[Nahtnah]

No I don't really agree, I don't see everything from two sides, and notice I said: 'asymmetries of the 'two sides' in your hypothetical', i.e. it was the two sides from the other guy's hypothetical, not mine.

The sides are a construct largely pushed by media, and somewhat by people in power as a convenient device for keeping power. But Q-Anon and all that shit - the rich eat babies, etc. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwdkng6ZGp8) - isn't a side for me, it's an illness, and it makes sense that the FBI wants to monitor it. I'm for it.

[everforward]

Agreed that there aren't only two viewpoints, but there's only two that really matter, due to the construct that you mentioned.

> it makes sense that the FBI wants to monitor it. I'm for it.

I still think this is short sighted. E.g. the FBI in it's early days was heavily involved in monitoring and trying to break up the Civil Rights Movement. They were spying on people protesting the Vietnam War, people in the Women's Rights Movement, the list goes on.

When we let the FBI do dragnet surveillance, it doesn't stop at people with outlandish opinions. It has, and will continue to, impact important political groups and ideologies.

Honestly, from the history, it's far more likely to impact liberal groups than conservative ones. The only real controversy around the FBI and conservatives that I can think of is Ruby Ridge, which was more of a libertarian/anarchist thing than anything else.

[Nahtnah]

Agreed, it's not optimal. I've been thinking about this alot lately actually, I think there's always going to be friction of this sort. You could argue it exists at all levels, for example when fighting infections your body often damages/kills it's own cells. Ofc. you can die from an overactive/badly tuned immune system, but more often, people die from not having a strong enough one! But we're not cells, are we.