The military->domestic abuse->divorce->family court->terrorism pipeline is quite strong, as evidenced in LV and NOLA this week. Rather than larping in your "local militia" while being slowly but surely radicalized, consider professional help. Everyone can benefit from some therapy.

People need to socialize with other humans that understand them. Therapy can be great and necessary, but it's not sufficient.

Unfortunately the spin cycle has anyone, including a lot of HN, believing that all militia members are the most violent and evil people living in the world.

Ironic given I reserve that title for ISIS who seems to have just recently radicalized another person to run over a bunch of people in New Orleans.

I have no particular love for these militias, but I’m not ignorant enough to believe the stuff media goes about parroting.

ISIS is a militia, you're not making any sense.

Since when was ISIS an American militia? It seems you didn't read the post. My comment makes perfect sense in the context of the article.

> Since when was ISIS an American militia?

Luckily that was never asserted.

The reference to "militias" in my comment referenced American militias, just like the topic of the posted article. I don't understand how to make sense of the comment claiming that ISIS is a militia as if that somehow makes my comment illogical. I wasn't talking about all militias, just like the article wasn't.

> all militia members are the most violent and evil people living in the world.

That's a strawperson. It doesn't have to be all. Groups that call themselves 'militias', arm and train themselves, plan violence, and sometimes perpetuate it. It's reasonable for the public to be concerned about them.

We'll never agree on this because I'm sure you disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are.

If that's true, your accusation makes sense.

What an interesting way to talk to someone, especially someone you don't know: Tell them what they think and denounce it.

You don't even need the other person; you can have these conversations by yourself. Or if you need to feel like you're socializing with someone, just tell me what to post and I'll post it for you.

Here: 'I disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are.' Now you can respond!

Where did I denounce it? I attempted to make sense of your accusation in an otherwise asynchronous communication platform. If my assumption was wrong, go ahead and correct it.

You don't get to make baseless accusations against people and require them to entertain you with a response. They are not guilty of everything you can make up until they prove themselves innocent of each one. If you are going to accuse someone, you need to prove it - it's up to you. Otherwise, don't say it.

An far better approach is, ask; be curious. People have wildly different ideas than you. Here you cut all that off and reduce the world to the narrow range of what you can think of, and the even narrower range your expectations. The great advantage of talking to others is they have different ideas totally outside and independent of yours.

Baseless accusations are not ok, even if they are commonplace on social media. They are morally wrong. Bearing false witness is a sin. I don't want to be accused, to have this put on me; nobody does.

> require them to entertain you with a response

It's hard to take you seriously when you're doing the same thing that you're labeling as morally wrong. It's the internet, and we're anonymous for the most part, I have absolutely zero expectations of you.

But yeah, that's how a conversation goes. You made a claim (that was wrong), I have told you it's wrong now, and thus the conversation goes. Trying to assert your form of communication is morally superior is quite an interesting take, but to each their own.

Anyways, as I predicted, we'll be at an impasse here, because apparently my communication method is far too immoral for your tastes.

I didn't make that claim, you made it up. I have no problem saying that is morally inferior, a lie, and factually wrong.

> I have absolutely zero expectations of you.

You wrote: "I'm sure you disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are." That's an expectation.

Thanks for sharing your perspective; HN really needs it; I could really benefit from it.

> The majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system.

I can believe that and really I expect it. The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down.

How do you reconcile that with the militia group members that are planning and plotting and acting to burn things down? The most visible example was the January 6 attack, but of course there are plenty more.

Are they just segregated into different groups? Are there a few around but you think of them as ineffectual cranks? Do the groups, in this way, have different circles: the hard core, maybe another layer, and the people who like to hang out?

The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down, but some movements do try to burn things down. People just there to socialize sometimes find they supported something awful and turned a blind eye, when they should have done something or at least walked away. A genuine question: With everything happening, doesn't that cross your mind?

> The majority of "militia members" are ... middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system.

Cite? I mean, really, what?

As a vet, get some help bro and stop hanging around the militia losers.

> majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system

Are you discussing assassinating politicians with your militia members? Did any of them march on the Capitol? If not, you’re not comparable to AP3. (If so, um, call a lawyer and a psychiatrist.)

I was involved with a local militia for several years. The stuff that I've seen there has firmly convinced me of two things. First, those people are political and religious extremists that fantasize of violence against their perceived enemies and are basically waiting for an excuse and a leader to realize it. And second, if and when they do, many cops will look the other way (and some will be among their ranks).

> Don't be like the author, instead be a man, use Linux and join your local militia.

This makes so little sense as to border on unhingery.