I Vent While Making Some Hopefully Broader Points

I have discussed issues online for a long time. I still get upset when I think people make bad arguments, especially those who we have some reason to expect more from. I know the drill. I have that "Someone Is Wrong On The Internet" comic on my wall near my desk. I inked in "not a role model" or thereabouts. 

I don't think I'm going to change. Some lawyer who has spent a lot of time breaking down the law regarding Trump annoyed me. 

I went back to see if my comment had a reply. The whole reply was a link to some FAQ on criminal law and a "maybe this will help" comment. My comment was long and had various aspects, including disagreement with the person's citation of a commentator.* 

The link was non-responsive and implied I'm some idiot who is not aware of the criminal law. The reply pissed me off. I should have just ignored it. 

Not my style. For instance, my comment was in part in reply to someone arguing we should just let the system run its course until Trump is incarcerated. My comment in part suggested that is not guaranteed. It's something we need to factor in. I did not mean that suddenly we should just assume guilt. I would have clarified if the person didn't patronize me. 

Another person was upset that multiple defendants noting Trump incited them was not enough for a gag order. A respectful response to pushing back would ask if the person would accept the understanding more evidence that their claims were sound was necessary.

Okay. Instead, the person replied suggesting his approach would result in justice worse than Stalin's Russia. By chance, I just wrote something about the history of Ukraine during Stalin's control. 

Suffice it to say, the comment is f-ing asinine even granting the approach would result in injustices. This was again not some rando. The person was an expert who we have some warrant to expect more from.

Relatedly, we have Mark Meadows, who recent news brought to light received immunity from Jack Smith for testimony. He's the sort who won't testify (or will play somewhat coy) while writing bullshit books about the situation. 

The Slate summary shows how full of shit this guy is. He thinks he is above it all, not like trolls like Rudy or Sidney Powell. He's just one of the "serious people" who had to deal with Trump. These are the sorts who are particularly troublesome and horrible.

They are cynical bastards. And, they do get away with it all enough for their cynical assurances to be rather sensible. 

Meanwhile, people talk about Trump as if this whole thing is some sort of First Amendment f-ing thought experiment. 

---

* The person speaks here on recent anti-semitism. I respect the person. But, citing him as some calm and collective source that is a special snowflake of rationality is a bit much. 

He repeatedly has spoken in very strong terms against the Supreme Court, whose rulings he repeatedly disagreed with, including when arguing the case. How a link to a criminal law FAQ is responsive to my take here is unclear.

A reply to his comment includes this comment:

An oft-repeated mantra among some is that Israel is a settler colonialist country and should be forced to give the land back to the Palestinians. I have no idea how it would be determined who is rightly entitled to what land, but I do know that calling for the total elimination of Israel is antisemitic.

I reckon maybe a law professor could have "some" idea here, including how territory that under international law is supposed to be temporarily occupied should not have permanent settlers who make a two-state solution basically impossible. A fair reply is to note, perhaps, especially since in this fashion it very well is a "settler colonialist" country. 

I don't think a "total elimination of Israel" is very likely though I would like to know what that entails. Some argue we could not actually have a "one-state" solution where Palestinians simply are given an equal role country as a whole. They could outnumber the Jews. "Israel" would be eliminated.

How many protesters with any real power are truly asking for the "total elimination" of Israel? That is, in this country. I'm almost inclined to say other places too though I assume some in the Middle East would not mind. The land they want to be returned is the occupied territories. At least, that is likely the median position of even some of these vitriolic comments.

I am not trying to handwave things. See also here. I'm just trying to come at this in a more even-handed way.