Anonymous #1 5d

Quite frankly, I am waiting for the government to arrest more of these individuals. Thousands participate in these riots and violent terrorist demonstrations, as such thousands should be arrested. The sooner the better

-4

Anonymous #1 5d

Was the Boston tea party peaceful dipshit? Is being in proximity to those not being peaceful a crime? Is standing on the side of the road wearing a zebra costume violent and terroristic? Holy fuck, suck some more dick Tory.

5

Anonymous #1 5d

Soon enough you will be the one in the crosshairs of the government, and you will cry and whine, but no one will come to save you. As many say, be careful what you wish for.

8

Anonymous OP 5d

And when did the tea party take place? Prior to or after 1788? Participation in a violent gathering is at the very least problematic if not expressly criminal. Furthermore appending “suck some more dick…” to your reply hardly did anything for you

-5

Anonymous OP 5d

No actually, I won’t. I do not subscribe to this ridiculous application of the “slippery slope” argument. I will not shy away from demanding law and order because you happen to believe I will be next. - even if it were the case that is where the “slope” leads, as far as I am concerned the situation would be hopeless regardless. So what would it matter?

-1

Anonymous #1 5d

Did you read the article at all? Why are you asking these questions?

5

Anonymous #2 5d

“Not charged with any crime” actually does nothing to address my argument, thought it may surprise you. My former questions are all valid

0

Anonymous #2 5d

Furthermore, substack articles? Really?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

“Furthermore ☝️🤓” I love when dumb people try to sound smart. The Boston tea party took place prior to 1788, and is one of the milestones in the formation of the great country we now know as the United States of America. Are you saying you don’t find the Boston tea party patriotic, and would’ve supported the British crown? I sense we have a lobsterback in our midst. If you launch fireworks in the Fourth of July, make sure you sing your praises to the British Empire.

2

Anonymous #1 5d

From the horse’s mouth lil’ redcoat.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

The author used to work for The Intercept, which is a reputable outlet

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Do feel free to demonstrate how, 1. I am attempting to sound smart (if furthermore comes across that way to you, then believe me I am not the problem here) And 2. The events of the Tea Party in anyway affect my argument about the first amendment not protecting violent demonstrations Furthermore I do not find the tea party patriotic? Quite the non-sequitur

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Ok, now kindly demonstrate the relevance

1

Anonymous #1 5d

So you’re literally saying you’ll let things get bad enough to the point that no one can do anything about it. Holy fucking bootlicker, you are a textbook coward.

1

Anonymous OP 5d

You would have to demonstrate how in anyway things are getting “bad”, trending towards the dystopia you envision. Furthermore, another non-sequitur, really? Do you have any intention of actually contending with my position?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

I’m trying to sound smart by cussing and calling you names? By all means, consider me the problem then bud. And about the tea party… no? You do not find it patriotic? I mean what else is there to say? What about it is not patriotic? Standing up to an authoritarian who means to subvert the means of democracy and the opinion of the people? Guess that’s to extreme for this lobsterback. You’d rather be told what is best for you, and follow it.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Let’s back up a bit. It’s not a violation of the first amendment yet. But it’s meant to make an example and intimidate other protesters. By and large, I think most people across the political spectrum can agree that NSPM-7 resembles the Patriot Act, and we know how that worked for constitutional freedoms that we thought were well-respected. We know how it’s still in effect, almost 25 years after 9/11. And that even underwent congressional review and approval. This, on the other hand, has not.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

You are willing to sacrifice the right to freedoms of speech and dissatisfaction with the government in the name of not being distributed while driving in the street. You are willing to give up your liberty in the name of removing people who are dissatisfied with the government in the name of temporary peace and security. Honestly, if you don’t get it there’s no other way to explain it.

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Are you arguing with someone else? This is beyond mere non-sequiturs, you aren’t even arguing the same thing

1

Anonymous #2 5d

So we should allow violence terrorist demonstrations to continue because you believe in some “slippery slope”? If that is the case would it not be wise to stop these demonstrations from now, lest you give the government an event which they can use to spearhead more controlling legislation? Your argument does not follow even within your own framework - furthermore it took you far to long to concede the original point of contention

0

Anonymous OP 5d

There is nothing to understand, you have already conceded that no first amendment violations have occurred, thereby annihilating the entirety of your argument

0

Anonymous #2 5d

Exactly. 9/10 people you’d ask today who actually know about the patriot act in the modern day would say “fuck that shit”. The patriot act piggybacked on biological/psychological shock people had after 9/11, and wasn’t resisted due to the severe shock people had due to an attack from a foreign organization (that is, if you’re not aligned with largely right-wing conspiracy theorists who think Bush did it).

3

Anonymous #1 5d

I never said we should allow violent terrorist demonstrations or anything about a slippery slope. What kind of strawman argument is this?

1

Anonymous OP 5d

There is no “right-wing” conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job. If you are going attribute everything you find objectionable to the “right-wing” then I will be well within my rights to dispense with the entirety of your position due to your lack of ability to debate in a manner not disingenuous

1

Anonymous #1 5d

You’re right. It’s not a conspiracy. Bush did do 9/11

1

Anonymous #2 5d

The slippery slope is evident from your argument. “Yet” implies, in the context you had used it, a negative progression You also asserted future government action as if it invariably follows. That is a slippery slope fallacy by the book

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Using a screenshot of a different conversation bro? Really? I’m OP in this conversation, not #1. You think I’m that stupid?

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Quite frankly I wasn’t paying attention and thought I was arguing against the same person 😓

0

Anonymous #1 5d

Bootlicker

1

Anonymous #1 5d

I used “yet” to mean it has not reached that point at the current time, with no indication of how I felt it would continue in the future. It’s not a slippery slope fallacy, because that implies that I was making a fallacious argument. I’m specifically arguing that that the probability a -> b -> c is significant. I showed historical precedent for these intermediate steps. That’s a slippery slope *argument* but it’s not fallacious

1

Anonymous #2 5d

No indication…in that sentence. But I indicated it later in my argument

1

Anonymous #2 5d

If you want to argue it was a slippery slope *fallacy*, you bear the burden of proving that the probability of that chain of events is trivial.

1

Anonymous #3 5d

Ok, do keep in mind that nothing I said loses its veracity because you chose to insult me

1

Anonymous #2 5d

So you are conceding that you made reference to a slippery slope. If so what was the strawman?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

I didn’t concede anything. You accused me of a fallacy when there was no such thing. Most notably, there was no loss of control by the agent (the government), which is often considered a requirement of the slippery slope fallacy. The strawman was that you asked “so we should allow violence [sic] terrorist demonstrations because you believe in some ‘slippery slope’” while I never argued that we should allow that in the first place.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Quite so. Your argument relies upon the presupposition that what the government is doing is fundamentally bad. Furthermore upon the assumption that the executive requires congressional approval or is acting outside the bounds of its authority. (It would have to, otherwise there can be no decay into a worse outcome) Your 9/11 reference only holds true if we referring back to my position, that allowing these violent demonstrations to continue “could” lead to legitimizing certain federal action

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Rather than of course, the act of stoping the demonstrations

1

Anonymous #2 5d

It could be the case that I wasn’t arguing to the right person, as op has pointed out, I was arguing as if you two were one and the same. My folly.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Yes lol. I argue that it is bad and also beyond the bounds of its authority. Thank you for understanding.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Then make that argument. Why would I accept such a presupposition it as if it were some axiomatic notion?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

It was implied. My apologies for not being specific. NSPM-7 is scant of many citations of legal basis. The use of counterterrorism tools to combat domestic threats is not authorized by Congress, and the fact that the same needed to be authorized for foreign threats potentially indicates the necessity for congressional approval for domestic threats. There is also no framework for designating domestic organizations as terrorist organizations. Statutes such as 50 USC 1702 specifically refer to…

1

Anonymous #2 5d

…foreign entities or people

1

Anonymous #2 5d

I do recall the executive branch having the authority to step in where local governments fail. Furthermore it would be in line with 13224. Furthermore in so far as these groups (antifa) have foreign support, funding, or assets, the designation is very much valid.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Cite the basis for the first sentence. Explain how EO 13224 is relevant for domestic people. And show where the government has demonstrated existence of anything you said in the last sentence

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Brother I know for damn sure you’re probably one of the people justifying January 6th while simultaneously talking about criminalizing these protestors as if they’re violent at a single digit percentage rate comparatively

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Terrorist designation is in line with EO 13224, Antifa has known branches and operations in foreign nations, and for the first sentence, look to national guard command structure

1

Anonymous #4 5d

I forgot Jan 6th ever happened, so no you are very wrong

1

Anonymous #1 5d

You did not explain how that EO covers domestic people. Try again. It’s not in line with it just because you say so.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

I mean do you agree that by your logic Jan 6th protestors were rightfully charged then?

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Domestic individuals designated as a foreign organization? Domestic people who are part of a foreign terrorist organization? What part is not understood. So according to your framing, as long as the foreign terrorist have some people in the confines of the USA, they aren’t terrorists anymore?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Well I hope you understand that the Trump admin declaring these people as a part of “antifa” is purely a political gambit. A way to justify cracking down on opposition. Sure, there *may* be some individuals involved with some super secret antifa organization network, but I can guarantee at least 6.99 of the 7 million people have no involvement whatsoever

2

Anonymous #4 5d

The Supreme Court disagrees with that actually. As for myself, in so far as anyone committed a crime and was properly charged for said crime in Jan 6th, I see no issue. How is this relevant though?

1

Anonymous #4 5d

Guarantee that how?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

I never said that. I’m asking how domestic individuals who appear to have never transacted with FTOs, or foreign entities at all, are now considered actionable under processes intended to counter foreign terrorism

1

Anonymous #4 5d

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, although nothing justifies it. I’m going to head out now. Have a blessed day

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Those individuals being whom?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

“Appear to” according to whom?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Individuals being the person in the article and persons charged with offenses related to terrorism by association with “antifa”. “Appears to” according to what the average reasonable person would deem, or what the government has shown or alleged

1

Anonymous #2 5d

I won’t even bother asking you to define under your framework “a reasonable person”. If the person participated in a violent demonstration, associated with Antifa, a FTO, that would mean he was working on behalf of a FTO. He is fair game in that case

1

Anonymous #1 5d

No need. It’s not defined under my framework. A “reasonable person” is a legal standard.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

In so far as your framework conforms with the law, it is

1

Anonymous #1 5d

You’re right, *it is* a legal standard. It’s in most common law systems. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s not my job to teach you about it

1

Anonymous #2 5d

What does that have to do with what I said. If your standard conforms with the law, then the legal standard is the standard underneath your framework. What could possibly be the confusion?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

I think you’re the one confused. Let me explain: one should be able to articulate the connection between an FTO and the domestic person, or the appearance of such a connection. The government should be able to readily articulate why they’ve investigated the domestic person. The decision to open an investigation cannot be arbitrary and capricious

1

Anonymous #5 5d

#1 has barely any understanding of the law in the first place too lmao

1