Seriously the moderation and flagging policy on this site has reached truly disgusting levels. "Just let me build the dystopia for Silicon Valley freak billionaires and collect my pathetic $180K pittance in peace!"
I'm building a social media product myself and I saw your comment here. So I wanted to reach out and ask if you'd be up to talk about how moderation could be improved online. My contact data is in my bio!
You make a great point and if you really think about it, it’s probably true no matter your political leanings. The federal government may be too powerful, as an institution.
It’s a pretty common tactic among authoritarians, and abusers in general, to provoke violence and then claim the resulting self defense as an unwarranted attack.
Once again, I'd like to see how supporters of the current administration, and states rights advocates generally, square this type of behavior.
I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero, especially compared to, say, the Vietnam anti-war movement, or even the BLM protests in 2020.
There is no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, and the only logical reason for this sort of action is to consolidate federal control over the military, and prepare them to suppress dissent against Trump, especially around election season.
> I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero
“The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?
I mean that there are no "riots" or other unrest that would require the government to send in the National Guard, and that claiming otherwise is a pretext.
It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describes a recruitment and training drive that sounds like it should take 3-12 months to complete.
If you do believe (as your post suggests) that an armed response to crowd control might be appropriate in the event of another Vietnam or another BLM, surely the right time to start preparing for that is now?
I do think you're right to be concerned about militarisation, but "there isn't enough civil unrest to justify this right now" is hardly the right objection.
The point I was making about "enough civil unrest" is that the administration is trying to use it as an excuse to deploy the military in ways they want. It's cover for their true purposes.
I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I believe there's a legitimate argument in demonstrating that the administration is contributing to circumstances that would lead to this exact response.
Putting the military into a peace-time law enforcement role is asking for trouble, as we've seen in the past. There's a reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists. Allowing the administration to declare "Insurrection!" (and effectively bypass Posse Comitatus) whenever it wants is awful precedent.
Readit News
Deleted Comment
I'm building a social media product myself and I saw your comment here. So I wanted to reach out and ask if you'd be up to talk about how moderation could be improved online. My contact data is in my bio!
Dead Comment
In a smoke-filled room somewhere, a radio crackles to life. "We've got one who can see!"
It’s a pretty common tactic among authoritarians, and abusers in general, to provoke violence and then claim the resulting self defense as an unwarranted attack.
Dead Comment
I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero, especially compared to, say, the Vietnam anti-war movement, or even the BLM protests in 2020.
There is no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, and the only logical reason for this sort of action is to consolidate federal control over the military, and prepare them to suppress dissent against Trump, especially around election season.
“The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?
It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describes a recruitment and training drive that sounds like it should take 3-12 months to complete.
If you do believe (as your post suggests) that an armed response to crowd control might be appropriate in the event of another Vietnam or another BLM, surely the right time to start preparing for that is now?
I do think you're right to be concerned about militarisation, but "there isn't enough civil unrest to justify this right now" is hardly the right objection.
I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.
What if, and hear me out here, we just didn't do that?
I can envision these exact same sentiments coming from the national guard, ICE, CBP, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Guardsmen...
Putting the military into a peace-time law enforcement role is asking for trouble, as we've seen in the past. There's a reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists. Allowing the administration to declare "Insurrection!" (and effectively bypass Posse Comitatus) whenever it wants is awful precedent.