I get what you're saying with precedent and such, and I do get the aspect of manufacturing consent for further state control, and even the optics of saying that living in a police state is bad while saying "well, while you're at it, how about you arrest that fascist over there?" But the thing is, I don't think precedent matters that much because they're going to find a pretext for whatever they want to do anyway, the consent-manufacturer is going brrrr even if we say arresting fascists is bad, and that kind of concern for optics is skirting too close to a toothless "when they go low we go high" philosophy for my taste. I do get where you're coming from though, and I'd be the first to agree that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is pretty dumb and can get you into a lot of trouble. I guess what I'm aiming for is more of a "the enemy of my enemy can be a useful tool at times" kind of approach. But what do I know?
Idk, it definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth and doesn't pass my gut check, but again idk if that is leftover lib brain or materialist philosophy or marxist political analysis. Probably a bit of everything.
I will not be participating in it, but this kind of stuff makes me wish for some sort of democratic centralist organization to vote with and see what the organization as a whole wants to do in this instance. There are good arguments either way here and what action is actually to be taken should come from an actual committee decision making process, as opposed to individuals online.
I get what you're saying with precedent and such, and I do get the aspect of manufacturing consent for further state control, and even the optics of saying that living in a police state is bad while saying "well, while you're at it, how about you arrest that fascist over there?" But the thing is, I don't think precedent matters that much because they're going to find a pretext for whatever they want to do anyway, the consent-manufacturer is going brrrr even if we say arresting fascists is bad, and that kind of concern for optics is skirting too close to a toothless "when they go low we go high" philosophy for my taste. I do get where you're coming from though, and I'd be the first to agree that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is pretty dumb and can get you into a lot of trouble. I guess what I'm aiming for is more of a "the enemy of my enemy can be a useful tool at times" kind of approach. But what do I know?
Idk, it definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth and doesn't pass my gut check, but again idk if that is leftover lib brain or materialist philosophy or marxist political analysis. Probably a bit of everything.
I will not be participating in it, but this kind of stuff makes me wish for some sort of democratic centralist organization to vote with and see what the organization as a whole wants to do in this instance. There are good arguments either way here and what action is actually to be taken should come from an actual committee decision making process, as opposed to individuals online.