Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost I don't think we can really conclude that his intent was to harm people. I mean, maybe it was, but we don't especially have any reason to think that.

Anyway the bottom line about the gun law thing is he didn't violate any laws, yes? (Did the friend buy the gun illegally for him or something? That would be a thing.) And he didn't travel far away to a place he isn't connected with.

But yeah: he brought a (highly visible) gun to a protest, no question there.

@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost I'm uneasy about untrained armed people guarding stores, or as you say "cossplay as an unwanted security guard". Especially minors. But these riots were pretty rough; no easy answers here. From what I understand I completely support these guys, for example: https://reason.com/2020/05/29/black-civilians-arm-themselves-to-protest-racial-violence-and-protect-black-owned-businesses/

@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost aside from the canard about him living far away not being true, apparently he also did not transport the gun across state lines at all. (If that even matters wrt any laws)

@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost turns out the canard about him traveling far away looking for trouble or whatever isn't really true; his father lived in/near Kenosha; it's his hometown.

@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost He has a much better case than that. Your point maybe remains, but it wasn't nearly that bad.

@argetlam99 @flexghost I think for many there are questions about the specific facts – was Rosenbaum really a threat and so on. There's self-defense, but that doesn't mean you get to gun down anyone that looks at you sideways – and it isn't always clear-cut.

I don't know if I've seen/heard all the evidence in this case, but it does seem to me like legitimate self defense in all three shootings. At least, I'm a little taken aback by people who talk about it as if it is *of course* murder; I mean, I could understand a different take on it, but ya gotta admit he was being attacked. (Kind of feels like it depends on what "side" you're on, if I'm being cynical.)

I used to think he should be punished for the other gun crimes like taking it across state lines, but it turns out he didn't do any of that at all. And his father lives in/near Kenosha; the canard about driving for 4 hours to some faraway town just to mix it up doesn't seem to hold up.

I'm uneasy about untrained people – especially minors – showing up with guns to defend other people's stores, but these riots were pretty rough. No great answers. I completely understand/support these guys protecting their businesses: https://reason.com/2020/05/29/black-civilians-arm-themselves-to-protest-racial-violence-and-protect-black-owned-businesses/

@flexghost @stevefoerster not just words?

@stevefoerster @flexghost Joseph Rosenbaum also threatened to kill him.

@morecowbell@mastodon.social Your characterization of those areas of Pakistan or Somalia I think is inaccurate and problematic. A lot of areas with no Western-style government that you can understand are being functionally governed nonetheless just fine by other forms of government.

@morecowbell@mastodon.social yep! But there's balance right? You could make up some pretty dystopian things in the name of preventing abuse, yes? So where is that balance? Privileged people who don't understand how the government could possibly abuse them, or people naturally comfortable with authoritarianism are going to want a different balance than other people, who are a little bit more wary of too much statist control.

Think about the RNC convention in 2016: it was all about setting aside your civil liberties so that we can keep you safe. Did you watch it? It totally had that vibe. Some people are comfortable with that: "the best government identifies and stops that crime" – this to me was where we really saw an uptick of authoritarianism in the Republican party.

@morecowbell@mastodon.social did I ever say taxation was tyranny? Why are you making up weird things and pretending I believe them?

@morecowbell@mastodon.social can you see the difference between a home preschool with a bunch of other people's kids versus just you with your kids?

Do I consider preschool inspections authoritarian? It's a spectrum, right? I've made it pretty clear elsewhere in this thread that I'm not an absolutist non-authoritarian or whatever weird thing you like to lump everyone in together with.

Look some people are totally comfortable with the government doing all kinds of things to keep them safe or whatever. Other people aren't, because it's expensive or they see where that kind of oversight can go wrong. It's pretty clear which kind of voter leads to more authoritarian governments.

Some particularly privileged people have no problem with inspections and that kind of thing: the more the merrier. Like Eric Schmidt said, why are you worried about surveillance if you weren't doing anything wrong. I think when you become more aware of how those kinds of things are abused or can lead to unintended consequences, you get a little bit more wary.

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @GottaLaff @emptywheel I guess that's a "no" about the cognitive dissonance?

Yeah like I said above maybe I'm using a different definition. Just looked it up in a dictionary, which perhaps isn't the best place for this conversation, and yeah, making it more difficult to choose the non-state-approved solution for educating your kids would certainly count.

I mean look, I'm not necessarily against building inspections and things like that, but I think home inspections to check up on your parenting is a bit too far?

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @GottaLaff @emptywheel on one hand, I'm encouraged that you think it's so bizarre that a politician would propose home inspections on homeschoolers that the only way I would conclude that a fire inspection regulation had to do with homeschool was incoherent paranoia. This says something good about you; don't get me wrong!

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @GottaLaff @emptywheel no, I don't wonder why I made that connection, because the person proposing the law made it very clear what the connection was. No need to wonder. (Do you wrestle with this cognitive dissonance now that you know that?)

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @GottaLaff @emptywheel no, I don't think The state should require mandatory inspections of parents parenting their children, regardless of what you call the inspectors.

I don't think it occurred to me to blame the government after I heard about the Turpins.

I can't follow the rest of what you're saying.

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @GottaLaff @emptywheel Medina made it clear that cracking down on homeschool was the goal. Some fire inspectors weren't too thrilled with being used to keep tabs on parenting techniques: “You are putting the fire inspectors out to look for social problems. That is not our role.”—Fresno Deputy Fire Chief Ted Semonious

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @GottaLaff @emptywheel does the fire department come inspect your smoke alarms in a residence regularly? Do you have to pay for that? Not in California.

@73rdNemesio @pdiff1 @GottaLaff “Rules for thee, not for me” – Sure, some people deserve that criticism (any pol or rich person who favors making it ~impossible to get a CCW and yet rolls around with armed bodyguards, etc, etc).

But there are some who are consistent at least – no "rules" enforced by a violent state actor. Both left and right, of course. Like you I don't see how that would work too well.

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @GottaLaff @emptywheel OK yeah the swearing fealty thing is weird, I'll give you that. No D's are doing that publicly that I know of. 😂

A lot of those questions are meaningless political rhetoric, but one of them reminds me of Jose Medina's (D-CA) AB 2756 requiring fire alarm inspections for schools, which would have made homeschooling harder. This was probably in reaction to the Turpin/Perris incident – you see, we can't trust you to take care of your kids without constant supervision, better to let us experts do it; let the state raise your kids. (Nevermind that they didn't do anything to prevent this problem when the Turpins went to public schools either, this patronizing philosophy is incredibly stupid.)

Again, though, as I replied to someone else, maybe this isn't what is meant by authoritarian? If not pardon me: yes, Ds are less likely to support R policies, and if you define those arbitrarily as "authoritarian" then right: Ds are a lot less likely to be "authoritarian". But even so, there are pro-life democrats and so on.