politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
A few reasons.
Using any of them in war is far too likely to lead to escalation. Someome on the receiving end of it doesn't necessarily know what they've been attacked with, and seeing that the other side is using chemical weapons will retaliate with their own more serious ones. Civilians are unlikely to bring their own nerve gas to protests, so this isn't a concern in civilian contexts.
Killing your enemy is usually necessary in war, but torturing them isn't. As such, using weapons that are only intended to cause pain is just wanton cruelty rather than simply a means to the ends of winning the war. Police theoretically don't want to be killing or permanently disabling people, so again this isn't applicable to civilian contexts.
They are wildly uncontrollable. The carveouts for civilian use of tear gas and the like in the Geneva conventions require them to disperse quickly because of this.
It's not unfounded. To be clear I don't think that police should be allowed to use such weapons, but there are reasons that it's considered more serious in warfare.
Okay so abhorrent but reasonably abhorrent.
That's a good name for this timeline: Reasonably Abhorrent.
Also, a sweet metal band name.