[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.

[scoopdewoop]

A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith.

My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

[scoopdewoop]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of?

I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality.

I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her

[zaphar]

There are plenty of people in poverty who do not put themselves in a postion to have a government put guns in their face. It is not poverty by and large that causes a government to put guns in their face in America. Poverty may at times be used as a justification for the actual reason that a gun was put in their face but it is not in fact the reason. Neither is it in the general case a good justification either.

[scoopdewoop]

What are you talking about? Literally, what?

Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later.

What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detained until proven innocent. What did they do to put themselves in that position? Was I wrong to say its poverty?

Or do you mean they should have been rural poor? Or white and poor? What was their trespass?

I'm not talking about "by and large", I'm not talking about "may at times". These are real lives of citizens with "inalienable rights"

If you think state sanctioned violence is permissible, tell it to Nuremberg

[zaphar]

I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look for them.

Chicago as a group has positioned itself as welcoming to immigrants here illegally and antagonistic to finding and taking the appropriate legal action regarding people who aren't following the rules.

This wasn't caused by poverty. This was caused by the combination of Chicago's political position putting them in conflict with ICE regarding the immigrants who don't follow the rules.

If you want to prevent this sort of thing blaming it on poverty is concentrating on the wrong problem. The political climate in Chicago and Nationally is a much more useful place to put your focus on fixing.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago?

Friend. You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears. In the meantime, detained is not arrested. Based on your overall posture, I must assume that you know this. Hell, cop can detain you during a traffic stop if they so choose. How is it any different for a building full of people?

You are upset, but it is not entirely clear to me why. In a sense, those inalienable rights were preserved if the above is understood, which means you are upset over something else.

Can you focus on what that something else is? I am not egging you on. I am trying to understand your world model.

edit:

Separately, I spent some quality time with the article you cited and, I wonder if you would like to have an opportunity to reconsider your stance:

"Four U.S. citizen children were taken from their parents during the raid because the parents lacked legal status, DHS said, alleging that one of the parents was a Tren de Aragua member."

Sadly, this is the reality made by the permissive policies US has had. Does it suck? Yeah, but those kids wouldn't have been citizens if those people did not enter US illegally. Everything here stems from multiple cascading bad decisions. We are at a point, where public sympathy for this is.. low.

[ehaliewicz2]

Damn, so you can just choose to not have guns pointed in your face? Regardless of where you live?

Everyone who has had a gun pointed in their face must have been really stupid then.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

You can. The people in that story could too. All they had to do is not be there. They were there illegally. It took effort and multiple decisions to get them there. So yes friend. It genuinely is a choice.

[worik]

> My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

There you are blaming the victims.

That is not cool

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Hmm. You actually raise an interesting issue. What is, in your mind, cool?

[worik]

Blame the perpetrators.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Interesting. Perpetrators suggests a crime. Separately, it suggests that you believe there is a known cause and a source of the malady.

- If true, who, do you believe, the perpetrators are ( be as specific as you think you can be )?

- If true, what do you believe the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )?

- If true, who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators?

[wat10000]

Yeah. State-sanctioned violence is a fuckton scarier.

Do you think state-sanctioned violence can't be described as "political violence" or that it can't be used to murder political opponents? If so, may I introduce you to most of history?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I think, and I would like to think it was covered in civics, that state sanctioned violence is one of the few types that society allows for practical reasons. What I personally think the problem in this conversation is oddly simple: severe conflation of various related issues.

You may be well-intentioned, but you are not exactly convincing me to 'your side'.

[wat10000]

Political violence performed by random civilians and political violence performed by the state are not exactly the same thing, but both are very bad, and the latter is much worse. If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens (blatantly false, but even if we grant it) then saying the right is currently doing political violence by the state is a perfectly response even if they are not exactly the same thing.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens

It is not. The argument is: this is not political violence. If it is, then technically every single traffic stop is(edit: and the whole definition falls apart, because if everything is political violence then nothing really is --- as in: it is not a useful marker for anything ). We can go over specifics of this action if you really want, but:

1. This was not ICE ( so default boogeyman is missing ) 2. Information is missing ( so by default we have conflicting narratives floating )

The entire conversation borders on pointless.

[wat10000]

That was the original argument. "it's only the left that does that." Where "that" was "political violence."

I don't understand what you mean by "if it is, then technically every single traffic stop is." What logical process requires us to go from "mass arrests of innocent children is political violence by the state" to "every traffic stop is political violence by the state"?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Yeah, I am done. Good luck in your echo chamber.