yeetawayhn

"What about my 1st amendment right to dox law enforcement officers?"

FYI, your comments seem to be shadowdead. They are dead when signed in, but not dead when not signed in.

>Your point of view is extremely US-centered. I would be shocked, for example, to hear an European to hold such a view.

Which Europeans believe that you work for the government, not the government works for you?

That's kind of an amusing way to put it: "Why would I prepare for a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe? It never happened to me before."

Yet boxing matches are questionable. Underground dogfights being illegal is a tangential point, based only in legal semantics.

That's just circular reasoning. You claim they're "above board" because they are not questionable, but the only metric by which you deem them not questionable is that they are "above board".

This discussion is going nowhere as long as you don't understand that.

What makes boxing matches questionable compared to underground dogfights?

Yes, non-questionable. You tried to compare massage parlors with strip clubs when neither are questionable.

On the other hand, both underground dogfights and boxing matches are both questionable.

Your position is all over the place. It's sad, really.

That isn't a fair comparison because people outside of Cruz's district are not able to vote for him. The same is not true for Twitter users and Twitter.

No, because you keep comparing nonquestionable to nonquestionable or questionable to questionable.

Your point really isn't coming across well here.

> Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a strip club is an alternative entertainment venue to your local movie theater.

I'm assuming this comparison is supposed to have some rhetorical value to it? Otherwise it just comes off as puritan gatekeeping.

Presumably to put things into perspective regarding the prevailing zeitgeists of who's destroying the world.

No, professional complainers.

None of that refutes the comment you are responding to.

The suspected drug dealer did have a weapons charge, and the baby was placed in the way of the the front door of his residence.

Not exactly, surplus weapons are really popular among civilians.

>is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks?

The dogwhistle has now turned into a full on bullhorn.

>APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence

In that case, they can paint them pink.

People conveniently leave out that it was the front door of a suspected drug dealer who had a previous weapons charge and had guards.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-st...

So the suspected drug dealer was using the baby as a human shield.

You missed the "developed countries" dogwhistle, which usually means rich and white nations.

If everything is political, then nothing is.

Your comments indicated that such an explanation was necessary to improve your understanding.

Source that this kid was a member of the "boogaloo crowd"?

Not sure, but according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, it happens in 27% of burglaries. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

>People telling that "high-capacity overpowered mass destruction weapons" should be forbidden, on the other side...

Are like the people who are saying the Casio F91W is a "terrorist watch" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23971045

Yeah, there's a lot of lack of self-awareness going on in that statement. "Excuse me while I ride my death machine over to a store."

> From the opb report it sounds like they were essentially just little badges that say "police".

Which means that the OPB report is being intentionally misleading. Which is unsurprising for much of the media covering the events.

This doesn't come off as an honest criticism, as even having the specific agency insignia would just be blown off.

>This is separate from the Democratic Party “moving right,” or in the case of issues like war, financial deregulation, and surveillance, having always been in lockstep with the right. This is about a change in the personality profile of the party’s most animated, engaged followers.

>Many who marched against Dick Cheney’s spy state in the early 2000s lost interest once Donald Trump became a target, then became full converts to the possibilities of centralized speech control after Russiagate, Charlottesville, and the de-platforming of Alex Jones, with even the ACLU wobbling. (Some of the only left media figures to be consistent on this issue work at the World Socialist Web Site, which has gone after woke icons like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over Internet censorship). Support for the “radical transparency” concept that made Wikileaks famous receded in favor of a referendum on the political and sexual iniquity of Julian Assange: many activists today are more concerned with who than what and find nuance, contradiction, and double-meaning repulsive. Bad person = bad idea!

>If this sounds familiar, it’s because it was the exact profile of Bush-era conservatives, who were so famously impervious to irony that corporate America could not develop for them one functioning comedy concept.

They do, you can see them on closer videos taken.

Except the agency has declared itself: DHS made the announcement, making your position void.