I sorta agree, but wanted to ask for some clarification - what liberties do you see being given up here? They didn’t really take anything away, they were just there. It’s definitely intimidating, and nobody trusts the police (for good reason, namely lack of appropriate oversight, action, and training) but I can’t see how anything was taken away or given up here for the illusion of saftey that the snipers would hypothetically be providing, know what I mean?
You have normalized a police state where as a people you now think it is normal to have things like sniper teams set up at all major events with a lot of people. This has been done as you have stated; “to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats” even though sniper teams have almost no ability to stop or even just not make the situation considerably worse.
The thing about trading liberties for extra safety is not only about the liberties lost but that it is a fools journey since the things done for safety are more likely to be ether useless, or just bad (think TSA vs militarizing the police).
You are not stopping a mass casualty event at the time and place of the event itself but well before it. This show of force is just control, theatre, a waste of taxpayer money and in the worst case the cause (ironically enough) of a mass casualty event.
Dude I’m not gonna repeat myself. Go through my comments. I’ve said time in and time out that I don’t agree with this practice. Why is this so hard for people to grasp lol
Edit: And you didn’t even answer my question:
what liberties are lost by having these snipers there
I did answer you question and have been the only person willing to engage with you politely. So I will break it down at a lower level, all caps:
YOU DO NOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS BY SENDING ARMED GOONS.
YOU HAVE TO STOP THESE THINGS BEFORE THE EVENT NOT DURING.
YOU HAVE ARMED GOVERNMENT AGENTS POINTING LOADED FIREARMS AT PEOPLE WHO ARE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THIS HAS REMOVED THE LIBERTY OF THE STUDENTS BY CHILLING THE ABILITY TO PROTEST (A RIGHT) AND ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED ASSOCIATION WITH PEOPLE WHO SHARE THE SAME POLITICAL VIEWS (THIS IS ALSO COVERED IN YOUR CONSTITUTION).
The very idea you could not pick up on the liberties at direct risk here has me thinking you are ether so oppressed that you don’t even know what basic human freedom is, or more likely you are not arguing in good faith and know full well what is going on.
No one (other then I guess your police and governor) wants this stupid, useless, dangerous, Patriot act level show of force.
Edit: And I for one will repeat myself, over and over in different ways since you have stated no one has addressed your question when after reading the replies, they have, and done so in many nuanced and different ways. It just happens no one has given you the answer you are fishing for.
I’ve been saying this repeatedly (I literally just said it to you in the prior comment but you’re ignoring it ig? Who’s fishing for responses?) I don’t believe in the practice of using intimidation as a deterrent. Especially when it comes to weapons that can kill someone (and probably multiple people at once) instantaneously.
How do we prevent this from happening (this is the question I’m asking repeatedly and the question that only one person responded to directly, and who’s solution was to “create a just society” which I don’t need to tell you is incredibly vague and utopian.) Again. My question is how do we prevent this from happening
This is a threatening action, agreed. This does not remove our liberty to peacefully protest, but it creates an unjustly hostile/threatening environment. That I agree with (see point 1)
Stop assuming I’m being an assholr on purpose when I’ve very obviously for ACAB, understand the police state problem, and am trying to have civil conversation despite being accused of being some Tucker Carlson crayon muncher. That’s bad faith. Assuming the worst of me, is bad faith.
My frustrations are valid. Your attempts to gaslight me into some kind of troll, when all I’m trying to do (as a “good liberal”) is to get to the fucking bottom of things and have a civil conversation about police reform, is dangerous.
The tolerant don’t need to tolerate trolls, assholes, and other forms of intolerance. That’s why I was fine with not repeating myself. Not for lack of effort or care, but because this is lemmy.
Where all the users are anonymous.
And any of one these responses could be from one or multiple troll conservative groups.
If you’d like to continue the conversation in a constructive and respectful way? I’m all for it.
How do we prevent this from happening (this is the question I’m asking repeatedly and the question that only one person responded to directly, and who’s solution was to “create a just society” which I don’t need to tell you is incredibly vague and utopian.) Again. My question is how do we prevent this from happening
This is the part that I have issues with buying your arguing in good faith. This has been covered by myself and others, even in the reply above and in all caps. But once again, the best way to stop mass casualty events are before the event happens. As in you have to address/assess risk before the event. And also as pointed out the trade off of “preventing” any and all bad things from happening in a society is not worth it unless you like living under big brother.
This is a threatening action, agreed. This does not remove our liberty to peacefully protest, but it creates an unjustly hostile/threatening environment. That I agree with (see point 1)
They have arrested over 40 people so far, this does indeed remove the liberty to peacefully protest. If you have america brain so bad that you don’t think government agents pointing loaded firearms at you does not impede your liberty then maybe detaining people for exercising their rights will.
Stop assuming I’m being an assholr on purpose when I’ve very obviously for ACAB, understand the police state problem, and am trying to have civil conversation despite being accused of being some Tucker Carlson crayon muncher. That’s bad faith. Assuming the worst of me, is bad faith.
I think you have me confused with another person who accused you of asking loaded questions. I made no assumptions until you repeatedly ignored many answers to your question leading me to now believe you are fishing for a talking point.
Your attempts to gaslight me into some kind of troll, when all I’m trying to do (as a “good liberal”) is to get to the fucking bottom of things and have a civil conversation about police reform, is dangerous.
Once again, I am astonished by your ability to just ignore the responses to your question. You asked what can be done, you got more then one answer (mostly that a police response of this size and style was unwanted and dangerous) but proceeded instead to repeatedly proclaim that “No one is answering my question”. This caused people (quite rationally) to question your motives in this.
And any of one these responses could be from one or multiple troll conservative groups.
Yes, clearly these conservative groups who are well known for using the same fear mongering “Won’t someone think of the children” argument for more police powers that you are using would be just jumping at the chance to prove you wrong.
And this now has me wondering about trolls and arguments, I noticed something typing this out.
(as a “good liberal”)
Where have I seen this sort of language before?
The tolerant don’t need to tolerate trolls, assholes, and other forms of intolerance. That’s why I was fine with not repeating myself. Not for lack of effort or care, but because this is lemmy.
Yes, good thing I am not that tolerant so we can continue.
I sorta agree, but wanted to ask for some clarification - what liberties do you see being given up here? They didn’t really take anything away, they were just there. It’s definitely intimidating, and nobody trusts the police (for good reason, namely lack of appropriate oversight, action, and training) but I can’t see how anything was taken away or given up here for the illusion of saftey that the snipers would hypothetically be providing, know what I mean?
You have normalized a police state where as a people you now think it is normal to have things like sniper teams set up at all major events with a lot of people. This has been done as you have stated; “to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats” even though sniper teams have almost no ability to stop or even just not make the situation considerably worse.
The thing about trading liberties for extra safety is not only about the liberties lost but that it is a fools journey since the things done for safety are more likely to be ether useless, or just bad (think TSA vs militarizing the police).
You are not stopping a mass casualty event at the time and place of the event itself but well before it. This show of force is just control, theatre, a waste of taxpayer money and in the worst case the cause (ironically enough) of a mass casualty event.
Well said. Thank you.
Dude I’m not gonna repeat myself. Go through my comments. I’ve said time in and time out that I don’t agree with this practice. Why is this so hard for people to grasp lol
Edit: And you didn’t even answer my question: what liberties are lost by having these snipers there
I did answer you question and have been the only person willing to engage with you politely. So I will break it down at a lower level, all caps:
YOU DO NOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS BY SENDING ARMED GOONS.
YOU HAVE TO STOP THESE THINGS BEFORE THE EVENT NOT DURING.
YOU HAVE ARMED GOVERNMENT AGENTS POINTING LOADED FIREARMS AT PEOPLE WHO ARE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THIS HAS REMOVED THE LIBERTY OF THE STUDENTS BY CHILLING THE ABILITY TO PROTEST (A RIGHT) AND ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED ASSOCIATION WITH PEOPLE WHO SHARE THE SAME POLITICAL VIEWS (THIS IS ALSO COVERED IN YOUR CONSTITUTION).
The very idea you could not pick up on the liberties at direct risk here has me thinking you are ether so oppressed that you don’t even know what basic human freedom is, or more likely you are not arguing in good faith and know full well what is going on.
No one (other then I guess your police and governor) wants this stupid, useless, dangerous, Patriot act level show of force.
Edit: And I for one will repeat myself, over and over in different ways since you have stated no one has addressed your question when after reading the replies, they have, and done so in many nuanced and different ways. It just happens no one has given you the answer you are fishing for.
I’ve been saying this repeatedly (I literally just said it to you in the prior comment but you’re ignoring it ig? Who’s fishing for responses?) I don’t believe in the practice of using intimidation as a deterrent. Especially when it comes to weapons that can kill someone (and probably multiple people at once) instantaneously.
How do we prevent this from happening (this is the question I’m asking repeatedly and the question that only one person responded to directly, and who’s solution was to “create a just society” which I don’t need to tell you is incredibly vague and utopian.) Again. My question is how do we prevent this from happening
This is a threatening action, agreed. This does not remove our liberty to peacefully protest, but it creates an unjustly hostile/threatening environment. That I agree with (see point 1)
Stop assuming I’m being an assholr on purpose when I’ve very obviously for ACAB, understand the police state problem, and am trying to have civil conversation despite being accused of being some Tucker Carlson crayon muncher. That’s bad faith. Assuming the worst of me, is bad faith.
My frustrations are valid. Your attempts to gaslight me into some kind of troll, when all I’m trying to do (as a “good liberal”) is to get to the fucking bottom of things and have a civil conversation about police reform, is dangerous.
The tolerant don’t need to tolerate trolls, assholes, and other forms of intolerance. That’s why I was fine with not repeating myself. Not for lack of effort or care, but because this is lemmy.
Where all the users are anonymous.
And any of one these responses could be from one or multiple troll conservative groups.
If you’d like to continue the conversation in a constructive and respectful way? I’m all for it.
This is the part that I have issues with buying your arguing in good faith. This has been covered by myself and others, even in the reply above and in all caps. But once again, the best way to stop mass casualty events are before the event happens. As in you have to address/assess risk before the event. And also as pointed out the trade off of “preventing” any and all bad things from happening in a society is not worth it unless you like living under big brother.
They have arrested over 40 people so far, this does indeed remove the liberty to peacefully protest. If you have america brain so bad that you don’t think government agents pointing loaded firearms at you does not impede your liberty then maybe detaining people for exercising their rights will.
I think you have me confused with another person who accused you of asking loaded questions. I made no assumptions until you repeatedly ignored many answers to your question leading me to now believe you are fishing for a talking point.
Once again, I am astonished by your ability to just ignore the responses to your question. You asked what can be done, you got more then one answer (mostly that a police response of this size and style was unwanted and dangerous) but proceeded instead to repeatedly proclaim that “No one is answering my question”. This caused people (quite rationally) to question your motives in this.
Yes, clearly these conservative groups who are well known for using the same fear mongering “Won’t someone think of the children” argument for more police powers that you are using would be just jumping at the chance to prove you wrong.
And this now has me wondering about trolls and arguments, I noticed something typing this out.
Where have I seen this sort of language before?
Yes, good thing I am not that tolerant so we can continue.