In relation to this, thinking about a new community for Political Activism. Calls to action, that kind of thing.

The rules would be super simple:

  1. Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]

  2. Absolutely no calls for violent action.

  3. No links to fundraisers. Too rife for fraud and abuse. Stories about fundraisers would be fine, but no GoFundMes, etc.

Think there's room for PolticalActivism?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 10 months ago (39 children)

mate you can fuck right off back to facebook with that shit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [+] -27 points 10 months ago (38 children)

    That’s not a response to the argument — it’s just an admission you don’t have one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (27 children)

    no, it's a response to a comment that doesn't deserve a response

    and your further replies only show that you don't deserve a response

    fuck off and die, asshole

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 10 months ago (26 children)

    If that’s where you’re at, then we’re done here. I’m not interested in trading insults or threats — especially when there’s nothing substantive left to discuss.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (26 children)
  • [+] -12 points 10 months ago (24 children)

    Death wishes aren’t discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (23 children)

    where is there a death wish?

    also, who said this was a discussion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago (22 children)

    There was a death wish. I am glad the moderator removed your comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (21 children)

    there was no death wish in my comment, to my memory. seems like you misunderstood the words.

    to be clear, stating that I would be pleased with somebody's death is not in any way a wish for their death to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (20 children)

    The moderator and I both agreed it was a death wish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    then you're both idiots who don't understand what words mean

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    The moderator and I know what you meant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (17 children)

    I'm telling you what I meant. what I meant is not what you're saying it meant.

    jesus christ are you really this stupid

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    Intent aside, a reasonable person would interpret your comment as inappropriate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    a reasonable person would interpret you to be acting in bad faith and agree with not tolerating your bullshit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    Your comment was deleted by the moderator. Mine wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

    What's legal is frequently not moral. You are nothing but a fascist that deserves to have to face the people you hate, so that you and your family can be taught the error of your ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Threatening people and their families is exactly where any moral argument collapses. Disagreeing about law or policy doesn’t justify intimidation or violence. You’re no longer arguing morality — you’re proving why we need law to restrain mob logic and personal threats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    You've proven why law and order has already been thrown out the window. I already told you once they aren't threats. General Sherman knew how to deal with you fascist thugs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    Invoking Sherman and talking about ‘dealing with’ people isn’t political critique — it’s glorifying violence. You can call it whatever you want, but threatening harm under the guise of history or ideology is exactly why the rule of law exists. If your argument only works when backed by intimidation, you’ve already conceded that it can’t stand on its own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

    There's no argument to be made with you. Others tried. I'm just letting you know that your own pigheadedness will have real world consequences. You have fully bought into the lies of the fascists. The rest of us can see the evidence. The cop is a murderer, not just a criminal. You are an accomplice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Telling someone they’ll face ‘real-world consequences’ for disagreeing with you is a threat, no matter how you dress it up. Disagreement over evidence or law does not make someone an accomplice to murder. That kind of rhetoric abandons reason entirely and replaces it with intimidation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

    Fuck off Nazi. This will never be a Nazi bar.

    Your lies have no support here.

    We have your address, and your name because you kept responding. I'm a veteran who actually will defend The Constitution. You are a Nazi. The only good fascist is a dead one.

    Fucking weirdo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    This is no longer debate or political speech. You’ve made explicit threats of violence and advocated killing people you label as ‘Nazis.’ That is harassment and criminal intimidation, not constitutional defense. Disagreeing about law or evidence does not make someone a fascist, and threats don’t become justified because you invoke ideology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    You’ve now explicitly stated an intent to kill people you label as ‘Nazis.’ That is a direct threat of violence and criminal intimidation, not speech or debate. Disagreement does not make someone a fascist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Defending fascists doing Nazi shit makes you a fascist, a Nazi, an accomplice, and a target. You've explicitly defended fascists doing Nazi shit and spread lies. You existing is a threat to everyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Your previous comment was removed by the moderator because it was completely inappropriate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Naw. That's the appropriate level of vitriol that is needed with fascist Nazis. Fuck off back to Facebook or Reddit, Nazi fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago

    Using threats and insults doesn’t make your argument stronger — it just confirms you’ve abandoned reason. Disagreement over law or evidence does not make someone a fascist, and personal attacks are not a substitute for debate.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

    Let's just say we're actually arguing self-defense, how does shooting the driver of a car in front of you eliminate that danger? If he had actually been in danger he would have been ran over because after murdering her the car accelerated forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Self-defense isn’t judged by hindsight or perfect outcomes. The law doesn’t require an officer to make a perfect decision — only a reasonable one based on what he perceived in split seconds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Only an unreasonable person would believe that killing the driver of a car that you are no longer in front of would be self-defense. It goes against every policy I've seen related to use of force against drivers even if she had been intentionally ramming him. Maybe if this were a random person but he has been trained specifically about this scenario and has been in the job for ten years, cops have been charged for less in similar situations. He has no defense, but there likely won't be a legitimate trial anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Given how fast things unfolded, you can’t expect an officer to make a perfect decision — only a reasonable one based on what he perceived in that split second. Even if the video later shows the officer wasn’t directly in front of the vehicle at the exact moment the shots were fired, the issue isn’t hindsight with perfect vision — it’s what a reasonable officer believed at that moment under intense pressure. Federal use‑of‑force policy explicitly says reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with 20/20 hindsight after reviewing multiple angles in super slow motion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    A reasonable person must have believed they could get out of the way of the vehicle, of which the driver was not accused of any crime and was not acting belligerent, because his feet and legs were almost entirely to the side of the vehicle before he shot, and he continued shooting through the side window. If he has such a lack of awareness or emotional instability that his perception becomes so easily warped he should not be trusted in that role. Furthermore it only unfolded that quickly because of aggressive actions of the officers. They pulled directly up to the vehicle, trapped it with their bodies while she tried to comply with their order to leave, while also shouting conflicting orders in the first instant they got up to the victim.

    And if we are looking at the full picture, what could their justification be for lieing about having medics or blocking medical aid for over ten minutes? Then once arriving, blocking the ambulance down the road. Actions after the fact attest to a person's state of mind when committing the act. Why wouldn't they comply with an investigation and stay on scene right away as well? I really doubt there is any official policy that you should flee the scene after you shoot someone in the face even in self defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago

    Tactics, positioning, and conflicting commands absolutely matter and can affect whether the officer’s perception was reasonable. But under the legal self‑defense standard, what counts is whether a reasonable officer in that exact moment perceived an imminent threat of serious harm. Hindsight, video slow‑motion, or how the encounter started don’t change that standard — though those factors are relevant for accountability, training, and evaluating reasonableness. What happened after the shooting — including delays in medical aid, communication issues, or how the officers handled the scene — is absolutely relevant for accountability, policy evaluation, and potential misconduct investigations. Those actions can inform judgments about professionalism and whether proper procedures were followed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    I can't say what he perceived but multiple agents were circling the vehicle while the driver was trying to leave, they yelled conflicting demands which included telling her to leave and then tried to open her door when she hadn't done anything warrenting her apprehension, within seconds shooting her from the side of her vehicle. ICE has already murdered people, you could argue that she feared for her life, and rightfully so. She was in her right to defend herself from the masked unidentified agents apparently trying to abduct her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The legal standard doesn’t disappear just because the situation was chaotic. What matters in a self‑defense analysis is what a reasonable officer reasonably believed at the exact moment the shots were fired, not how the encounter started or what someone felt later. Footage also shows the driver and her spouse talking rudely and appearing not fearful at all in the whole situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    How the encounter started is entirely relevant. How can it be self-defense when the officer purposely and needlessly put themselves in danger? If you base an analysis solely on what the shooter says they felt in the moment how can you have any sort of objective investigation into any shooting?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago

    The ICE agent wasn't directly in front of the car until the driver reversed the car. He didn't put himself in danger, the car motion did. Context matters, but the legal standard focuses on what a reasonable officer perceived at the exact moment the shots were fired, not how the encounter started. How the situation began can inform training or policy questions, but self‑defense under federal law is judged by split-second perceived threat, not hindsight or moral judgment.

  • source
  • parent