The United States is a fascist police state, no longer a democracy

[Octavious]

My name is Jamie the T

The inner child found this very amusing

[Octavious]

But nowhere near as amusing as the inner child found this...

https://www.facebook.com/618885201/post ... 563945202/

[Jamiet99uk]

Laugh it up, Octavious. Laugh it up.

I understand you are laughing. Because you're winning. You and your nationalist, right-wing pals are winning. Hard-won rights are being eroded and racist, homophobic regimes and fronts are gaining power across Europe and the Western world. I am sure you are very happy about that.

[flash2015]

Laugh it up, Octavious. Laugh it up.

I understand you are laughing. Because you're winning. You and your nationalist, right-wing pals are winning. Hard-won rights are being eroded and racist, homophobic regimes and fronts are gaining power across Europe and the Western world. I am sure you are very happy about that.

Let's reevaluate in about 94 days from now. I don't know about you but I am ready to settle :

https://www.settleforbiden.org/

[Octavious]

Laugh it up, Octavious. Laugh it up.

I understand you are laughing. Because you're winning. You and your nationalist, right-wing pals are winning. Hard-won rights are being eroded and racist, homophobic regimes and fronts are gaining power across Europe and the Western world. I am sure you are very happy about that.

It's not often that you come across as stupid, Jamie. Ignorant and bigoted, increasingly so, but not stupid. And yet today you are managing it.

I am not a Trump supporter. If I was a Yank with the ability to vote in the US election I would not vote for Trump. I am not a fan of his domestic policies or his style. I do not believe he is the 2nd coming of Hitler, as you seem to, but that doesn't make me a fan.

That doesn't make me a Biden supporter either, of course. In the last election I would have held my nose and voted for Clinton, despite her many flaws, as she at least gave the impression she'd achieve something. Biden has yet to convince me he can achieve anything.

As for the rise of the extreme right in the EU, I would have thought that my posts attacking them would have given a small hint about where I stand. Just because I see antifa and the BLM leadership as the extremist thugs they are, doesn't mean I'm desperate to join the National Front.

This is not a fight between too opposing sides for the future of the West. This is a fight by the centre against a resurgence of the lunatic fringe. A fringe that it increasingly appears you're a member of.

[orathaic]

'BLM thugs' - it is not thuggishness to stand up for yourself when the state discriminates against you.

@Octavious, do you agree that violence is only justifiable in self defence?

[Octavious]

As I am never sure what your definition of violence is I doubt it is possible to answer your question. Come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure about your definition of self defense either.

[orathaic]

OK Octavious, you object to violence from protesters, but approve of it from the state. What justifies one but not the other?

[Octavious]

Again, you're going to need to define violence before I engage in this argument. The left at various times expands their definition to include rudeness or even being quiet, so it makes sense to underline what definition of violence you're using this week before I respond.

[orathaic]

You are the one who criticised specific examples you had in mind of protester violence. I presume property damage, vandalism, perhaps resisting arrest, throwing rocks at law enforcement.

On the other side there are specific examples, pushing a man who then hit his head on the ground. Shooting people with tear gas canisters and I suspect rubber bullets.

I'm not trying to trap you here. Specific acts of physical violence have occurred, this is not in dispute. You don't seem interested in an honest discussion.

[Octavious]

Very well, we shall take violence to have its traditional meaning without any of the left wing gobshite additions.

No, I do not agree that violence is only justifiable in self defence.

In terms of what justifies violence, it is the consensus of society. Different societies have achieved different consensuses (consensi?) across the globe, but they are broadly similar in that they tend to give the greater weight of the responsibility to use violence to the national institutions that serve them rather than the individual, although there is a range of circumstances in which individual violence is permitted. This is all arbitered by the legal system.

The violence from the state we have witnessed overwhelmingly falls within this consensus, whereas the violence from the protesters tends to fall outside it. The state is acting on our behalf with the powers we have given them. The protesters are acting on their own agenda using whatever actions they see fit and with little regard to anyone else.

[orathaic]

See, I would entirely disagree. Violence by the state can be justified if it is in self-defence (or defence of others, I'm just fed up writing this additional bit).

The common justification for police violence is that they are trying to prevent other people from coming to harm. That is why there has been some concensus around the use of violence by the state.

But you admit societies come to some concensus. How do you think that happens? What do you think happens when consent is withdrawn? When the concensus changes?

This is precisely what these protests are about. BLM is about protecting Black Lives which are not being protected by the state.

I don't know what concensus means to you, but it is clear that these protesters have withdrawn their consent to the kind of policing their communities have faced. A new concensus is needs. It may be possible to reform policing, or produce community based solutions within individual cities and counties in the US. It is not possible to do that while the Federal Govt sends in troops* and attacks people.

Presuming you don't agree, let me ask you this.
At what point do you believe the state has overstepped itself? What limits do you think should be placed on state actors to prevent the situation devolving into civil strife?

*dressed and armed like military combatants. But without name tags or identifaction, so they can abuse their power without facing personal consequences.

[Octavious]

Every criminal withdraws their consent, ora. It's irrelevant. It is society at large provides consent. Individuals or small groups do not carry much weight. Violent left wing extremists, even less so.

Presuming you don't agree, let me ask you this.
At what point do you believe the state has overstepped itself? What limits do you think should be placed on state actors to prevent the situation devolving into civil strife?

My own personal line in the sand, you mean? I have no fixed line in mind. I don't think anyone has, nor is it reasonable or desirable to have one. But I do know that wherever that personal line in the sand happens to be, the UK is currently lightyears away from it.

[Randomizer]

The state oversteps itself when it breaks its own established rules for using force.

At least in the US military forces can't be used against civilians without a pre-existing state of emergency.

It varies with local jurisdiction, but police forces have rules on what they can do and most of the complaints are that the rules were knowingly violated:
Choke holds can be used, but how they are applied and for how long are regulated.
Rubber bullets can be used as a non-lethal, but they are fired at the same velocity as regular ammunition so they are supposed to be aimed at the ground to bounce at their targets to lessen the impact. The current lawsuits are that officers fired directly at the victims' heads causing skull fractures and hitting eyes.
Other lawsuits are attacking lawful peaceful 1st Amendment protests with force and in the Lafayette Trump photo op the order to disperse wasn't heard beyond 20 feet.

[Octavious]

See, I would entirely disagree. Violence by the state can be justified if it is in self-defence (or defence of others, I'm just fed up writing this additional bit).

It's quite an important addition though. It expands what you consider acceptable circumstances for violence massively. Of course you are simply outlining a case in which state violence is acceptable (I agree) without specifying where it isn't. You also haven't, unless I've missed it somewhere, stated the circumstances where you consider violence by the citizen to be acceptable.

[Randomizer]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/leaked-audio ... 45504.html

Police can claim legal and justified actions as long as they can find a lawyer to issue a legal opinion, not law or a legal case, in their support. This is what Bush did in using torture on terrorism suspects and why Trump listens to the bush lawyer that gave that opinion.