Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[dcom]

9 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Flip the script: what if these guys were wearing "FUCK CAPITALISM - VIVA LA REVOLUCION" shirts with a date on them. Would you want them investigated?

This is nothing if not whataboutism. The shirts had the date on them. The shirts said CIVIL WAR, the basic design was lifted from Marvel's Avengers: Civil War - Trumpists and right-wing knobheads have a hardon for superheroes, preferably vigilantes. You would have to be intentionally oblivious to disregard those things.

Edited January 8, 2021 by dcom

[Nebraska]

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[chenGOD]

4 minutes ago, scumtron said:

Edited. Last line is my opinion, btw.

Your edit presents hearsay, not evidence.

I know how posting like this makes me look, and I want to see these fuckwads brought to justice as well, but I don't want people to throw away the idea of due process and proper criminal investigations conducted through legal measures.

So just posting that kind of material in a public forum is not illegal in and of itself, and if there were nothing further, law enforcement can not arrest these individuals.

[chenGOD]

2 minutes ago, dcom said:

This is nothing if not whataboutism. The shirts had the date on them. The shirts said CIVIL WAR, the basic design was lifted from Avengers: Civil War - Trumpists and right-wing knobheads have a hardon for superheroes, preferably vigilantes. You would have to be intentionally oblivious to disregard those things.

It's nothing like whataboutism: it's presenting an opposite hypothetical scenario where the law could be applied.

Che Guevara led a literal fucking revolution, not some fantasy movie, and people in communist outfits wear his shirts all the time. Again, if you had communist organizers wearing a shirt saying Viva La Revolucion, with a date on them, with a picture of Che, would you want them investigated for sedition?

6 minutes ago, sweepstakes said:

Honestly, no, because their chances of success are effectively zero - see Occupy, etc.

One side of this divide is so much more skilled at weaseling their way out of anything. 

Were these guys successful, even with police presence denied to combat them?

[auxien]

chen just digging himself deeper in his dumb shithole lol

you're not an idiot but you're sure looking and acting like one man. go read some news sources and trawl Twitter for a bit instead of just peppering vague questions here.

[dcom]

6 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

It's nothing like whataboutism: it's presenting an opposite hypothetical scenario where the law could be applied.

Che Guevara led a literal fucking revolution, not some fantasy movie, and people in communist outfits wear his shirts all the time. Again, if you had communist organizers wearing a shirt saying Viva La Revolucion, with a date on them, with a picture of Che, would you want them investigated for sedition?

It's exactly whataboutism, and bringing the Che shirt into it is a straw man. Besides, sporting the Che shirt has become passé because it's everywhere, it has nothing to do with revolutionary thinking anymore - it's a pastiche, a hipster emblem. It's like Apple reusing the Think Different campaign today. You know the thing about ducks, the quaking and walking?

Edited January 8, 2021 by dcom

[chenGOD]

1 minute ago, auxien said:

chen just digging himself deeper in his dumb shithole lol

you're not an idiot but you're sure looking and acting like one man. go read some news sources and trawl Twitter for a bit instead of just peppering vague questions here.

I am an idiot, and fully admit it. I'm well aware of what went on beforehand with parler and thedonald. I'm telling you that none of that shit is illegal.

I'm also telling you that getting to the legal burden of proof to prove criminality before hand is harder than it appears.

[dcom]

Just now, chenGOD said:

I'm also telling you that getting to the legal burden of proof to prove criminality before hand is harder than it appears.

That's making you sound like an apologist for the idiots.

[dingformung]

chen ur dum lol

[chenGOD]

3 minutes ago, dcom said:

It's exactly whataboutism, and bringing the Che shirt into it is a straw man. Besides, sporting the Che shirt has become passé because it's everywhere, it has nothing to do with revolutionary thinking anymore - it's a pastiche, a hipster emblem. It's like Apple reusing the Think Different campaign today. You know the thing about ducks, the quaking and walking?

My position is logically consistent, there is no straw man. We are discussing symbolism.

I'm not accusing sweepstakes of hypocrisy, I'm asking him if he would want the same process applied to those people, and I'm not arguing against the person, I'm arguing the relevant point of law. So no, it is not whataboutism.

The thing about ducks is: they're not actually ducks until they quack and walk - so posing in shirts saying MAGA:CIVIL WAR sure could lead to some inquiry, but until they start marching into the capitol building they haven't committed any criminal activity.

[scumtron]

@chenGOD  Enrique Tarrio was arrested right before this because of "suspicion" of burning of a BLM flag a month before. A coincidence? If well know right wing nuts are conspiring on right wing social media about how to get in to the Capitol Building, throw them in jail on the suspicion of jaywalking. Or ban them travelling to DC. In Europe there are many examples of football hooligans not being allowed to travel across borders, or even inside their own country. Just because the police know what they're up to. It's hard to believe that there was no possiblities to do the same thing before this event.

Edited January 8, 2021 by scumtron

[chenGOD]

12 minutes ago, dcom said:

That's making you sound like an apologist for the idiots.

If you want to erode judicial standards, go ahead. But it should be difficult to prove criminality beyond a reasonable doubt. Actus rea is easy to prove here, but proving mens rea in advance is much more difficult.

[chenGOD]

3 minutes ago, scumtron said:

@chenGOD  Enrique Tarrio was arrested right before this because of "suspicion" of burning of a BLM flag a month before. A coincidence? If well know right wing nuts are conspiring on right wing social media about how to get in to the Capitol Building, throw them in jail on the suspicion of jaywalking. Or ban them travelling to DC. In Europe there are many examples of football hooligans not being allowed to travel across borders, or even inside their own country. Just because the police know what they're up to. It's hard to believe that there was no possiblities to do the same thing before this event.

He was arrested because he admitted to it: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20210106-who-exactly-is-enrique-tarrio-leader-of-the-us-s-far-right-proud-boys-organisation

That's the violation of human rights I'm talking about - you can't prevent them from traveling until they commit a crime.

The hooligans in Europe have all committed actual offences, hence they are not allowed to travel (and that ban is easy to get around as well from all my observations of hooligans still traveling to "support" their team).

[auxien]

lmao he broke out the latin legal terms

chen is right everyone, go home

[chenGOD]

Sorry, I work with too many lawyers.

[sweepstakes]

10 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I'm also telling you that getting to the legal burden of proof to prove criminality before hand is harder than it appears.

I appreciate this and I think you have a point. I just don't know what happens when the law utterly fails to diagnose the cancer that is plain for anyone to see. This is my main concern in all this.

Trumpists don't give a shit about the social contract because, depending on class, they believe either their money or guns will protect them. Once the rest of us stop believing in it, what's left to hold the country together?

[dcom]

2 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

If you want to erode judicial standards, go ahead. But it should be difficult to prove criminality beyond a reasonable doubt. Actus rea is easy to prove here, but mens rea is much more difficult.

You're right on the legalese, but pseudo-objectively defending seditious morons is not exactly woke. I know extreme impartiality is a stance and being a moron is not a crime, but not recognizing morons for what they are is a choice.

[scumtron]

@chenGOD Ask your lawyer friends how one can surveil potential terrorists, thus prevent terrorist attacks, but not prevent right wing nuts who openly are planning to get in to the Capitol building with guns. 

EDIT: A lot of these guys have been arrested before.

Edited January 8, 2021 by scumtron

[sweepstakes]

2 minutes ago, dcom said:

You're right on the legalese, but pseudo-objectively defending seditious morons is not exactly woke. I know extreme impartiality is a stance and being a moron is not a crime, but not recognizing morons for what they are is a choice.

I shouldn't speak for chen, but I don't see it as defending, per se, I see it as pragmatic skepticism, i.e. playing devil's advocate. The problem (as usual) is the laws have not caught up to the bad actors. 

[chenGOD]

1 minute ago, scumtron said:

@chenGOD Ask your lawyer friends how one can surveil potential terrorists, thus prevent terrorist attacks, but not prevent right wing nuts who openly are planning to get in to the Capitol building with guns. 

The right-wing orgs in the US and Canada are classified as terrorist organizations. So it would be one and the same.

[ARPA]

1 hour ago, ianandi said:

The real question is, do we toss our Ariel Pink and John Maus albums?

https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/51603/1/why-john-maus-and-ariel-pink-attending-the-pro-trump-riot-isn-t-surprising

[dcom]

9 minutes ago, sweepstakes said:

I shouldn't speak for chen, but I don't see it as defending, per se, I see it as pragmatic skepticism, i.e. playing devil's advocate. The problem (as usual) is the laws have not caught up to the bad actors. 

I know exactly what @chenGOD is doing, but I don't understand why. I play the Devil's advocate often enough myself, but I explicitly divorce myself from things that I find reprehensible.

Edited January 8, 2021 by dcom

[chenGOD]

5 minutes ago, dcom said:

You're right on the legalese, but pseudo-objectively defending seditious morons is not exactly woke. I know extreme impartiality is a stance and being a moron is not a crime, but not recognizing morons for what they are is a choice.

I'm not defending them, I'm explaining what the letter of the law says. I'm also wary of granting more leeway to law enforcement to abuse the power they have, because dollars to donuts, you grant them this power to go after right-wing nuts, they will use it to go after left-wing organizers and POC, especially in the US.

[scumtron]

2 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

The right-wing orgs in the US and Canada are classified as terrorist organizations. So it would be one and the same.

So it would be possible to put some of these folks behind bars or ban travelling. Aren't you arguing for the opposite?

[chenGOD]

1 minute ago, dcom said:

I know exactly what @chenGOD is doing, but I don't understand why. I play the Devi's advocate often enough myself, but I explicitly divorce myself from things that I find reprehensible.

I think I explained myself in my response above this one.  Reprehensible actors and actions exist in the world, so we have to try and address them while not violating human rights.