No idea what you're even trying to reference in your second sentence, but the first sentence "community law enforcement" is a red flag in my book. The law creates a fiscal incentive for people to report their neighbors for actions that were federally protected at the time this law was passed. Neighbor vs. neighbor. Citizen vs. citizen. We spend more on policing than any country in the world and yet still need to deputize citizens in a heavily armed state? It's not my neighbor's damn business to know if someone in my household seeks an abortion.
If fiscally incentivizing vigilantism isn't dystopian I don't know what is.
Deputization and vigilantism are antonyms, your framing is incoherent.
An elected legislature sanctioning civil action is "dystopian", but rioting and arson? Intimidating judges at their homes? Laundering a decade of domestic terrorism into universities and district attorneys' offices? Never heard of that stuff!
The discussion was about abortion in the context of digital privacy. You are the one who brought up all of these other things, which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's whataboutism and not worth engaging with.
Vigilantism without oversight, checks and balances quickly devolves into posses terrorizing and brutalizing people they simply don't like. The US has a long history of this.
Vigilantism is not the same thing as community-led policing from members of said communities.
That's nice, but none of this has anything to do with "vigilantism." The other guy only used that word because he thought it sounded scary. If either of you knew what it meant you would understand that government-sanctioned action, for example a lawsuit with standing provided by statute, is the complete opposite of vigilantism in its entire definition.
I've never heard that term. Usually, the state has a monopoly on violence and justice - that's a definition of a sovereign state. Law enforcement is performed by police. Not sure where the other stuff you mention comes from.
