You are absolutely correct.

That does sound weird.

Of course, maintain the hierarchy of capital which sees most humans as serving the hierarchy and terminating those who defy "the order" for "their own good" of course, because as the central tenets of this religion asserts, exploitation of capital benefits "everyone". As in, this meritocracy structure allows anyone to become King Bezos through "hard work"(*).

Since anyone could become king meritocatically, therefore they all benefit from the equal and just potential, to receive "each according to their needs and from each according to their ability" anyone who opposes this system in fact opposes their own interests and those of other, therefore justifying the deployment of unlimited violence to neutralize the threat, for everyone's interests including the perpetrator.

can you pls explain what you mean in more depth?

your original post is sufficiently vague that tbh i don't blame people for assuming you were just bootlicking? [which probably says more about the state of the world than you as an individual, but honestly it's not clear what you're trying to say?]

we all know a random citizen/local business presenting an identical calibre of evidence of repeated crimes would be extremely unlikely to routinely receive this degree of resource allocation.

so if it's an idealised aspirational universal "order" you're talking about then obviously noone's buying it - and i don't think you are either. so what do you mean?

Personally, I don't care what the morons on these forums end up assuming. They're incorrect more often than they're right, and each mistake makes me value their input even less.

Law enforcement exists to maintain order. I made no arguments on whether or not that should be the case, but the tribalist morons took my "wavering loyalty" as treachery and the dogpile ensued with everyone trying to fit in with each other.

I'm glad I can recognize these people for who they are, since nobody else will.

Ok, we need to ally with Russia

Yikes...

Or they can give up chat control right now, they can give up that BS a-n-y-t-i-m-e

But if not, then taking out Russia and mildly inconveniencing states that are developping an authoritarian bent in their digital space, that's a win-win

My point is that you're arguing that Russia (which is currently ruled by a genocidal, authoritarian regime and is trying to force all of its citizens onto state-controlled social media to monitor everyone) would be a good ally in the fight to keep E2EE alive.

The amount of cognitive dissonance in your comments is disturbing

The only counter we currently have to state power is leveraging other states, getting them to fight one another until they're so damage that they let go of their fascistic plans to enslave and tag the entire population. Russia isn't going to politely send delegate to advocate against total state surveillance, they're doing it, every state is turning fasch and doing it. They are to embolden, to empowered and they don't respect of fear the population.

The only way to counter this trend is by distracting them with an existential crisis. They need "something" to save us from, when we are too safe and they are too powerful, they start treating us, as the enemy, as their pets, as their farm animal, cattle, we can't stop them doing that but we can send them to clash against enemy states to dissipate their violent, dominating, malignant energy