They are practically the same fucking word, so yes, of course there is a relationship between them. Vigilance is an ideal process, while a vigilante is who carries out this process. Gee, I think I made a remark about this distinction a few minutes ago…
Why do you remove the context from my writing? I already explained that I was discussing the general scenario, and not these specific people.
I would tend to agree. But I disagree that federal land is not theirs. It is theirs, as much as it is anyone else’s. I also think it is ethically indefensible to not offer citizenship and legal recognition of the agency to the deer, but that is a matter for its own topic.
It’s a sharp departure from the way that other protests are characterized for the public.[quote=“nungesser, post:128, topic:71473”]
That’s because the other protests you mentioned aren’t actually armed terrorist encampments who are challenging people to try to defy them.
[/quote]
Do you think black or Islamic protesters doing basically what these are doing would be characterized for the public any differently from how these protesters are being characterized (and handled)?
It is probably because the comparison would be inapt at best, and would not be a strong argument in favor or agains any point: as a city block is very much unlilke a high desert wildlife refuge. Private proprty vs. federal property is another matter. And also, this protest is a sausage festival.
Of course not, but this thread is about happenings in the US.
And the US and its allies between them control most of the military spending on this planet. It is hardly symmetrical.
One is from french, the other from spanish, and while they are both ronmance languages, you’re falling into a semantic trap equating them. One is violent. So stahp.
It’s hard to say, because this situation is unique. If a group of armed black (or Muslim) protesters took over a national park meeting center in this part of Oregon, I’m guessing the local media would characterize it more as a violent protest than what we’re seeing, just based on the ‘middle of nowhere’ and rather racist attitudes that I’m told prevail there. But I think no matter what color their skin is, I think a big part of how hands-off the local police have been is due to the warning that any provocation will result in immediate violence. So they’re being super careful.
Their meanings are literally the same, but people use them with differing connotations. Military is an adjective which has been abused by omission, not unlike with “commercial advertisements”. A standing army is still a militia. Just like, by definition, even government or police can be vigilantes.
Anyway, I did explain what I think the relevant differences are.
I disagree. Like I said, I think government can be based upon procedures, or roles, but not both. What we are seeing here is the conflict between the two, where a procedure is valid - but only when certain people do it. Meaning, that it is role-based. The “do as I say, not as I do” mentality seems incompatible with democracy. If we optimise for functions instead, they work the same way regardless of who uses them.
Fine! I have other things I need to do now anyway.
Well, origins aside a Militia is a military force that’s put together by non-State actors…either the citizenry to supplement their military or a rebel or separatist group to oppose it.
If a rebel militia wins, they become the military. If the remnants of the prior military fight back, they are now a rebel militia.
It IS kind of a semantic thing when you get to what they mean. You can’t be a military without being under the purview of a recognized government, that’s basically it.
Yes, just like how “vigilante” doesn’t mean the same thing as “a person who works vigilantly to hold their government accountable,” which is what you just implied above. Similar words, very different connotations.
So, maybe somebody can help me with this. This is what I can piece together.
This father and son team of ((alleged) poachers) rangers(?) set fire to public lands because they were too lazy to more manually clean up after their crime of (alleged) poaching, served time, and are now being asked to serve more. So C.Bundy’s sons think this is the start of the revolution?
Did I get that right?
As you freely swap between constitutional, international, historical, and actual definitions of militia, I’ll be over here pointing out that these guys would be well regulated if we fed them ex-lax, and under no other circumstancs.
vigilance and vigilantism are very different. Coming from the same root is semantic quibbling in this case - one is an abstract noun meaning to be watchful; the other is a modern formation meaning to appoint oneself to identify, seek out and apprehend or otherwise deal with purported criminals and outlaws.
As a similar example, it so happens that the word omnibus and the word bus have the same origin, but one means “for all” and the other is an example of nouning an adjective, so that a common carrier vehicle is defined by its clientele, not its physical nature.
“military” and “militia” are closely related - the British army was derived from the county militias.
Or “terrible” and “terrific”. Or “circumference” and “circumstance”.
I’ll say one thing, when I woke up today I never expected to see someone argue that sharing a root between two words makes those words interchangeable.
And you don’t think that if this action were being carried out by black or Islamic protesters the national media would be all over it like flies on shit?
Wow. Your apparent refusal to see white privilege in this situation would be amazing, were it not so sadly common.
