3 ms·

To be fair, Minneapolis is raising hell and has been for the last week. There have been many protests in other cities as well. I would also say that Trump and

To be fair, Minneapolis is raising hell and has been for the last week. There have been many protests in other cities as well. I would also say that Trump and his cronies would absolutely love if this boils over into a violent riot. That would give them permission to double down.

SilverElfin 9mo ago
I keep hearing this idea that boiling over lets them double down, but at the same time, it is not acceptable to let them keep doing what they do. Once the government starts using physical violence against the people and openly violating constitutional law, there is no choice, but to push back. But that pushback can look different. Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city.
- biophysboy 9mo ago
  Totally fine with general strikes, particularly for the business that are accommodating and providing logistical services for ICE. Very much opposed to shooting wars. We don't have the firepower or the political power (yet).
  - giardini 9mo ago
    biophysboy says "Very much opposed to shooting wars. We don't have the firepower or the political power (yet)." Who is the "We" in your statement? Are you talking about insurrection?
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  > Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city. Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell. Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike, and you'll see changes quickly as the upper-class can no longer enjoy their status.
  - potato3732842 9mo ago
    >Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell. You're not fighting the upper class. It's the blue collar workers and the people who hire them who support ICE and strict immigration.
    - embedding-shape 9mo ago
      That's true, when workers are not aligned with each others, some get confused who is actually on your side vs against you, and frequently they believe the upper-class will protect them and provide them with support and wealth. I don't think I even have to share examples of how this works out in practice, yet for every revolution it keeps happening with the same results more or less. You are fighting the upper-class, while some of the working-class people are mislead to fight on the other side. Slowly but surely they'll realize where to go, but often the promises of wealth and what not gets to strong for the individuals to at least try to move up.
      - potato3732842 9mo ago
        Framing this as "literally anyone who works" vs "everyone above that" is a dishonest slight of hand to distract from the fact that the top slice of that category spent decades peddling policy that made things worse for the bottom half (and in many cases kicked them into the non working dependent/welfare class) because it made asset values go up and those whiny blue collar types were just backwards and dumb anyway (or whatever they told themselves to justify it).
  - SilverElfin 9mo ago
    I also don’t get why the Democrat leadership is caving in on funding the government. An indefinite shutdown is called for at this point until the train of ethnonationalist authoritarianism is stopped.
  - Ray20 9mo ago
    > Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike You mean to try to get them all and find out they're not really against what's happening? There's a reason why socialists, originally fighters for workers' dictatorship, have almost entirely switched to supporting minorities and not workers.
- alex43578 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - biophysboy 9mo ago
    On the other hand, the gov using violence to break the law (e.g. detaining citizens who have committed no crimes under the pretense of immigration enforcement) is not silly.
    - alex43578 9mo ago
      On the third hand, when those people getting detained are reasonably suspected of violating 18 USC 111, it’s perfectly fine.
      - willmarch 9mo ago
        If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful. But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised: Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained. Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory. So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions. If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?
  - willmarch 9mo ago
    You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers. Government authority ends when its actions violate the Constitution (especially when checks and balances have failed) and the people are the final arbiters of what the government can and cannot do. Your analysis is completely antithetical to the values and ideals the United States was founded to protect. If the government repeatedly uses violence outside of the bounds of the Constitution and checks and balances have failed to correct that behavior then that is a real crossing of a redline based on the principles outlined in our founding documents.
dpc050505 9mo ago
They'll still murder millions of you for not being fascists if you stay passive, you're just making it easier for them.

SilverElfin 9mo ago

I keep hearing this idea that boiling over lets them double down, but at the same time, it is not acceptable to let them keep doing what they do. Once the government starts using physical violence against the people and openly violating constitutional law, there is no choice, but to push back. But that pushback can look different. Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city.

biophysboy 9mo ago
Totally fine with general strikes, particularly for the business that are accommodating and providing logistical services for ICE. Very much opposed to shooting wars. We don't have the firepower or the political power (yet).
- giardini 9mo ago
  biophysboy says "Very much opposed to shooting wars. We don't have the firepower or the political power (yet)." Who is the "We" in your statement? Are you talking about insurrection?
embedding-shape 9mo ago
> Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city. Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell. Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike, and you'll see changes quickly as the upper-class can no longer enjoy their status.
- potato3732842 9mo ago
  >Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell. You're not fighting the upper class. It's the blue collar workers and the people who hire them who support ICE and strict immigration.
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    That's true, when workers are not aligned with each others, some get confused who is actually on your side vs against you, and frequently they believe the upper-class will protect them and provide them with support and wealth. I don't think I even have to share examples of how this works out in practice, yet for every revolution it keeps happening with the same results more or less. You are fighting the upper-class, while some of the working-class people are mislead to fight on the other side. Slowly but surely they'll realize where to go, but often the promises of wealth and what not gets to strong for the individuals to at least try to move up.
    - potato3732842 9mo ago
      Framing this as "literally anyone who works" vs "everyone above that" is a dishonest slight of hand to distract from the fact that the top slice of that category spent decades peddling policy that made things worse for the bottom half (and in many cases kicked them into the non working dependent/welfare class) because it made asset values go up and those whiny blue collar types were just backwards and dumb anyway (or whatever they told themselves to justify it).
- SilverElfin 9mo ago
  I also don’t get why the Democrat leadership is caving in on funding the government. An indefinite shutdown is called for at this point until the train of ethnonationalist authoritarianism is stopped.
- Ray20 9mo ago
  > Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike You mean to try to get them all and find out they're not really against what's happening? There's a reason why socialists, originally fighters for workers' dictatorship, have almost entirely switched to supporting minorities and not workers.
alex43578 9mo ago
[flagged]
- biophysboy 9mo ago
  On the other hand, the gov using violence to break the law (e.g. detaining citizens who have committed no crimes under the pretense of immigration enforcement) is not silly.
  - alex43578 9mo ago
    On the third hand, when those people getting detained are reasonably suspected of violating 18 USC 111, it’s perfectly fine.
    - willmarch 9mo ago
      If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful. But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised: Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained. Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory. So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions. If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?
- willmarch 9mo ago
  You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers. Government authority ends when its actions violate the Constitution (especially when checks and balances have failed) and the people are the final arbiters of what the government can and cannot do. Your analysis is completely antithetical to the values and ideals the United States was founded to protect. If the government repeatedly uses violence outside of the bounds of the Constitution and checks and balances have failed to correct that behavior then that is a real crossing of a redline based on the principles outlined in our founding documents.

dpc050505 9mo ago

They'll still murder millions of you for not being fascists if you stay passive, you're just making it easier for them.