I read “I’m all for imprisoning people who don’t call me by the names I want them to.”

That’s a dangerous line of thinking, friend.

I have three words for you: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To refresh your memory, Obama asked her to retire so that he could appoint a young liberal justice who could sit the court for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, that geriatric bag of bones clung to power until her death. Guess who’s term she died under, and who got to appoint her replacement? Oh yeah, the big Don. So now because of that we have a conservative court for the foreseeable future.

This is a smoke and mirrors political move.

Because of the Implication!

Police are people too, but even on a subconscious level no one in the public is really going to treat them that way. It’s impossible to treat someone who can theoretically decide your fate on a whim as an equal. The badge gives them control over you, to the extent that it’s difficult to even have a casual conversation with them for fear of accidentally revealing something about yourself that you don’t want them to know.

When it comes to de-escalation, it’s even harder, since someone who is in a highly aggressive or stressful situation understands their freedom or even life may be on the line and is that much more likely to act in an irrational way. It’s the same effect you see when you back an animal into a corner. They’ll snap at you and fight for their life even if it’s obvious they won’t come out on top.

Moral righteousness has never been a consideration, militarily speaking.

As horrible as that seems, at least the AI might be impartial and non-partisan when it comes to levying bans, unlike Reddit admins who will ban you even if you didn’t break any rules at all, as long as they disagree with your opinion.