I thought the history of the hells angels and other similar groups had as a founding tenet "we aren't part of your world" and other such epithets, hence their unique rules, customs, attitudes and livelihoods.
It seems select sympathisers are pointing out how our worlds rules are being unfairly imposed upon the hells angels, and by extension the possibility of such imposition onto other private citizens.
This seems disengenuous.
If you position yourself as "not part of your world" what the hell should you care and cry when our world tries to impose our rules onto you. Strangely, this parallels Quebec's public models of sovereignty association: we want everything for ourself based on our terms, but we'll keep what's convenient to us; disengenuity that is rejected by everybody as impetuous, not very intelligent, and laughable.
It reads as if the sympathisers are positioning hells angels as imposed upon societal rights' freedom fighters. I think the only evidence of this is the sympathisers specific words, hence their complete rejection.
It seems select sympathisers are pointing out how our worlds rules are being unfairly imposed upon the hells angels, and by extension the possibility of such imposition onto other private citizens.
This seems disengenuous.
If you position yourself as "not part of your world" what the hell should you care and cry when our world tries to impose our rules onto you. Strangely, this parallels Quebec's public models of sovereignty association: we want everything for ourself based on our terms, but we'll keep what's convenient to us; disengenuity that is rejected by everybody as impetuous, not very intelligent, and laughable.
It reads as if the sympathisers are positioning hells angels as imposed upon societal rights' freedom fighters. I think the only evidence of this is the sympathisers specific words, hence their complete rejection.