mycodendral

It’s unreasonable to assume the FBI is doing anything but investigating crime without evidence. The man was voluntarily interviewed because his name came up in an investigation. Most interviewees are leads, not suspects. People are mistaking routine inquiries for persecution. Saying “we’re investigating the protest” is like saying “we’re investigating the football game.” It refers to related incidents, not the activity itself.

If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that.

‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews.

If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation.

Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification.

I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. You’ve taken my use of ‘adversarial’ to mean I believe the interviewee is personally being investigated or prosecuted for a crime. That’s not what that means.

My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself.

I’m never suggested the person interviewed is guilty or even a suspect. He’s a lead, someone questioned because he may have information relevant to a broader investigation.

By now it should be clear that the only nonsense here has come from your misinterpretation and bad faith assumptions. Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what I said?

Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’ makes you sound paranoid. No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime. If you have evidence otherwise, show it. If not, you’re just being dramatic.

I’ve repeatedly clarified that speech isn’t obstruction and that investigation isn’t punishment, yet those were your projections, not my original claim. You’ve been arguing against a version of my point that only exists in your own framing.

My point is straightforward. If you call lawful arrests ‘kidnappings,’ the state will view you as adversarial, meaning subject to scrutiny or investigation, not that speech itself is a crime or obstruction.

A simple ‘What do you mean by that?’ would have been far more productive than dragging the discussion into refuting claims I never made. That’s a classic bad-faith debate pattern.

Awesome idea

Requesting a source for that is pointless. It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. I’m not making a specific allegation, I’m describing routine investigative behavior. If you doubt it, you’re free to verify it yourself.

Good luck with that

Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole reaction is performative victimhood, like saying ‘Oh, I guess I can’t even go out to eat anymore because of government tyranny.’ That’s absurd.

The FBI’s legal mandate confines it to investigating potential criminal activity. Assuming otherwise without evidence implies they’re operating outside their authority, which would be a serious breach. If that’s what you believe, show proof, it would be front page news.

You're hyperbolizing and mischaracterizing events to fit a delusional victimhood narrative.

1) No one prevented anyone from engaging in free speech.

2) In this case "government adversary" just means you may become person of interest, not a criminal to be charged. Free speech doesn't exempt you from that.

3) No "government crackdown" occurred. A conversation or interview isn’t a crackdown, it’s routine fact-finding. No arrests, charges, or penalties followed for this individual.

I’m not suggesting that speech is obstruction, that wouldn’t make sense. I’m saying the man interviewed was an adversarial person of interest, not someone guilty of a crime.

Portraying him as a victim whose free speech was violated is absurd, being questioned isn’t censorship.

It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent to do so. Revealing details risks compromising the investigation or tipping off potential subjects.

"We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me.

You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened.

The FBI, by nature, investigates crimes, that doesn't need to be said.

To quote my other post:

I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.

here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...

If by ‘go after’ you mean investigate, then yes, officers should investigate people based on their words when those words suggest a possible lead in a crime. That’s basic police work.

I’m not saying the state should punish someone for words. I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.

NBA legends. Rigged shuffling machines. Specialized contact lenses. Instagram mafiosos. This case is incredible.

I switched from Android to iOS exclusively because of Liquid Glass. It's amazing. I'll just sit there and drag the glass back and forth over different things on my screen and stare in awe.

I don't think this issue has been reported on the P365/x-macro platform, for those discourage by this unfortunate situation. Different striker system.

I would rather it just be expensive to live in NYC

Can you cite some practical failure scenarios besides a wile e coyote billboard where camera inherently won't be able to accomplish what lidar/radar do?

I'm not here to argue the stats, I'm just sharing my personal anecdotes from doing psychs 100s of times and going to dozens of psych festivals. My username is mushroom brain. I'm just sharing that it's not all enlightenment and these drugs come with risks. The odds may be low statistically but the consequences can be very high.

The pendulum has swung so far left from the Reagan propaganda to the point that people attempt to downplay any cautionary perspectives and act like these things are purely harmless spiritual panaceas.

Have you been around someone experiencing psychedelic induced psychosis? They are often quite a danger to themselves and others. Usually requiring sedative/chemical restraint & police intervention by EMS. Ask any EMT about this.

Studies that look at mushrooms in a controlled therapy session are not the same as unreported/unstudied crises at high intensity parties.

I'm talking about the people experiencing hypomanic/psychotic episodes, not heat exhaustion.

Maybe heights specifically, but hang out at the medical tent at any decent size music festival and tell me psychedelics are as harm-free as people suggest.

I don't buy it, personally. I used to be a big psych guy until I had multiple friends get in dangerous police situations because of them. And I've heard a lot more individual stories. Pretty much every psychedelic festival has people ending up in the security/medical tent. It's not as risk free as people will have you believe.

People jump out of windows/off roofs all the time on psychedelics.

I think I found this on stumbleupon when I was really stoned back in the day

I agree to not do it casually

But it could reasonably be arranged under supervision with an anesthetizer option.

They probably already have some protocol for erratic behavior.

I agree to not do it casually

But it could probably be arranged under supervision with an anesthetizer option.

They probably already have some protocol for antisocial or psychotic behavior.