Removed by mod

The comment in question was removed for celebrating and advocating violence, which violates lemmy.world Server Terms of Service

Is it not actually called the fed…averse…

There is a difference between background-level bulk sniffing and someone-here-maybe-incited-violence targeted sniffing. The former is data collection, which is passive in the form practiced by “the feds”. The latter is data connection, putting effort into connecting a subset of the data that has been collected to form a story. Data connections need a framing, a nucleation seed, an impetus for why the feds might think such a connection is interesting or relevant or worth adding to their story about a larger incident. Collecting data is cheap and done in bulk, partly because it can be done passively and partly because the US govt paid a lot of money on storage and collection mechanisms. Connecting data is something that requires a lot more time, effort, patience, and vetting to make sure you are doing it right.

Or you can give the job to generative AI and hope it doesn’t hallucinate that someone innocent is guilty; with a large enough data pool (ie the internet, reality, what-have-you) it’s possible to select a misleading subset to support whatever hallucination you want.

It’s easy to do wrong, which is exactly why you don’t want the feds sniffing around. Especially now that they have the tools to automate doing it wrong, and might not know how to use them yet.

This is funnier retrospectively because apparently this fucking dumbass wasn’t even using an optic. insanity

Let us take this as a reminder for everyone concerned with their own safety in a fascist state.

Guns wont do shit for you unless you regularly practice your marksmanship and keep your equipment in good condition.

A fascist exercised and practiced marksmanship today, did you, dear reader?

That’s when you say I will happily read their obituary

I don’t have any sympathy for him either, but that’s still not a reason to abandon my principles and start cheering for political violence

But these are vastly different situations. For the record, all three of these individuals used political violence to achieve political aims, that’s one of the reasons why history doesn’t remember them fondly. The constantly killed people they didn’t like under the justification that it’s for the greater good or self defense. Saddam Hussien did that when he genocided the Kurds in Iraq and the invasion Kuwait, Hitler did that with the Holocaust and the invasion of Europe, and Bin Laden did that with 9/11 and the other terrorist attacks he launched.

Keep in mind, we actually have a justice system in this country that actually works. If we want Trump to face justice it has to go through the justice where he faces trial and is found guilty based on evidence… which has already happened btw for one of his crimes. That’s how justice is handled in a civil democracy. We can’t have randos going on self righteous terrorism crusades killing political candidates they don’t like. If someone tried assassinate Biden, would you being say the same? Probably not, and rightfully so, but the terrorist who tried to kill would be making similar justifications to what you’re trying to make right now. The very idea is wrong.

Hitler committted suicide. Any insight in how the other executions actually improved the world?

free world

lmao

We didn’t join WWII because the Nazis were bad, we joined because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler declared war on the US.

technically two negatives multiplied does.

The ends don’t justify the means politics, that’s how you end up with terrorism, tyrannical governments, and atrocities. I’m all for bringing Trump to justice, but it has be done through civil and democratic means via the established criminal justice system. If Trump goes through trial and is found guilty, which has already happened for one of his crimes, then our criminal justice system will punish him accordingly. If the punishments aren’t deemed harsh enough then we reform our punitive laws. We can’t have self righteous assholes going on terrorism crusades assassinating political candidates they don’t like. That’s a sign of a failed state.

The reasonable conservatives have already jumped off ship a long time ago and are now mostly either apolitical, independent, disenfranchised Democrat, or still a minority Republican opposing Trump. The only ones left that support Trump are his cult, and they will never see reason. However, we can’t get rid them with violence. It’s like what America tried to do with the Taliban or Israel is trying to do now with Hamas or what Saudi Arabia has tried to do with the Houthis, you can’t use violence to get rid of ideologies. The way to get rid of ideologies is to make them irrelevant. This can happen either by defeating them in democratic elections or using their track records to delegitimatize them or ignoring them or providing better alternatives or whatever. Political violence will only fuel them, and that is something I don’t want to see.

When it’s used as a means to achieve power in a democracy. Normalizing violence is not okay in general, but especially during democratic elections, and this applies to everybody regardless of who does it.

If by rights you mean you human rights then normalized widespread violence tends to do that, that’s the whole reason why tyranny isn’t exactly good.

2016? It’s been since at least the 90s.

Everyone is forgetting Ron De Santis candidacy. Trump isn’t even gone yet and another guy already tried to rise to lead MAGA.

I fully know its pleasant to fantasize about easy solutions to difficult problems, but the world isn’t that simple.

People would still scream bloody conspiracy, “it wasn’t old age, he was poisoned!”

They’re still waving the Confederate flag. What makes you think bullets will kill this ideology in round 2?

Concentration camps? Do you actually believe that or have it based on anything?

The paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you don’t believe in the social contract.

Beliefs that violate the social contract deserve no protection under it.

Modern problems aren’t solved with blood but with marketing.

Tell that to the Ukrainians and the Palestinians. I know you want this to be the case, but you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

Your last point is actually not a bad analysis - but it is missing that the ones operating their propaganda and troll farms already also control the violence monopoly. And both entities also use violence where they deem it practical.

He said Monday’s decision — which gives presidents broad immunity from prosecution — is “vital” to ensure a president won’t have to “second guess, triple guess every decision they’re making in their official capacity.”

😬😬😬

Yeah, last thing I want is for the president to have to think through their decisions.

Removed by mod

While they await sentencing? If a judge allows it, obviously yes. People have lives and jobs, if they might not even get prison time it would be cruel to force them into all the downsides of prison time (lose your job, child care difficulties) and then let them go.

Trump would be more impacted by his inability to campaign, but we only have one justice system and I don’t want to betray my beliefs on how the justice system works just because I don’t like this guy’s politics.

But we did vote Trump out of office, and he left. That’s the difference between Republics and Monarchies.

True: confirmed information. False: unconfirmed information of a speculative nature. Do you see a specific issue you disagree with or are you just trying to argue?

Not really what I said at all. “Hey guys, don’t make stuff up, please rely on credible sources, and don’t advocate for violence”.

Or, in other words: follow the rules we’ve always had in place

Yeah but there’s also no evidence that this was anything other than a single person acting on their own. Most loan shooters are actually loners.

The issue is the volume of comments about this being faked entirely or a false flag.

You can’t use the English language in an openly misleading fashion and expect that people are going to go along with it, not in a situation like this. The expression “someone set this up” clearly implies the existence of a second person.

What made you think that another person is involved? Nothing. If we were to look at historical evidence, we would find that a lot of these situations are done by so-called lone wolf attackers. So if we’re going to blindly speculate, we should at least be consistent with historical evidence, and we should certainly speak unambiguously.