The government has always had it out for protestors, to the extent that they’ll try and use agents provocateur to escalate the situation. They don’t want people to protest, they just want people to life back and take it. C’mon, you seriously asking this?
The point I’m trying to make is that everyone is wearing a mask for the same reason: to prevent retribution for their beliefs and according actions.
They don’t “know what they’re doing is wrong”, they just know that other people think that and will target them for it, which is the exact same reason protestors wear them.
There’s a difference between wearing a mask because you are engaging in wrongdoing and wearing a mask to prevent unjust retaliation. Even if the actual motive is the same, the implications are very different
the government should always identify itself to the people
the people should, by default, not be identified by the government
the power imbalance is important: the government is a large and powerful entity which is meant to serve the people without prejudice. people are individually small, and only gain their power from being a large group. the government is given power by the people in order for it to perform tasks beneficial to all, and must be accountable to the people
Some beliefs require retribution. Some causes are righteous. Fuck off with your false equivalencies. Rioters aren’t employed by the people- law enforcement is.
Whether what you’ve done is entirely legal (or not) authoritariaism doesn’t care.
What is done in a free society is punished by small men with anger control issues.
What you may find reasonable to say in a free society, could, under a government opposed to free expression, land you in el Segundo - without your wallet.
The gestapo hide their faces because they know what they do is wrong, and to hide from justice.
People who protest or simply appreciate privacy do so because they understand the potential for retribution and being disappeared.
Cameras. They fucking hate body cameras. When it clears them of wrongdoing, they have the video ready. When they ‘accidentally’ shoot a guy nine times in the back of the head, video seems to be missing.
easily solvable problem: losing the footage is indication of guilt. you shoot someone, you better have it ready. it malfunctioned, better have a partner who has theirs ready. if no one has footage to clear you, it’s used as evidence of guilt.
I believe having lack of evidence being the evidence for a crime is problematic, but it sure is evidence enough that they aren’t fit for their job and they should immediately lose it. Everyone Including the supervisor who failed to run the team properly.
first of all it’s not lack of evidence, it is evidence itself. if the camera is not working that’s tampering with evidence and is a good indication of guilt.
second of all if you can have laws like felony murder you can sure as shit have this. if you commit a felony (like a robbery), don’t hurt anyone, and a cop murders a random person in response because they’re trigger happy pigs, you can be held responsible for the murder as if you committed it yourself.
my suggestion is far more reasonable compared to that: if you kill someone you better have evidence that it wasn’t foul play, because guess what, that’s what everyone needs to do. we don’t just allow people to kill and go free, and cops shouldn’t be exempt.
Should be at least streamed to a server not controlled by the police, including things like charge levels so they can’t claim “oh whoops, it ran out of charge!”. A specific organisation within the judiciary, perhaps?
This way they’re gonna need to get far more creative in concealing video.
And if you’re found to do something that is concealing evidence, well that’s a crime by itself
Upvoted and agreed, not least because I just learned that “all of the sudden,” while at present a nonstandard variant of “all of a sudden,” has valid history.
And of course it doesn’t matter in this casual context!
But in formal writing, in this era, using “a” will avoid distracting the reader from your main point.
“of the sudden” (1570) actually predates “of a sudden” (Shakespeare) according to my OED as squinted at through the nifty magnifying glass. But it’s been considered obsolete for a long time despite having all of a sudden experienced a resurgence.
(Note, I modernized the spellings of “sudden” rather than try to switch focus back and forth)
Non-Anglo here.
Totally not distracted bcs my brain autocorrected it to “all of a sudden” without even noticing.
A bit like “It deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are”
Also never seen/heard the “the” variant. (Well consciously that is).
I get the impression that the cops are about to hate facial recognition all of the sudden, for no particular reason
There’s a reason ICE conceal their faces.
They know what they’re doing is wrong and don’t want to be held accountable if their fascist rule collapses.
So just use one too and blend in. Put on a stupid Trump or racist hat, and if you are not white, put on gloves. Then surround them.
So which cameras can be used to overcome normal face coverings? https://piped.video/watch?v=yRFeS72IM6M
Is that why the protestors wear them too?
Protestors or vandals and rioters?
The former: to prevent government persecution and unfair retaliation. The latter: yes.
Yes.
Why would they face persecution if they did nothing wrong!?
The government has always had it out for protestors, to the extent that they’ll try and use agents provocateur to escalate the situation. They don’t want people to protest, they just want people to life back and take it. C’mon, you seriously asking this?
The point I’m trying to make is that everyone is wearing a mask for the same reason: to prevent retribution for their beliefs and according actions.
They don’t “know what they’re doing is wrong”, they just know that other people think that and will target them for it, which is the exact same reason protestors wear them.
There’s a difference between wearing a mask because you are engaging in wrongdoing and wearing a mask to prevent unjust retaliation. Even if the actual motive is the same, the implications are very different
The only difference is what you consider to be “wrong” or “just”.
the government should always identify itself to the people
the people should, by default, not be identified by the government
the power imbalance is important: the government is a large and powerful entity which is meant to serve the people without prejudice. people are individually small, and only gain their power from being a large group. the government is given power by the people in order for it to perform tasks beneficial to all, and must be accountable to the people
Some beliefs require retribution. Some causes are righteous. Fuck off with your false equivalencies. Rioters aren’t employed by the people- law enforcement is.
Fuck you too buddy
Your point is moot.
For the people by the people or did you forget?
What do you think that phrase means? The gov just let’s people do whatever they want?
How is your flavor pallet after sucking so much leather?
Please post the entirety of your online history.
Surely there’s no reason to hide.
Whether what you’ve done is entirely legal (or not) authoritariaism doesn’t care.
What is done in a free society is punished by small men with anger control issues.
What you may find reasonable to say in a free society, could, under a government opposed to free expression, land you in el Segundo - without your wallet.
The gestapo hide their faces because they know what they do is wrong, and to hide from justice.
People who protest or simply appreciate privacy do so because they understand the potential for retribution and being disappeared.
…we’re talking about hiding though
That goes both ways. That was my entire point.
Who is in power again? The protesters are not making anyone disappear. Goodbye, troll.
You think individuals can’t be targeted because they’re “in power”? Why do you think they’re wearing them?
Cameras. They fucking hate body cameras. When it clears them of wrongdoing, they have the video ready. When they ‘accidentally’ shoot a guy nine times in the back of the head, video seems to be missing.
easily solvable problem: losing the footage is indication of guilt. you shoot someone, you better have it ready. it malfunctioned, better have a partner who has theirs ready. if no one has footage to clear you, it’s used as evidence of guilt.
of course pussy ass lawmakers will never do that.
I believe having lack of evidence being the evidence for a crime is problematic, but it sure is evidence enough that they aren’t fit for their job and they should immediately lose it. Everyone Including the supervisor who failed to run the team properly.
first of all it’s not lack of evidence, it is evidence itself. if the camera is not working that’s tampering with evidence and is a good indication of guilt.
second of all if you can have laws like felony murder you can sure as shit have this. if you commit a felony (like a robbery), don’t hurt anyone, and a cop murders a random person in response because they’re trigger happy pigs, you can be held responsible for the murder as if you committed it yourself.
my suggestion is far more reasonable compared to that: if you kill someone you better have evidence that it wasn’t foul play, because guess what, that’s what everyone needs to do. we don’t just allow people to kill and go free, and cops shouldn’t be exempt.
Should be at least streamed to a server not controlled by the police, including things like charge levels so they can’t claim “oh whoops, it ran out of charge!”. A specific organisation within the judiciary, perhaps?
This way they’re gonna need to get far more creative in concealing video.
And if you’re found to do something that is concealing evidence, well that’s a crime by itself
You misunderstand how the system works. They are all complicit.
Upvoted and agreed, not least because I just learned that “all of the sudden,” while at present a nonstandard variant of “all of a sudden,” has valid history.
And of course it doesn’t matter in this casual context!
But in formal writing, in this era, using “a” will avoid distracting the reader from your main point.
“All of the sudden” is only valid because it’s so commonly (incorrectly) used. Much as it annoys me, that’s just how language works.
“of the sudden” (1570) actually predates “of a sudden” (Shakespeare) according to my OED as squinted at through the nifty magnifying glass. But it’s been considered obsolete for a long time despite having all of a sudden experienced a resurgence.
(Note, I modernized the spellings of “sudden” rather than try to switch focus back and forth)
Can’t we just embrace adverbification and agree to write “suddenly”?
all of the suddenly?
Only if you allow the ignorant to remain uncorrected.
Erin: “All of the sudden, I was awake.”
Non-Anglo here.
Totally not distracted bcs my brain autocorrected it to “all of a sudden” without even noticing.
A bit like “It deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are”
Also never seen/heard the “the” variant. (Well consciously that is).
Does not have to be Before Christ.