing the ideology that could and would do these things you fear, look at Antifa. They are already calling everyone who opposes them fascists by default, and use slogans like “bash the fash”.

>there are civilians who are having to defend themselves from police.
How exactly did the civilians have to defend themselves when they burned down a police station and other buildings? Especially when the police literally ran away.

>The protesters are NOT always the ones instigating, nor are they the majority
Who started the fires? Stop with this “they didn’t instigate” when things blasted into complete chaos from day one.

I’m honestly done with the “no honestly they didn’t start or escalade things, THE POLICE DID!”. These things are always twisted too much by the media and everyone sharing them. Nobody ever gives a fuck when people literally accelerate their car when they see an officer getting out of another car and trying to run him over; and then they pretend to be surprised why the police is frightened for their lives and probably angry too.
Yeah, guess what, when things go to fires, looting, rioting etc., police are supposed to stop these things by using intimidation tactics and pepper spray. You simply can’t let chaos take over cities. And once people escalated things to rioting and fires, you can’t just pretend that the next day the protest is completely peaceful, you can’t just wipe the slate clean and pretend the same dangerous elements aren’t still there in the second day, and are not just waiting for a second when the police isn’t paying attention to start the chaos once again.

I can’t believe this took 3 pages in LibreOffice Writer.

@alyx @kitty
>This is gonna take a while…

I can see why Mastodon has a 500 character limit now.
>>Not quite sure what you're talking about here
>Long story short, mainstream news are turning concerns over violent police into narratives of racism for clickbait/ratings. Antifa types are using “muh racism” narratives to push for overthrowing of government and for anarcho-communism.
Most “antifa” types (which isn’t really a group) are just against fascism, hardly anyone wants anarcho-communism. They want reform.
>>protests turned violent by "third party" bad actors
>That’s something that needs to be proven. As it stands, this is basically a conspiracy theory. If “peaceful” protestors weren’t perfectly willing to turn violent, no matter how much incitement you put in, people would have dispersed immediately, and you’d just have 2-3 inciters sticking out like a sore thumb and immediately be arrested in the first day.
>Considering I’ve participated in actual peaceful protests a few times, this kind of apologetics just don’t work for me. Someone peaceful doesn’t stick around if they see someone around them going violent, they don’t randomly just join in on violence just because someone near them does it, and there’s a high likelihood that they won’t return to a protest once they see there is danger involved with it.
A lot of peaceful protesters do leave when things turn violent! How hard is it to understand that many of the violent people do not have a political message?
>>At least two videos out there where 5+ officers have assaulted a single citizen
>I’ve seen cases like this in the past, cropped videos, where the full videos showed officers told the people numerous times that they needed to leave an area, and they defied orders and maybe were even disrespectful in some way. Is it right to for the police to attack in those situations? I don’t know. Most times they should arrest these people. But these things can only be judged on a case by case basis, and neither me nor you are qualified to the the judging. These things need to be investigated by authorities and trialed in the court of law. Rushing to judgment on almost 0 context is not helping anyone.
People can have their own opinions, that’s freedom of speech.
>>we should expect the police to stop the bad actors instead of becoming them
>Once the rioting, burning, looting, destroying started, the police are very limited in the actions they can take to stop things without putting their lives at extreme risk. When people throw bricks at you, you can’t exactly go and try to stop them via hugs.
That’s not the argument here. The police should not be using more violence. That doesn’t solve the problem, and police lives aren’t more valuable than civilians.
>>I fear modification and misinterpretation causing overreach of the laws by current government entities.
>From what I understand, it’s insanely hard to modify US constitution, so I wouldn’t worry about that. As for misinterpretation, judges have the ultimate word on that, and if you’re gonna say you don’t trust judges, then we have a completely different problem.
Judges are appointed by politicians. Look at who is on the US supreme court.
>>The Internet is well-enough free if you'd like to host your own content or find someone who will host it for you.
>I disagree. The internet is more restricted than ever. Hosts and domain providers are much too easily bullied into restricting you and denying service to you.
Too bad? Find one that isn’t. They exist, you’re using one right now. That “bullying” is freedom of speech too. I can say “don’t use these people, they platform hate” and that is my right. If I could not do that, I would not have freedom of speech.
>>anybody who says that they don't like the president can be considered a terrorist
>I think you mean anybody that behaves like a terrorist is interrogated to establish what’s going on there. Yeah, I think I would want that. Not familiar with how being declared a terrorist affects one’s rights in USA, but being detained and questioned does not automatically add someone in the terrorist list as far as I know. (if it does, that is a problem). I’m not gonna argue the definition of terrorism again. If you don’t think Antifa is a terrorist organization, then we’ll have fundamental disagreements here than I don’t see how we could reconcile.
Antifa isn’t an organization at all.
>>there are objective facts that are being denied, often touted as "fake news" when he wants to deny that something happened, even when there is first party proof.
>Sure, and the same goes for the media. In fact, a lot of times the media is more insidious in how they lie and manipulate. I get that you don’t agree, but he is right in calling them “fake news”, even if he himself is guilty of being untruthful.
No, he is not. He calls criticism “fake news”. If he pointed out actual false-hoods, that would be different.
>>They have expectations that they are held to for content being suitable for a wide variety of people.
>That is an expectation that they’ve made for themselves. If they want to make money and play politics, I’ll allow it, with one condition: they need to make it clear that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT FREE SPEECH and open discourse. If they make that statement transparently, for everyone to see, they can do whatever they want. As they currently are, they are guilty of fake advertisement. They profit from claiming to be an open platform, because they know the users want that, but then they play politics for the advertisers. And don’t be fooled, the average user will not leave if Twitter isn’t politically correct. It’s the advertisers these platforms try to please.
They try to please their customers, who tend to be advertisers. Twitter is clear they don’t support absolute freedom of speech, check their ToS.
>>It's not unheard of.
>Please don’t tell me you’re doing a “Trump is Hitler”. Here’s the thing you’re missing, even though you were so damn close. You said it yourself, it “started with a small ideology”. The current government has no ideology to speak of. Trump is just stupid Trump. If you’re interested in seeing the ideology that could and would do these things you fear, look at Antifa. They are already calling everyone who opposes them fascists by default, and use slogans like “bash the fash”.
Antifa is just anti fascism. There’s no fascist ideology there. There are some idiots who identify with the label, but they aren’t a significant danger. If there was an antifa power in control of the government and the courts, maybe you would have a point.
>>The protesters are NOT always the ones instigating, nor are they the majority
>Who started the fires? Stop with this “they didn’t instigate” when things blasted into complete chaos from day one.
>I’m honestly done with the “no honestly they didn’t start or escalade things, THE POLICE DID!”. These things are always twisted too much by the media and everyone sharing them. Nobody ever gives a fuck when people literally accelerate their car when they see an officer getting out of another car and trying to run him over; and then they pretend to be surprised why the police is frightened for their lives and probably angry too.
>Yeah, guess what, when things go to fires, looting, rioting etc., police are supposed to stop these things by using intimidation tactics and pepper spray. You simply can’t let chaos take over cities. And once people escalated things to rioting and fires, you can’t just pretend that the next day the protest is completely peaceful, you can’t just wipe the slate clean and pretend the same dangerous elements aren’t still there in the second day, and are not just waiting for a second when the police isn’t paying attention to start the chaos once again.


Intimidation and pepper spray don’t usually stop riots. They do stop first-amendment-protected freedom of expression usually. Which is the real goal here.

@mewmew @kitty
Igel is right. I'm too tired right now. I might look over this later/tomorrow and answer, I might not.

@mewmew @kitty

>Most “antifa” types (which isn’t really a group) are just against fascism

Yeah, ok, I'll definitely not gonna go beyond this, because this is just too wrong now. And if this is how things start, I'm not interested in going further.

Antifa is against fascism as much as North Korea is democratic.
After everything they have done over and over again, there is nothing that can defend antifa from the reality that they are the ones that behave like fascists, trying to impose their political will through violence.
Also, they have been caught over and over again organizing shit. Stop believing and spreading the lie that they are not an organization.