The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[SurelySerious]

12 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

I haven’t read the whole thread but the use of OCPs is to sell the narrative that the Democrat-controlled cities are “war zones.”


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Which is I think a bad position to take. As stupid as I think the destruction is, painting your own citizens as a wartime enemy isn’t good. 
 

But I also see videos from Portland where people are using guerrilla tactics trying to burn down federal buildings. Clearly some people think the USG is the enemy. 

[di1630]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[di1630]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Negatory]

6 hours ago, Guardian said:

Are you assuming they are being arrested vice detained? Both are legal.

Legality =/= morality.

Cheers.

[busdriver]

19 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean...that's being extremely generous based on the types of activities they do. I mean some of the Proud Boys chanted, "Jews will not replace us!" in Charlottesville so 🤷‍♂️ Not the type of dudes I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to in the vein of, "Oh, we're reformed, etc. etc." after all the shit press from that event.

I didn't mean to imply they're wholesome, good dudes.  McInnes bailed partly because his joke got out of control, too many assholes were tagging along, and he got swept up into the mob mentality.

I was thinking more along the lines of the original motorcycle clubs, before they went full on organized crime.

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, brawnie said:

Legality =/= morality.

Cheers.

Are we to act on one’s own morality then, or within the law? Because there are plenty of things that different groups of people consider immoral that are legal. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by SurelySerious

[Negatory]

6 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Are we to act on one’s own morality then, or within the law? Because there are plenty of things that different groups of people consider immoral that are legal. 

When the lines are fuzzy it should be morality and constitutionality.

[SurelySerious]

3 minutes ago, brawnie said:

When the lines are fuzzy it should be morality and constitutionality.

Legality entails the Constitution inherently, and working off of one’s own morality instead of said legality is vigilantism. If you think the laws are inadequate, you should probably consult your elected officials. 

[Negatory]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Morality vs legality. As an example, in many US states, the police can permanently seize your assets without charging you with a crime. I would argue that shouldn’t happen.

It’s never as clear cut as “the law says so,” and just because laws have loopholes and ways you can take advantage of them shouldnt give carte blanche authority for you, or me, or police to do so.

Cheers.

[SurelySerious]

2 minutes ago, brawnie said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Morality vs legality. As an example, in many US states, the police can permanently seize your assets without charging you with a crime. I would argue that shouldn’t happen.

It’s never as clear cut as “the law says so,” and just because laws have loopholes and ways you can take advantage of them shouldnt give carte blanche authority for you, or me, or police to do so.

Cheers.

You can’t hold law enforcement accountable to your morality, only what is codified as law. If you think there is a disparity, you should lobby your elected representatives. 

[Negatory]

I as a human am entitled to say that I believe something is wrong. An argument that it is legal is a non-sequitur and not the point.

[Negatory]

Although, to be clear, there are innumerable accounts of illegal and unlawful abuses of power and authority that have been demonstrated over the last few months.

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, brawnie said:

I as a human am entitled to say that I believe something is wrong. An argument that it is legal is a non-sequitur and not the point.

It’s not a non sequitur when you argue that law enforcement should be held accountable according to what you view as moral instead of what is codified as law. That was your entire argument 50 minutes ago. 
 

Sure, you can say what you want, but you didn’t merely say you thought it was wrong, you argued others should be held to what you view is wrong instead of what is in the law. It does indeed follow then that we are legally accountable to the law, and not to your thoughts. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by SurelySerious

[busdriver]

People follow the law for three reasons:

1. They believe the law is just

2. The are afraid of getting caught

3. It's just not worth it to fight back (minor nuisance)

At the end of the day, the state only has force as a tool to enforce laws.  If you aren't comfortable enforcing a law at gun point, it probably shouldn't be a law.  All the stupid laws only work when everyone agrees that they're good and just.  That requires a common culture of shared values.

[di1630]

Although, to be clear, there are innumerable accounts of illegal and unlawful abuses of power and authority that have been demonstrated over the last few months.

Name em.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Guardian]

I as a human am entitled to say that I believe something is wrong. An argument that it is legal is a non-sequitur and not the point.

An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world.

[Breckey]

The Lawfare Podcast had a good analysis of the legal justification for the DHS surveillance and federal response in Portland: lawful but awful. 

Quote

Responding to protesters vandalizing a federal courthouse is not what the DHS was created to do. The executive branches use of some isolated acts of vandalism against federal property and one assault on a US Marshall deputy as justification for effectively a massive federal response that now includes intelligence gathering on peaceful protesters who happen to be in the neighborhood with some vandals. 

[nsplayr]

57 minutes ago, Guardian said:

An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world.

Are you sure about this?

[sixblades]

An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world.

Completely inaccurate... What’s your point? He shouldn’t be able to share his viewpoint? Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyingWolf]

18 minutes ago, sixblades said:

Completely inaccurate... What’s your point? He shouldn’t be able to share his viewpoint? Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Real question.... where else?

[Clark Griswold]

I'd like to file a micro-aggression complaint:

AP says it will capitalize Black but not white

To be fair or as some on this thread consider fair, not all parties in the current conversation / scream-fest think this is a good idea (article lists several black organizations that think this is a bad idea) but this is just an interesting window into the vain mind of the vanguards of woke.  

[Guardian]

Are you sure about this?

Yes

[Guardian]

Completely inaccurate... What’s your point? He shouldn’t be able to share his viewpoint? Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with? 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My point is that this is the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, any thing you say is legal. And that it is not the case anywhere else.  

Wasn’t implying he should or shouldn’t feel any particular way. Not sure how you would jump to that conclusion. Just read what I said and take it at face value.

If it’s in accurate then I ask you how or why is that the case? I don’t know of anywhere else where you can’t be fined, imprisoned, etc for speaking your mind.

 

[AirGuardianC141747]

Maybe it’s not the: “Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?“

But rather understand how these freedoms were established, why they were established and the sacrifices made to have these freedoms. I am no History Scholar by any means but it’s common sense. Cancel cancel culture as many nations have done this to other nations or it has come from within to overtake like a virus for the greater good or bad. Just a means of erasing the past to reset mindset. Destroy monuments, art, flags, books, eradicate nationals/citizens by the millions

Definitely don’t turn a blind eye, hence it’s your freedom to express yourself peacefully however that is defined seems to be the issue. 
Definitely don’t turn a blind eye - both sides have their limits on what is acceptable whatever that may be, but once that “line in the sand” is crossed the outcome hasn’t been good historically. So many opinions, so many answers it’s a match-lite situation.

Edited July 23, 2020 by AirGuardianC141747

[Negatory]

4 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

It’s not a non sequitur when you argue that law enforcement should be held accountable according to what you view as moral instead of what is codified as law. That was your entire argument 50 minutes ago. 
 

Sure, you can say what you want, but you didn’t merely say you thought it was wrong, you argued others should be held to what you view is wrong instead of what is in the law. It does indeed follow then that we are legally accountable to the law, and not to your thoughts. 

Brother, they are held accountable morally, whether you like it or not. Maybe not in a court of law, but you surely understand that really, when it comes down to it, right and wrong is defined by humanity - not by the US legal system. Maybe it’s too philosophical, but your actions actually are judged not just on legality, just as I’m judging the police not just on legality. E.g. you go cheat on your wife, I’ll judge you for it even though it’s not illegal.

With that being said, I believe the US legal system gets it mostly right, but my point is that when 50 cops resign from the Buffalo police department after cracking open the skull of a senior citizen because they were mad that they got “in trouble,” it’s not illegal. But it’s pathetic. And they are and should be judged for it.

Cheers, friend.

Edited July 23, 2020 by brawnie