> edit: and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). if you cant even manage that, what are you doing here?

Is this irony? You literally just posted about arguments from vocal minorities on HN and other social media driving people away.

In the immortal words of the elder Elaine Benice: it means whatever you want it to mean. What I want is for someone to respond to my message as opposed to a lazy button press. But I dream.

You say socially approved catch phrases and yet people are being shot in my city by federal agents, and I carry a passport knowing that it will do me no good if they decide to crack my head in. When do words have meanings that connect to reality for you personally?

Thank you. This is more reasonable way of phrasing this. That said, it is almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Is it acceptable for you if I simply do not engage or am I obligated to offer a personal value statement as if I were an embassy representative?

I am not making fun of you. I treat words very seriously. I also treat them seriously enough to not direct every conversation to my pet cause ( whatever it may be ).

You can ignore or whatever, but the framing of this as a vitriolic outburst from people instead of what should be an obvious call to action for their countrymen is the problem, when you choose not to engage you effectively endorse the outcome of totalitarianism.

May I suggest that what may appear obvious to you, is anything but obvious to others? May I suggest that other people may not share your values, your priorities, your constraints, or your willingness to engage. Just from those alone, you should be able to gather that telling people something is obvious is not the most endearing way to capture their attention. You might capture it, but not in the way you might imagine.

And all this is before we even to get to the meaty part as to whether the people you are trying to convince are convinced something is a problem. So far, all I really see is posture and hand-wringing.

You wanna say something? Say it.

People are being shot that are interfering with said federal agents. Absolute excessive use of force but it’s stupid to present this as if there isn’t an easy way to avoid it.

Ah yes, lick the boot even harder and then maybe you will get some respite. This version of events you present has no connection with reality.

My dude.. have you considered the possibility that some people on this very forum have voted for this actual very thing you are complaining about? I am not even passing judgment, but merely stating a fact. If anything, your comment shows severe disconnect from the societal mood.

Making me laugh here.

How would you not consider that fact? Do you think I don't know there's plenty of people who think of HN as a nazi bar? Do you think the hacker ethos is to consider the "societal mood"?

Im talking about what has been reported. Who has been shot that wasn’t resisting/interfering?

> and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ).

Sure. You can guess the "camp", but so what? Must we all use value-neutral language when discussing an issue? I take issue with centrism for centrism's sake. If your goal is to take two points of view and treat them as equals then that grants a systemic advantage to whoever has the more insane view. By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Fuck centrism. Believe in something, you coward.

<< Believe in something, you coward.

:D I appreciate it. I truly do. I am somewhat aghast that someone would suggest that centrism, as a whole, is a not, in itself, a belief system. If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). On the other hand, it really are those pesky zealot believers that are causing all that ruckus..

<< By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities.

Oh man. Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.

> If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ).

What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?

> Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.

Sure. My principles are that those with power must be held to higher, not lower, standards of conduct and accountability. When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness. Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.

The "liberal" media has their version of events, largely blaming "insufficient training." The killers had 10+ years of experience in their roles. When interviewing administration officials reporters refuse to call them liars or question their motivations, instead suggesting that they are simply mistaken.

And of course the official right-wing line is that the murdered civilians were extremist terrorists who attacked law enforcement officers and deserved what they got. Full-throated endorsement of street executions. Where is your centrism? What is the center between these two positions? I align myself more with the former because it's at least not totally deranged. I'm not a partisan because I don't think the Democrats or media agree with my values, but I'm also not going to equivocate between them and Republicans and act like I'm stranded in the middle of two positions. The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.

*: (or was it CBP? They all blend together all of a sudden)

Interesting.

<< What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?

Any? All? None? Everything in between? The question itself is rather faulty, which prompted me to respond the way I did. There is a reason for it too beyond pure rhetoric: centrists overlap with US independents so their goals are not as easily labeled ( I suppose ).

Maybe I am approaching it the wrong way.

What do you think each side of US American politics are defined by what principle now?

<< Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.

See.. it is almost as if you did not read my opening paragraph. Statement like that by itself is not exactly conducive to dialogue. I normally would not care, but I note it as we are attempting to have a conversation. Statement like that undermines it for a simple person like me.

<< Where is your centrism?

Oh boy.

<< What is the center between these two positions?

In the middle?

<< When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness.

I can give you Pretti. Despite some previous engagements suggesting he was not just 'some rando, who was at the wrong time at the wrong place', his death was less defensible in the context than Good's ( she actually did swipe that officer.. ). We can argue all day over intentions and whatnot, but that is basically where middle ground lies: in taking each thing as its own case. But we will not do any of that, will we.

<< The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.

Color me intrigued. What is the answer?