I don’t think they were prioritizing one group over the other
And you don't think it's weird that they don't prioritize ongoing race riots, arson and assaults over planned pacifist protestors?
Each single cop can't be in two places at once. Every cop occupied with arresting a pacifist is a cop not occupied with preventing arsonists from burning down a building.
As for disruptive protest not helping, have you looked at politics the past two decades? The general public loves disruptive protest.
Your original comment is passive-aggressive. You decry that people aren't doing their due dilligence but don't actually provide your perspective on the story or give any indication that you've put in any effort of your own. Unless you believe that legal definitions and jury trials are simply right, in which case, wow, you're such a leftist.
If you want to have a fact based conversation, it would be nice if you came with facts instead of just claiming they exist.
If you want to discuss about what kind of killing is worth calling murder, it would be nice if you explained your position.
Your original comment is incredibly passive-aggressive.
I put together this gif for a side-by-side comparison. The picture was taken from a slightly different location, so it's not perfect, but the difference is obvious.
Your mistake is seeing them as Democrat voters. Maybe if the Republicans had a brown candidate they would vote for them instead.
ASML is basically a strategic asset. Breaking them up to have a more level playing field inherently threatens the West's economic-political position. If ASML abused their position, it wouldn't be the regulators so much as the CIA that showed up to tell them to reconsider.
99.99999% of Americans are never affected by gun violence
34 Americans are affected by gun violence?
Dude, you blow through that budget with one particularly quiet afternoon in Detroit.
If things are stable at the current rate, 2.4% of Americans get killed or hospitalized by gunshots in their lifetime. Those affected includes everyone related to those people as well as everyone who is injured but not hospitalized and everyone who is merely physically coerced or intimidated by guns. And honestly it should even include those who are treated roughly by cops because those cops have to be emotionally and functionally ready to handle gun violence at all times, those who must severely change their lives to avoid the risk of gun violence, and those who live in justified fear without being directly personally affected.
A more realistic estimate would be that 75% of Americans are not deeply traumatized by gun violence, 30% of Americans don't suffer actively because of gun violence, and 1% of Americans don't spend their lives afraid of gun violence (including the toxic conservative bravado as pretty transparent "making yourself look intimidating to scare off the threat" behavior).
tl;dr: Peer pressure is a normal and healthy part of communication. You use it in this comment and it is baked into this website through the karma system. Using it for disagreement and not just conformity is important to keep groups attached to meaningful values. I don't think "What the fuck is wrong with you" is unfriending, and I think that sort of harsh peer pressure can be and was justified by its context. I think you're mistakenly arguing against peer pressure in general and absolute terms when your issue is specific and one of degrees.
Indeed it is a poor tool for determining whether the intended goals are worthy. That's what the entire rest of the comment that people have been systematically ignoring is for. Condemnation is the sledgehammer in a suite of construction tools, itself unable to tell whether it is in the right place doing the right thing, but justified (or not) by it context.
And, like I said, upvote karma is peer pressure. People can see at a glance how many people will see something and how many people agree with it in a way that becomes a self-fulfilling Keynesian Beauty Contest. If you truly believe peer pressure is wrong, then the lemmy architecture is fundamentally hostile to you. If an invective adds toxicity to the soil, then the soil here is full of lead already.
But the reason civil debate between neutral people has so little part in progress is because nobody is truly neutral, not because so few people choose to be civil. Marxism works well as a model for society because people are by nature hypocritical. Philosophy, culture, and social groups are a layer of topsoil, vegetation, and human structures covering the mountains of what we think benefits us personally over the course of our lives. Argumentation can redirect superficial flows, which occasionally allows for a key watershed moment where your way of life is redirected onto another plausible course, and that course over time changes the geography. Sometimes that redirection means taking a sledgehammer to a wall.
I agree that it is easy to cooperate with people when you only care about liking and trusting them. That's how you get social groups and movements that are entirely detached from reality, a bog of stagnant water. If you want a social group to have sensible, actionable beliefs rather than descend into circlejerk, you need the members of your group to be systematically willing to cause offense when it improves the group's ability to interact with the outside world. And for them to be systematically willing, you need to react positively to them doing so. Otherwise, over time, the detritus and resistance builds up in that channel and it clogs up, and the flow becomes stagnant or goes elsewhere.
When you ask me to choose people liking and trusting each other over processing disagreement, you are not opting out of peer pressure. You're simply using (soft) peer pressure to enforce group norms that are about cameraderie rather than beliefs.
I do not consider the application of peer pressure to be outside the scope of good faith argument, otherwise I would not be on this website with its karma system, I would not reply to you when you talk about whether or not people will like me, and in fact I would not be able to communicate with anyone. I don't feel like @solo is an enemy or an unfriend, just someone who needed a wake-up call.
I don't see saying "what the fuck is wrong with you" after someone says something horrendous as abusive. I would personally genuinely appreciate that kind of clarity if I said something that revealed a fucked up underlying attitude, when accompanied with a sensible explanation. It's an emotive way of saying that you're noticing something deeply wrong with someone's worldview, and opens up the talk in that context. And honestly, I doubt you or others on here are unfamiliar with that sort of usage and don't partake in good-faith invectives yourselves on occasion.
Honestly, I think that maybe y'all have talked yourselves into a corner arguing against peer pressure and invectives in general when you really only disagree with how (and whether) it was applied in this instance. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.
The thing is, I used constructive arguments to build up to the invective. If you just use an invective without context you're just yelling at people. But if you think using invectives/personal attacks is not justifiable, good job stooping to what you perceive to be my level, I guess?
Please answer honestly: did you watch the video before commenting?
Sounds like an set-up to ensure long-term dependency on natural gas mining, then.
Sorry, we built our infrastructure assuming 80% natural gas, so we just have to mine more natural gas to prevent people from losing their ability to cook food. You wouldn't want poor families to go hungry, would you?
I guess the main thing is that if you're going to argue for something very unpopular, rather than arguing for the sake of your opponent as they are today, argue for the sake of uncommitted onlookers and for the sake of the opponent a week from now after they've had time to calm down and reprocess. Respond to their arguments, of course, but do it in a way that illustrates to less polarized people that you've got a point, rather than trying to convince your opponent or finding specific errors in the opponent's reasoning/self-justification.
When an issue is as polarized as this, people very rarely switch sides publicly (unless they're shilling and they didn't hold the original position to begin with), but people can cringe from the side making bad arguments, quietly distancing themselves, and a few months or years later show up on a different side.
If you want that side to be your side, it's nice to present a pipeline that does that. People who cringe from bottom-of-the-barrel leftist discourse can fall into alt-right pipelines, which you presumably don't want, so ideally you would want to have examples of (leftist) influencers whose takes you find reasonable, ideally on the case itself. For example, LegalEagle ("it is plausible that the jury was right that murder under Wisconsin law was not proven beyond reasonable doubt").
The hate is not really avoidable except by forgoing this venue or not arguing your point, but like with the hate thrown towards peaceful climate activists, it is not a sign that you're doing a bad job.