merc @ merc @sh.itjust.works

Posts

16

Comments

4,188

Joined

2 yr. ago

Funding a foreign assassination attempt will only unite all of the right-of-center and take away some of support of "centrist"/"conservative" democrats.

If it's done in full seriousness, sure. But, the left can play the same game the right does. "Haha, it's a joke, I just donated $10 to the kill Trump GoFundMe, isn't that hilarious! What's wrong, MAGA? Triggered? What snowflakes! Relax, it isn't real, it's just a joke. OR IS IT!? Haha, only joking, you thought I was serious. You MAGAs just can't take a joke!"

Yeah man, they're completely nuts!

I've been thinking about these agents, and what it all means.

In Ontario, Canada, the law about police identifying themselves is really straightforward:

13. (1) A police officer shall not deliberately conceal any of the following information that is part of their uniform or is otherwise required to be displayed:

1. The officer’s name.

2. The officer’s badge number.

3. The name of the officer’s police service.

(2) While acting in the course of their duties, a police officer shall, upon request, provide their name, badge number and the name of their police service to any member of the public in a manner reasonable in the circumstances that allows the member of the public to identify the officer, unless the officer has reason to believe that doing so would undermine the safety of an individual.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r23407

In France "Police officers must clearly display their identification number badge". In Germany "you have the right to ask for the police officer's identity card and to write down their details"

But, apparently in California the rules are a lot weaker:

“Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.” But, this allows for them to wear a badge or nameplate, and then wear something over top of it, or obscuring it. In addition "Neither California nor federal law explicitly mandates that officers must identify themselves." I mean, that's pretty fucked up to begin with.

I can understand that because doxxing is relatively easy, a criminal might find out a cop's home address if the officer has to give their full name on request. So, maybe in 2025 an officer giving out their full name might be a legitimate problem, especially if they have an unusual name. But, how can you expect to have a reasonable society if police don't need to provide any identification on request?

The very concept of badge numbers is about trusting cops. Badge Numbers come from Collar Numbers, used on the collars of Metropolitan Police in London. Robert Peel introduced those in the 1860s to increase accountability and gain public trust. Those original numbers were short and easy to read, just 3 numbers, and being on the collars of the uniform they were very easy to see at all times. So, even someone almost illiterate might be able to use them when filing a complaint. In the modern world, badge numbers seem like the perfect compromise between the public's right to know if someone is a legitimate cop, and to have a permanent ID for them, and the officer's right to avoid having their family put in danger by being doxxed.

It seems like there's some effort in California to make police identify themselves, the No Secret Police Act prevents cops from covering their faces, and requires that they be identifiable by their uniform. IMO it should also require that they verbally identify themselves if asked. If a cop is say, kneeling on a guy's chest, you might not be able to see their name / badge number.

As for the "Secret Police", it really seems ICE is 90% of the way there. Wikipedia defines it as:

Secret police (or political police) are police, intelligence, or security agencies that engage in covert operations against a government's political, ideological, or social opponents and dissidents... They protect the political power of a dictator or regime and often operate outside the law to repress dissidents and weaken political opposition, frequently using violence. They may enjoy legal sanction to hold and charge suspects without ever identifying their organization.

When Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched in Boston by a guy in a sweatshirt, tossed into an unmarked van and driven away, look how many elements of "Secret Police" that checked off right there:

• Covert Operation: check. They were not wearing uniforms and didn't use a police car
• Repress dissidents and weaken political opposition: check. She was legally here on a student visa, and had done nothing more than exercise her free speech rights, but she said something that went against what the government likes, so she was snatched.
• Operate outside the law: check. She had not broken any laws. She was legally in the US on a student visa. The only thing she had done was say pro-Palestinian things, which falls squarely in the free speech category.
• Legal sanction to hold and charge suspects without ever identifying their organization: half check? In this case they did pull out badges and lanyards after they grabbed her, but before they threw her in an unmarked van. For a full check they'd have to have never identified themselves at all.

The only parts of the Secret Police definition that the ICE agents haven't yet fully checked is going completely without ID of any kind, and the direct use of violence. Although there has been violence associated with their arrests, they've used excessive force, and a lot of the detention facilities seem to involve low-intensity torture, that's not quite the normal "secret police" trick of jumping out of a van and beating the shit out of somebody then driving off, or grabbing someone, hauling them off to a torture site, pulling out their fingernails, then dumping them somewhere, etc. But hey, it has only been 6 months so, who knows what's next.

If the US survives the next 3.5 years, it really seems like a nationwide policing reform is necessary, on top of everything else. They should really start with Peelian Principles that are designed to have an ethical police force so that you can have "policing by consent".

But, until then, drive them out of those jobs. They do not have the public's consent. It doesn't matter if they're "just following orders". When those orders are illegitimate, that means that they are not legitimate figures of authority, they're illegitimately using violence, and can expect just about anything including violence in return.

When should they have stopped?

IMO if someone hasn't even been charged with a crime, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. This isn't even "innocent until proven guilty", it's just "not assumed to be guilty before even charged".

Can you imagine the chaos if it was widely known you could stop a club from playing a player just because the police were investigating? Gangs would make a fortune by placing bets against a team / player then arranging for an associate to make an accusation. Even if the charges were later dropped for a complete lack of evidence, the gang makes their profit in the window while it's uncertain.

If you're going to draw a line in the sand, where do you draw it? If you draw it at a conviction, that's reasonable. I don't think anybody would expect that a player who's convicted of a crime should still get their full wages, and get to play if they're appealing or if they're on probation or something. But, maybe you want to be even more harsh, so you draw the line at being charged. That's a bit unfair, what happens if they're found not guilty? Or what if the prosecutors drop the case before it goes to trial? You could give them back pay, but that won't restore their reputation, and sufficient time without playing could destroy their careers. But, it wouldn't affect too many people because it's not common that players are charged. So, maybe that's not completely unreasonable.

But, to me, treating a player who hasn't even been charged differently from other players is taking it too far. Players are high profile targets, so they probably face a lot more attempts to get at their money than most other people.

But... why?

Gyokeres absolutely tears it up in the Portuguese league and comes in for £60m, which apparently Arsenal are still trying to negotiate down. But Arsenal are willing to pay Chelsea £52m for a player Chelsea doesn't even want? The English Tax explains some of it, but even though he's English he doesn't even count as homegrown.

If this were an end-of-the-window thing and all the other players we were after had already been signed, or we'd missed out on them and had to settle, then I could see it. But, that seems like a lot of money for a player who, if he's behind Saka, won't even be a starter. If they're buying him as a left winger, why buy a right winger to play on the left?

If they are buying him to play on the left, does that mean that they're not going to sign Eze? He's actually a left winger, he's actually better than the current starters, and would only cost an extra £20m?

Maybe if you're hoping to win the CL, you need to be buying £50m players who won't start. But, wouldn't it be smarter to buy a £70m who will start (and counts as home grown) and then have someone like Martinelli as the backup?

The fact he's from Chelsea doesn't really bother me, except that it means that Arsenal are helping Chelsea to meet their FFP obligations... not that those actually seem to matter.

No matter what happens in the future, it's going to be a Canadian going to Arsenal that broke the £1m barrier, so it will go down in history. I like it.

From Mr. Lovenstein whose website unfortunately doesn't seem to work, except to redirect you to Meta-owned socials. Ugh.

Also, Hitler didn't invent racism or antisemitism. His agenda didn't die with him not because he was such a powerful figure, but because he was harnessing prejudices that have existed before apes even started to walk upright.

You can get thrown in a concentration camp because your skin's too dark and you weren't carrying your ID, even if you're a US citizen.

That's one of the side effects about tossing out the rule of law. If merely protesting or having a certain meme on your phone is dangerous, then might as well go all in.

My best guess is that he's actually a hardcore MAGA grifter, but part of that is being an attention whore, so he's happy to put out tweets where people dunk on him as long as it results in more attention.

It's not just over the top, a lot of it appears to be engagement bait where he sets himself up for people to dunk on him. Check out some of the tweets I've posted in this discussion.

Maybe he is both serious about being a MAGA acolyte, but also playing an over-the-top character that gets him more attention, even if it's just so people dunk on him.

Confoederatio futura. It's like Confoederatio helvetica but for the futura font.

So, it's propping up US interests to help Syrians avoid hunger? Why is it that you think I care about US interests anyhow?

He didn't say he "rides" the motorcycle, that's just how he sits on a Harley. He sits on it as if someone else owns it and he asked if he could have his picture taken with it.

Pop it in your calendars? Maybe I'm using calendars wrong, but mine aren't filled with things I should avoid doing. But, I'm willing to learn. What date should I put "Don't Buy Subnautica 2" on?

Seeing the underwater world was so much fun. I got it to play in VR and only did that a couple of times, but I completed the original and Below Zero because the exploration and underwater scenes were just so good.

Restaurant chain Hooters goes bust and files for bankruptcy protection