Noah
@ncallaway.bsky.social
680 followers 1.2K following 6.5K posts
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
ncallaway.bsky.social
It’s more of a “what is a fish” argument than “do tuna have gills” argument
ncallaway.bsky.social
But I’m not going inventing fake realities. For the most part we agree on the facts, we’re disagreeing over the semantic definitions and how to categorize those facts
ncallaway.bsky.social
When did I suggest you secretly knew I was right?
ncallaway.bsky.social
Right, I know that’s your view. But I also think that’s why I perceive a difference in what the OP posted and you don’t.
ncallaway.bsky.social
I think the erosion of the 4th amendment, and policies like the long “stop and frisk” policies of NYPD, and the lack of effective civil control over PDs creates a low grade police state (again, I know you disagree with that)
ncallaway.bsky.social
See, I think again, there are degrees to this and not a simple binary.

I know you don’t agree with that, but I think we can have a “low grade” police state, that’s still miles ahead of a totalitarian police state
ncallaway.bsky.social
Again, I wouldn’t use fascism to describe status quo America, but I would describe status quo policing as a police state (I know you disagree).

But the status quo in America is nothing like that of what the USSR was (or even what modern day Russia is though that is the model Trump wants to emulate)
ncallaway.bsky.social
Ah, so you’re just projecting the beliefs of others onto me, and then being upset because I’ve said some things vaguely similar to what those other people say.

Cool! Good basis for a conversation
ncallaway.bsky.social
The old USSR was a totalitarian and authoritarian state (far worse than anything we’ve seen in American; bar what Trump would like to install).

It’s collapse was an absolute net good for humanity
ncallaway.bsky.social
Why do you think I think nicely of the old USSR?
ncallaway.bsky.social
We’ve been talking for at most 10 minutes
ncallaway.bsky.social
I’m saying (again, I wouldn’t use the word fascism as the OP did) that Biden supported in a minor way a police state by expanding local police funding.

But I’m saying that’s significantly different than the backing the GOP has for a police state, which is much more federalized and fascist
ncallaway.bsky.social
Cool, you just can’t acknowledge that there can be differences in degree or depth. That’s fine.

Have a good evening!
ncallaway.bsky.social
"So, they can both be 'backing' it, but it's not *exactly* the same, because the degree of support and depth of support is wildly different."
ncallaway.bsky.social
So, Democrats could be backing it to a small degree (which they tend to do), while Republicans could be backing it to a large degree (which they are).

So, they can both be 'backing' it, but it's not *exactly* the same, because the degree of support and depth of support is wildly different.
ncallaway.bsky.social
I mean, I wouldn't use the word 'fascist' as the OP did, but the vast majority of centrist and mainstream democrats support and fund a police state.
ncallaway.bsky.social
Can you read the words I wrote where I said they literally aren't the same?
ncallaway.bsky.social
So, Democrats could be backing it to a small degree (which they tend to do), while Republicans could be backing it to a large degree (which they are).

So, they can both be 'backing' it, but it's not *exactly* the same, because the degree of support and depth of support is wildly different.
ncallaway.bsky.social
"Police state fascism is bigger than Republicans. It's backed by Democrats, just like Republicans." != "Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same"

First, there are other issues on which they are significantly different

Second, the backing of police state fascism is not just a binary attribute
ncallaway.bsky.social
Yea, but what’s the NYT supposed to do? Tell the facts and the truth without fear or favor?

Or just present both sides and stand back like the chickenshit cowards they are?
ncallaway.bsky.social
Yep, they scoured the laws and found this one weird trick for accomplishing what they want legally is definitely the good outcome.
ncallaway.bsky.social
As someone who *almost* doesn’t believe in DPI as a concept, that was DPI
ncallaway.bsky.social
Do I understand that this means TX NG are allowed to remain in IL, but must remain on a base while on duty?
ncallaway.bsky.social
Am I understanding right that this allows the TX NG to be physically in IL while the case is pending, but they have to remain on a base (while on duty)?
ncallaway.bsky.social
I know they can poison the federal case.

Can they also poison the state case?

It seems like if the consideration is causing prejudice in the jury, these comments would also prejudice the state jury pool too
ncallaway.bsky.social
If they do, certain people are likely to end up with criminal liability, *and* it totally undermines Johnson’s strategy of blocking the Dem appropriations for exactly this