Subversion practically requires lying, at least in intentions, not lying is either cooperation or direct antagonism.

If you're waiting for a 100% perfect chance to fall into your lap, you're just going to twiddle your thumbs as you get inescapably boxed in. We'd be better off if everyone took a guarded swing when you get a 90% chance like jury duty.

Like I said, stick to omitting things you're not directly questioned on and bending definitions and you're almost impossible to do anything to in a criminal court unless you stupidly confess to what you're doing, keep your mouth shut and it's a low risk prospect. If your interrogation is thorough enough that you can't get by without omitting something you're directly questioned about, don't do it, answer the direct question honestly and call yourself unlucky as you become ineligible but otherwise suffer no consequences.

American, and more broadly Western, society currently heavily favors opportunism and being the first to try and take advantage of a situation. You probe with plausibly innocent transgressions, if they're on guard you'll just get a harmless warning and you can just keep testing others until someone's guard finally is down and you know you have the advantage before you start. Many lefty activists know this, that's why they often appear so limp wristed or spineless, they're always testing the water and are happy to back down from an unadvantageous confrontation before the stakes rise, so they can keep looking for someone with their back turned to strike at instead.

So start poking cracks and testing unguarded doors yourselves, it's the most advantageous strategy until something changes and society as a whole stops being so placid and starts being more vengeful.

Subversion practically requires lying, at least in intentions, not lying is either cooperation or direct antagonism.

If you're waiting for a 100% perfect chance to fall into your lap, you're just going to twiddle your thumbs as you get inescapably boxed in. We'd be better off if everyone took a guarded swing when you get a 90% chance like jury duty.

Like I said, stick to omitting things you're not directly questioned on and bending definitions and you're almost impossible to do anything to in a criminal court unless you stupidly confess to what you're doing, keep your mouth shut and it's a low risk prospect. If your interrogation is thorough enough that you can't get by without omitting something you're directly questioned about, don't do it, answer the direct question honestly and call yourself unlucky as you become ineligible but otherwise suffer no consequences.

American, and more broadly Western, society currently heavily favors opportunism and being the first to try and take advantage of a situation. You probe with plausibly innocent transgressions, if they're on guard you'll just get a harmless warning and you can just keep testing others until someone's guard finally is down and you know they're at a disadvantage. Many lefty activists know this, that's why they often appear so limp wristed or spineless, they're always testing the water and are happy to back down from an unadvantageous confrontation before the stakes rise, so they can keep looking for someone with their back turned to strike at instead.

So start poking cracks and testing unguarded doors yourselves, it's the most advantageous strategy until something changes and society as a whole stops being so placid and starts being more vengeful.