Those are likely the same people who want to unconsensually force Flock and other mass surveillance on people. Most well socially adjusted people greatly appreciate those protections.
Please engage in good faith and write comments that contribute, rather than taking away, from the conversation. [ the above comment was modified to copy mine; this is not good faith ]
To be clear, you think someone being loud in a public meeting deserves to be violently dragged from the room because you're offended by it? What other speech do you find violent removal worthy?
Edit: I was shadow banned for my comments in this thread. You have been warned - no dissent against Flock (YC17) allowed.
Maybe you should direct this comment towards the person I responded to and their litany of comments, because this applies far more there. I am far less concerned about hand wringing over being slightly impolite to people advocating for violent violation of people protesting the police state.
Edit: this comment officially got me shadow banned and I can no longer comment. The irony and hypocrisy is off the charts. Don't offend the mods or their friends, people. Only they are allowed to get "emotional" and advocate for violence.
The person you're replying to are making factual comments based on experience.
You are not; you are working from emotion, and interpreting the article in an unrealistic way.
Just trying to gauge what your experience is with law enforcement. You seem interested in having a facts based conversation so I think it's important to understand where you're coming from first.
Do you think all forms of civil disobedience are worthy of arrest? Asking genuinely.
My experience with law enforcement is limited to getting a ticket for using the commuter lane.
The question you're asking is a subtle one. To the extent I can make an absolute statment, it's likely many forms of civil disobedience are not worthy of arrest, but the person being disobedient has to expect the possibility of being arrested anyway (and then possibly getitng a day in court). Note in this case the individual was charged with disrupting the peace, given a ticket, and released- more or less what I'd expect to happen in a case like this.
I have spoken at public meetings. It was all routine. I signed up, spoke about the topic of interest, kept within the time limit, and was polite. It was also ineffective.
I don't think the individual who was arrested thought they would be arrested. From how I read the article, they were just confused about whether they could speak about the topic they wanted to speak about in that part of the meeting, and then, when things got heated, immediately went to giviing people the finger. It's not really surprising- these events can get very heated and people's instincts take over. I think if she had an indication she was going to be arrested, she likely would have waited until the topic came up in a future meeting.
BTW, from the nature of your questions and my experience on the internet, you may be trying to lay a trap where you use my words to show a logical contradiction (or you could just be asking questions in good faith- hard to tell on the internet these days). If that's your goal, please wrap up, I don't want to sit here answering questions about my beliefs.
Not setting up a trap, I'm just genuinely interested in where you're coming from because, frankly, I don't get it. Sorry you've had bad experiences on the internet and thanks for your patience.
Why do you think your public comment was ineffective?
City Councils are business meetings. They typically follow an agenda, and have rules and sometimes there are court cases around people speaking at city council. My fundamental attitude is that if you want to contribute to a city council meeting without being arrested, you cannot assume your free speech rights trump all the other rules and practices being followed. In this case, the individual who was arrested violated a rule. The council acted within its rights (subject to any future court cases); personally I think it was a bit overhanded, but if they hadn't acted, the meeting would very likely have devolved into chaos.
My beliefs are based on standard social studies courses about US civic society combined with watching the Berkeley City Council meeting repeatedly get disrupted by individuals.
For the comment- it was ineffective because it failed to convince the council to vote the way I wanted (and this was so long ago that I can't even remember the topic.). Here's an article from my hometown describing somebody else who was more disruptive:
https://www.courant.com/2000/05/16/city-watchdog-sydney-libb.... """City officials used to complain that arresting Libby mattered little because the judicial system seemed not to take him seriously. That changed in April 1997 when an exasperated Superior Court judge, tired of Libby’s courtroom behavior, threw him in jail and ordered Libby to undergo a mental competency exam.""" (we had several other people who would routinely disrupt as well)
What I'm not really understanding is why "a bit overhanded" is a small throwaway point. Speaking from Chicago where we have very notorious public speakers at city council and it's one of those that's-just-what-happens things.
I've also done a fair amount of research/reporting on criminal courts where the idea of arresting someone for giving the middle finger to city council absolutely fucking floors me. So a lot of my questions are oriented around trying to understand why getting arrested is such a (seemingly) small deal.
- Do you think Springfield could have handled the situation better without arresting her?
I was going to say that she wasn't arrested for giving the mayor the middle finger, but I re-read the entire article (which has been updated since this was originally posted) and the citation does in fact say "disrupting the peace... gave mayor the finger". Well, that was dumb (on the part of the cop who wrote that).
I get forced to use it While using CarPlay. I don't particularly want it, though, considering it still regularly fails at basic tasks like adding the currently playing song to a playlist.
Agreed. I hate the fact that going in public requires accepting that you can be filmed by anyone and broadcast to the world without your consent, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.
If you go back 15 years or so, you hear the exact same "concerns" about gay people pretty much word for word. Now that they're no longer an acceptable target for most people, they've moved on to regurgitating the same baseless fear mongering but targeted towards trans people. If society manages to progress further, they'll eventually come up with another group to serve as the "other" that they can blame everything on.
This is a ridiculous and incoherent belief. Ensuring children have enough food to survive isn't making life "too comfortable". Letting millions of children starve and/or never get an education because you don't like the vibes of it is sociopathic and is what will actually break society. We should not tolerate child abuse just because you think intervening makes society too soft.
I'm sure you wouldn't feel the same way if you were that starving child or grew up with imperfect parents or in an environment that had actual hardships. This lack of basic empathy and introspection can only occur from someone who has been completely isolated from much of the real world their entire life. You are not arguing against perfect being the enemy of good, you are arguing against having any sort of good in the world at all, and it's obviously coming from a place of extreme comfort and luxury.
There's no chance you'd be saying anything like this if you had ever experienced anything close to poverty and starvation. Ironically, it appears having an upbringing that is too comfortable is what causes these beliefs in the first place.
It's baffling how oblivious these people appear to be. I still can't tell if it's an act or not. If it is, what benefit do they get from playing dumb? If not, how did we let people who don't understand basic cause and effect or basic human emotion become in charge of the future of the world?
I thought his repeated use of the phrase "ordinary people" instead of something like "laypersons" was a little telling about how he views himself and the members of his industry. The opposite of ordinary is, of course, extraordinary.
> The opposite of ordinary is, of course, extraordinary.
Not just that: The ordinary is also the trivial, while the extraordinary is the relevant. In other words a dichotomy of who does not matter... and who does. And in the words of Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time".
The entire class of people see themselves as better and more deserving than you. They used to at least try to be subtle about it, but there's no real social downside of just going mask-off so they don't even hide it anymore.
I think there are social downsides, which is why they want mass surveillance and to avoid being confronted by the people who don't agree that they are our "betters".
I don't think they're oblivious, I think they're lying. Playing dumb/plausible deniability can give them enough wiggle room to execute plans that would otherwise be stopped before it's too late.
reply