Circular Political Derp Question

Internally inconsistent thinking annoys me. First, some background and then my question.

A redacted but unclassified and released “Intelligence Bulletin” from the FBI Phoenix Field Office (May 30, 2019) says:

“…conspiracy theories “are usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.” (Hat tip to Paul Craig Roberts.)

The title of the report is pretty clear what it’s all about:

“(U//LES) Anti-Government, Identity Based, and Fringe Political Conspiracy Theories Very Likely Motivate Some Domestic Extremists to Commit Criminal, Sometimes Violent Activity.“

OK. Got that. Here’s fact #2:

As required by tradition, gun control advocates used a shooting to jump start their quarterly to quadrennial attempt to curb American liberties. The annoying private possession of firearms will never please them. This cycle they’ve switched. Banning folding stocks and magazines that hold some special number of rounds that is a greater integer than some other integer is old thinking. Now they’re reading evil into minds of people who’re (by definition) innocent. They’re specifically going after people who have not broken any laws:

“Red flag laws — also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) — enable law enforcement, and sometimes family members and other concerned parties, to petition a judge to remove guns from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.”

Are conspiracy theories sufficient to trigger red flag laws? Hard to say. The whole thing is deliberately vague. That’s a feature not a bug.

The key part of a “red flag” is that it’s undefinable. It exists in the eye of a beholder and not in measurable behavior in real life. There’s no clearly defined legal doctrine about who hasn’t committed crimes but is thinking hard about it.

Red flag is designed to work before a crime is committed. You know how citizens once were presumed innocent until proven guilty? Red flag is unnecessary for those already proven guilty (we’ve already got laws for that). Red flag can only be applied to those who are still technically innocent but might potentially commit a crime… which is everyone.

If your family thinks you’re a nutcase and goes to the authorities, that seems to be a clear cut red flag. (Though there’s still no definition of nutcase or explanation why your family has extra rights to diagnose your particular flavor of crazy.)

If someone who knows you well goes to the authorities, that seems similar to family. (I’m not seeing that clearly written either. “Knows you” might mean “lives next door” or “on your bowling team” or “I watch his Facebook feed but I’ve never been in the same time zone”.)

If the one calling the authorities is the cat lady across town who hates all men and is seriously pissed off because you display a nativity on Christmas? Hard to say.

Nor do I see a disincentive for the cat lady should she go apeshit. If she goes through the phone book and reports red flags on everyone with a name that has six letters; then what? What happens if you report a red flag on some dude just because you don’t like him? “Dude took my parking spot, clearly he’s pondering mayhem and should be stopped.”

Plus, of course, I’ve been reading shrinks, bloggers, and party faithful line up to diagnose Trump of any ailment they can spell and hammer into a keyboard. None of these people have been in the same room as the man. I’m sure they believe they’ve detect madness via the method of reading Twitter feeds. Really they’re just projecting their own issues on someone else.

Trump suggested going on an uncontrolled rant is a red flag. He also took to Twitter:

“Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!”

I see red flags too. Campaigning for any Federal (and most State) political seats indicates a serious commitment to controlling other people. Working very hard to control other people is a red flag in my book. But what do I know?

For now, lets just say that spewing conspiracy theories on YouTube is a red flag (according to the FBI). Why? Because it’s written down and they seem serious about it.

Today’s red flag thought experiment: Epstein.

Everyone except me (for naive and incorrect reasons) posted jokes about Epstein’s upcoming “unexpected” suicide. They did this immediately.

The FBI says that’s red flag behavior. The “theory of Arkanacide” is not official policy of the Federal Prison system. “Mysterious death soon” was not prevailing reporting from the media:

Note the use of “official” and “prevailing.” Official explanations are explanations provided by governments. Prevailing explanations are the explanations that the media repeats.” (Hat tip to Paul Craig Roberts.)

Five weeks later Epstein was dead, just as predicted. It’s either a loony conspiracy theory or it’s not. So, which is it?

• Jokes about Paul Epstein’s upcoming suicide really do fit the FBI’s written definition of conspiracy.
• The FBI claims conspiracy theories are a red flag. Talking about Arkancide is exactly what would lead to red flag confiscation.
• Five weeks later Epstein is dead under circumstances that exactly match everyone’s prediction. How can an FBI defined conspiracy theory on July 6th be verified truth on August 10th?
• If red flag laws take your guns on July 6th because you’re a fucking loon, will they give them back on August 10th because you’re a genius who predicted future events?

The last one bothers me a lot. It can’t be lunatic thinking if it really happened. FBI and press would have true things be classified as lunatic thinking.

A.C.

P.S. I’m confused but Joe Biden has everything figured out. He choose truth over facts. What does that even mean? If I ever utter a statement that dumb, get me to a fucking hospital. Statements like “truth over facts”, from a normal person, means they’re suffering brain trauma.