• booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why are you bootlicking? The US government doesn’t define common English words and their usage, and it’s very weird that you seem to think that the fact that they have control over the land means that they are incapable of committing violence against people. What the government goons I am describing did to me were acts of state-sanctioned violence in which I was taken under threat of physical harm to a location I did not want to go to and held against my will despite having done absolutely nothing to deserve violence being inflicted upon me. People with fucking souls call that abduction/kidnapping, where is your soul?

      • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Consistency is when you can’t call an act of violence what it is if it’s cops committing the act of violence

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Are you an anarchist? I’m not. Like every AES state, I think it’s possible to have justifiable government actions. Governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, so yeah, a cop making a legal arrest is not the same as me hitting a stranger over the head and stuffing them in a van.

          • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s not hitting a stranger over the head and stuffing them in a van. It’s “an arrest.” You can’t call it hitting a stranger over the head and stuffing them in a van, because of who’s doing it.

              • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                This isn’t a theory discussion, it’s a fucking linguistics discussion. You’re insisting that the word “abduction” refers only to a legal term, which it does not. Obviously it does not. Idk what more to say.