In his decision, a judge agreed that the alleged white nationalists were being selectively prosecuted instead of 'far-left extremist groups, such as Antifa.'
Commenting again because I don’t want anyone looking at the modlog to draw an absolutely wrong conclusion (for apparently a second time): It looks like distinguishing between discussing the possibility that violence, vigilante and otherwise, might be the result of these kinds of decisions, and advocating the same–which neither I nor, best I can tell, anyone else here has done–is a level of nuance that may be too much to ask. So be it, but accusing me of advocating violence in a public forum is an accusation to which I’m afraid I must vehemently and publicly respond and deny.
“When people can no longer rely on the courts to adjudicate crime, they will adjudicate it themselves. The next agent who catches up with this nazi might decide it’s not worth the trouble to bring him back alive.” To be quite clear: I think this is a bad thing, because I’m an officer of the courts of this country, and vigilantism should be avoided at all costs just because guillotines don’t have good judgment, if for no other reason. But it may be a result all the same, and hushing those who whisper of its spectre, even with the best of intentions, will not prevent it.
Remove this one as well, and let of it a record be. [And mods, if you don’t want the modlog discussed, add that to the rules.]
It’s pretty sad that your comments were removed, as discussing the logical conclusion of these situations is important.
We can’t simply plug our ears and ignore the very real dangers of the justice system failing to punish people (whether justified or not). When people determine they have no other recourse, political violence is the logical conclusion of such a situation.
It’s a terrible thing that there is a real chance for political violence to become mainstream, and simply ignoring that possibility is more dangerous than addressing it openly.
I didn’t see the removed comments but I wanted to mention something.
There’s a difference between “addressing it openly” and fetishizing violence. One says: “this may happen” or “this did happen”. The other says “check this out, think about it more often like I do!”.
I think we have all seen news articles that do one or the other. It’s relatively easy to tell the difference by the words or tone used. You’re not being slick if you pretend to do the first while actually doing the second.
Commenting again because I don’t want anyone looking at the modlog to draw an absolutely wrong conclusion (for apparently a second time): It looks like distinguishing between discussing the possibility that violence, vigilante and otherwise, might be the result of these kinds of decisions, and advocating the same–which neither I nor, best I can tell, anyone else here has done–is a level of nuance that may be too much to ask. So be it, but accusing me of advocating violence in a public forum is an accusation to which I’m afraid I must vehemently and publicly respond and deny.
“When people can no longer rely on the courts to adjudicate crime, they will adjudicate it themselves. The next agent who catches up with this nazi might decide it’s not worth the trouble to bring him back alive.” To be quite clear: I think this is a bad thing, because I’m an officer of the courts of this country, and vigilantism should be avoided at all costs just because guillotines don’t have good judgment, if for no other reason. But it may be a result all the same, and hushing those who whisper of its spectre, even with the best of intentions, will not prevent it.
Remove this one as well, and let of it a record be. [And mods, if you don’t want the modlog discussed, add that to the rules.]
It’s pretty sad that your comments were removed, as discussing the logical conclusion of these situations is important.
We can’t simply plug our ears and ignore the very real dangers of the justice system failing to punish people (whether justified or not). When people determine they have no other recourse, political violence is the logical conclusion of such a situation.
It’s a terrible thing that there is a real chance for political violence to become mainstream, and simply ignoring that possibility is more dangerous than addressing it openly.
I didn’t see the removed comments but I wanted to mention something.
There’s a difference between “addressing it openly” and fetishizing violence. One says: “this may happen” or “this did happen”. The other says “check this out, think about it more often like I do!”.
I think we have all seen news articles that do one or the other. It’s relatively easy to tell the difference by the words or tone used. You’re not being slick if you pretend to do the first while actually doing the second.