How is my opinion unreasonable? You’re saying you want to go take away security from rape victims, those traumatized by DV and other crimes? RATHER than make demands from the people you elect to stop sacrificing your privacy and giving corporations untethered access to everyone’s data? Sounds very hypocritical to me. Tear down all the municipal flock cameras you want, but leave victims personal property alone. Geez how hard is it for you to comprehend?
You’re following the New York Times editorial formula perfectly:
State support for a liberal position yet advance every argument possible against actions to achieve that goal meanwhile denying reality and at the same time finding a way to praise conservatives and criticize partisanship. And you just completed the formula by claiming to be reasonable, the highest value of centrism.
The biggest reality you are missing is that anti-surveillance actions DO include legislative advocacy Are we on the same fucking service? Every day there’s been an article about an government making flock purchases a dollar under the legal limit for public review, a government cancelling their flock camera contracts after public outcry, a government that decided against installing flock cameras after realizing they´d have to submit it for public review.
Your theory of change is also woefully flawed. Change happens when people go outside the system, but all the credit naturally goes to those who work inside the system. People who don’t want change but want to pretend they do (to themselves or others) sound exactly the way you do.
Do yourself and the world a favor and read MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Pay particular attention to what he says about white liberals.
How is my opinion unreasonable? You’re saying you want to go take away security from rape victims, those traumatized by DV and other crimes? RATHER than make demands from the people you elect to stop sacrificing your privacy and giving corporations untethered access to everyone’s data? Sounds very hypocritical to me. Tear down all the municipal flock cameras you want, but leave victims personal property alone. Geez how hard is it for you to comprehend?
You’re following the New York Times editorial formula perfectly:
State support for a liberal position yet advance every argument possible against actions to achieve that goal meanwhile denying reality and at the same time finding a way to praise conservatives and criticize partisanship. And you just completed the formula by claiming to be reasonable, the highest value of centrism.
The biggest reality you are missing is that anti-surveillance actions DO include legislative advocacy Are we on the same fucking service? Every day there’s been an article about an government making flock purchases a dollar under the legal limit for public review, a government cancelling their flock camera contracts after public outcry, a government that decided against installing flock cameras after realizing they´d have to submit it for public review.
Your theory of change is also woefully flawed. Change happens when people go outside the system, but all the credit naturally goes to those who work inside the system. People who don’t want change but want to pretend they do (to themselves or others) sound exactly the way you do.
Do yourself and the world a favor and read MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Pay particular attention to what he says about white liberals.