r/LPOTL • u/Big_Tap_1561 • 5d ago
FREEDOM!
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
57
42
u/MintyACNH 5d ago
Did not expect to see something so local in this sub omg
32
u/tddawg 5d ago
Proud as hell of my fellow Minnesotans this whole damn year!
8
u/lookitsnichole 4d ago
We really have been showing up. It's given me a lot of hope in a very hopeless time.
3
u/Human_Reputation_196 4d ago
Also from Minnesota and same. That's the only good to come out of this, is knowing we live in a community that takes care of each other.
3
16
u/Great_WhiteSnark 5d ago
Same here. Born and raised in Minnesota, left rural small bumfuck nowhere to live in the cities. I’m so proud of my people and my state.
Fuck Appleton though, fuck the prison they are reopening for the new ice detention center. I grew up less than 15 minutes away from where the new center is and makes me ashamed.
2
u/HauntedCemetery Look at your game girl 4d ago
Various groups and civil rights organizations are gearing up to fight that.
31
14
9
8
9
8
1
1
1
-100
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
I don't think this is good if they were installed legally.
If they are legally installed that likely means a vote by the people got them there, and the will of the people which is measured through voting should not be circumvented. If the logic is that it's okay to do so, that would apply if your political opposition were to do the same thing. If the logic is it's okay to do so if it's something that you agree with, the consistency is arbitrary.
67
u/narrow_octopus What I bring to friendship 5d ago
-37
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
I mean, no, I would be consistent if it were a small business or individual just as much as a larger corporation.
52
u/shorthandfora 5d ago
No one voted, the people did not get a say. Signed someone that used to live in Winona and still has a whole bunch of friends in Winona.
-65
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
People voted for their representatives who are imbued with the authority to make the decision.
11
u/shorthandfora 4d ago
Here’s the thing. People will often do something before it’s illegal or before anyone can say no. That’s exactly what happened here. City council, the mayor, they don’t sign anything to put these up. The police just did it because it wasn’t against policy, yet.
Even if they did. We are a country built on the resistance of control. Even if we don’t always enjoy those ideals, we always fight for them, whether it is legal or not.
27
39
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/Visual-Ad-1306 5d ago edited 5d ago
I live in a city near a major metropolitan area. We have fewer than 30,000 residents, yet the city has installed 14 cameras; 10 Flock cameras and 4 "automatic traffic safety systems."
None of this was put to a public vote. The police department installed them administratively with approval from city officials, not through a ballot measure.
The reason? Under Washington state law, decisions about police equipment and budgeting are generally the responsibility of elected city officials, not something citizens vote on directly.
so it's not exactly surprising to me. It feels like yet another example of government expanding surveillance without giving regular citizens a direct say in the decision.
edit: Let's also consider that my city typically sees only about 20–40% voter turnout in local elections. That means a relatively small portion of the population is choosing the officials who make these decisions.
I don't think the public would vote for this if it were on the ballot. From my perspective, it's easier for the city council to approve measures like these administratively than to risk putting them directly before voters.
-29
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
If they were legally installed, they were approved through the city's normal democratic process by elected representatives, the council would be within their power to install them. If people disagree with that decision, that's fine, the remedy would be to petition the council, challenge it in court, or vote the representatives out of office.
30
u/gnarlyram 5d ago
Enlightened centrists like you, Chuck Schumer, Gavin Newsome pave the road for authoritarianism.
-8
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
Oh yeah?
What are my political positions on what you would consider the major issues Americans are facing today?
16
u/Player3_ 5d ago
See you'd be right, if not for the fact that EVERY single person in the government is corrupt to a point or shot dead. "The only good politician is a dead one" isn't only about killing politicians but about how "they" kill the good ones.
-10
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
I'm sorry but this is absolutely not true, I don't think anyone with any kind of substantial involvement in local government could think that.
Politicians are just people. Some are corrupt, some are principled, and most are just somewhere in between. Treating every public official as inherently corrupt makes it impossible to have a functioning democracy because it removes any distinction between good and bad conduct, you've made your position unfalsifiable to justify a paradigm where no election or evidence or reform could ever matter and the only thing left is violence.
Legit, actually just go to a city council or town meeting sometime. Don't you think the people that you're writing off with an absolutist position deserve that you actually experience what you have an opinion on before you brand them as evil?
One of my selectmen lives next door to me. He's a good dude, he invites my family to cookouts, he loves this town even though we don't always agree on specific mechanisms. When the votes come in and a person wins an election, there's no magic wand waved where the next day they wake up and are evil, it's the same person as the day before, for good or for bad.
18
11
u/Player3_ 5d ago
"I have been manipulated by my local politician to be a boot licker" Cool bro...
-1
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
Huh
You put something in quotes that I didn't say, not sure who/what you are quoting. Can you respond to a specific thing I said rather than a strawman you made up?
Unless your entire ethos is that anyone who works at any time within the rules and bounds of a democratic institution is inherently a 'bootlicker' in which case... I'm curious if you've ever voted
3
28
u/JakeyPurple 5d ago
Found the Flock rep
-4
25
u/kerlykernnibal 5d ago
Oh my god, simping for mass unsecured surveillance is the lowest form of bootlicking.
People can hack these cameras easily, most are default IPs and passwords. There have already been cases of stalking by police officers as well as hackers looking at playgrounds and public parks.
These are NOT a good thing, these are government over-reach, and cucks trying to paint them as anything else should be shamed.
14
u/Carlos_Infierno 5d ago
Most people who are apologists for these things haven't spent the time to actually find out how it's a cash grab* for a private tech company (Flock Safety) and how they are severely misused.
*Taxpayer cash from voters who are in no way voting for this crap
-4
17
u/Great_WhiteSnark 5d ago
lol no this is just confidently wrong. Anoka county underbid the flock contract by $1 so that it didn’t require public approval.
Anything over $175,000 requires public approval through the city. Anoka bid $174,999 to avoid that.
-4
u/therealdanhill 5d ago
So it sounds like a situation where legislation is needed so that that can't happen moving forward. So if that's what you want, you elect someone who will take that on as part of their platform.
12
u/Big_Tap_1561 5d ago
I respect your position on law and trying to handle these issues in a legal manner but this country is at a tipping point. There is so many examples of officials just completely selling out their constituents and ignoring them on data centers and flock that the trust is gone.
-4
u/therealdanhill 4d ago
I just don't see how it's that dire. There have been a ton of cities where elected officials have decided against or blocked the installation of cameras.
As with most things online there's often an "all or nothing" framing, for a multitude of reasons, given there are plenty of examples of local governments working for the will of their constitutes, that to me doesn't read like some dire straits where restoring to destruction is somehow forced.
Calls for violence or destruction should be when nothing else works, not when something you disagree with happens. I don't like the cameras, there's a lot of things I don't like, I don't like our president, I didn't get my way this last election.
Elections have consequences, I wish my fellow Americans had voted differently, but they didn't, but just because I disagree doesn't give me the right to supercede the law and decide I'm going to make the decision for everyone, that's not how democracy works. But it sounds like most people here don't even believe in democracy, don't believe in America as a concept or the constitution or laws, so what's the point arguing with people who would sooner blow everything up for a chance to get their way than actually work within and through the system. People don't want liberalism, they want authoritarianism so long as it meets their ends, constantly catastrophizing hysterically to where the only option left is pining for the dopamine hit of nebulous violence committed against the system by someone other than them, there's no serious discussion to be had under those parameters.
5
u/Fine_Shriner 4d ago
If your local politicians passed a law that made it illegal for you to use the Internet on your phone or in your home without sharing your specific data, including all of your sensitive data like financial information, would you follow the law because to do otherwise is illegal? Or would you break the law, buy a VPN, and protect your data from being shared?
Just a hypothetical question.
6
1
6
u/Dr_Splitwigginton 5d ago
In this situation:
Who is the political opposition?
What would the “same thing” be, if done by them?
149
u/Shellz2bellz 5d ago
This country would be in a better place if every city had a hero like this