It would likely mean that I’d want to party with the second group.
If you can judge Nazis based upon their ideology if they take no actions - not sure you can’t judge others who takes no actions based upon theirs. Which isn’t to say that you can take an action if they don’t - but you can sure a hell have an opinion about them.
This describes every “libertarian” I’ve ever talked to. They advocate not paying taxes, but they’re stumped at the “city services” question (you put out your garbage cans…)
Easy for me to see a difference since I fall into one camp and not the other. I want to be left alone. I’ll do what society mandates to live as peacefully and quietly as I can. The last thing I’m going to do is label myself as some kind of stand alone rebel against the State. That makes people pay attention to you. I’d rather pay my taxes and be left alone than not pay my taxes and have to try to defend that logically.
What he did was against the law, by not providing information to the police in a routine traffic stop. The police could have easily used other methods to remove him from the car though. I’m sure they could have asked him to place his hands on the wheel while they removed him from the vehicle. Two wrongs don’t make a right. That’s childhood math.
Your mistake is assigning the actions of a few as the ideology of the group. Let’s use Nazi’s for the example. Nazi’s beleive in racial supremacy as a pillar of their ideology. If you identify as a Nazi, you identify with racial supremacy. So, to pre-judge a Nazi as a racial supremacist is logical, moral, and correct.
However, if the Nazi’s you encounter are the type who wear SS uniforms, you would be mistaken in saying Nazi’s are people who wear SS uniforms. You may even go on to look for SS uniforms among self identified Nazis due to a confirmation bias. You might then argue that most Nazi’s you see wear SS uniforms and begin to argue that your experience is not just anecdote and that you would choose to believe your own eyes and refute anyone who might argue that wearing SS uniforms is not something all Nazi’s do. I can speak further on anecdote being the anathema of reason if you like but for now I’ll let you figure it out.
Their beliefs are literally their character.
character noun
us /ˈkær·ək·tər/
character noun (QUALITY)
[ C/U ] the particular combination of things about a person or place, esp. things you cannot see, that make that person or place different from others:
It’s absolutely fine to judge people on their beliefs. What else would you judge them on?
Their actions.
(To be clear, I’m with you all the way on this thread.)
Awful lot of dancing around victim blaming here.
Doesn’t matter what his political beliefs are- there was no call for that disgusting physical assault. Full stop, no qualifiers needed.
yeah, which is why I explicitly stated that in the first paragraph of my last reply. I’m really not sure how you missed it. Which brings us full circle back to this
By choosing to use the phrase “a large amount”, you have alluded to a plurality with no evidence of plurality. You have exhibited confirmation bias which paints the group in a negative light for which you have no evidence. Indeed, I have no evidence that the plurality are just harmless kooks either which I one reason I would refrain from making broad statements about them. When we, as a society, learn to stop employing this kind of baseless prejudice, we will all be in a better place. But in the end I’m just as guilty because I have a prejudice about people who push unsubstantiated narratives about entire groups of people. The confirmation bias I’ve found myself falling for is that they tend to be racist, bigoted, or prejudice in some way.
Compare to this story.
To be fair, the whole "appears to be a “sovereign citizen” type who refuses to screw the number plate on their car for arcane constitutional reasons. " was a description by Rob about what that type of person is like. He probably did have plates, as how else would you run the cars registration etc to have it come back with a CCW? They didn’t specify the reason for the stop, at least not on BB.
ETA - ok - i was wrong about that, and everyone, including the cops, were wrong about the CCW. See below post.
So they have a dog but not a tow truck or a Denver boot, for example? Either would have detained him until he was prepared to show ID. And having smashed the window, with guns pointing at him, why not just physically drag him out, or even beat him with a baton - and shoot him if he pulls a gun, which he’s hardly likely to do with the barrel of a gun feet from his face? Setting an attack dog on a physically compliant, non-fleeing member of the public is criminal assault, pure and simple. I hope he lawyers up and sues these assholes to hell and back.
ETA
Only to note that they are shepherds not shepards. Derivation: sheep-herd. Sorry, I’m that guy. Interesting to note that British sheep farmers typically use collies to actually herd sheep whereas European continental shephers used alsation alsatian types (German shepherds) more for protection of the sheep/to attack wolves who might prey on the herd. German shepherds are not herders, they are attackers - unless properly trained otherwise, of course.
True unjustified horror. AND hello sovereign citizen recruitment tool.
Something of note, the officers were asking for his identification, which is he has a legal obligation to provide, and politely argued with him for TWENTY MINUTES before resorting to force. I think he got the full value of his white privilege there.
You cannot say that they were wrong in using force to arrest him, either. arresting him was their duty at that point and force was going to be necessary to get him out of the car in any reasonable timeframe.
The real issue is the nature of the force used. If they were really afraid of a gun, endangering a dog doesn’t seem the best idea. I think that they called the K-9 unit believing that the treath would suffice, and then couldn’t think of anything else but going through with it.
I wonder, if they had just filled the car with pepper spray to force him out, would we be talking about this case at all?
I’m with you. I don’t agree with the general policy most states have of handing out conceal carry permits like candy at a parade, but if you’re going to give out the permit, make sure your police don’t treat it like open season on someone who is a permit holder. If the police can’t calmly handle an interaction with a CC permit holder, stop giving them out. Period.
We need to stop hiring fucking cowards to be our police.
I think it’s just that authority is an abstraction with no basis in reality. Authority as we know it originated with the divine right of kings, which convinced people to believe in authority for a while but once it became tough to sell the idea that “God” decreed that you should obey the king they had to come up with another excuse to justify their subjugation of others. Eventually we came up with something called “The Social Contract” to justify one person claiming power over others and many people still accept this idea. But can you honestly claim that the social contract has any reality? It’s a contract that you’re born into, can’t opt out of, and is only actually enforceable from one direction. It’s not a contract at all, it’s not even an accurate theoretical model for how “authority works”. The secret is that there is no such thing as authority, “Authority” is a byword for “Power” and all “Power” is, is the capacity to cause harm with little or no fear or reprisal. No person has the authority to force their will upon another person, even police, because authority cannot be claimed, granted, or relinquished, it’s imaginary. Sometimes I think sovereign citizens forget what makes cops so dangerous, sure, while “authority” is a convenient illusion "Power’ is real and they have it in spades.
Alsatians.
D’oh! I knew that and didn’t proof-read properly. Typing too fast with fingers not brain. Will correct.
I certainly can’t recall signing that shit, that’s for sure.
