Under the order, private businesses can choose to display signage indicating that ICE cannot enter without a warrant—thereby designating “their property as part of a city-wide network of community spaces that stand together in affirming the safety, dignity, and belonging of all of our residents,” the mayor said.

Johnson touted the order for building “a broad civic shield that limits the reach of harmful enforcement practices. It strengthens neighborhood solidarity and it reaffirms Chicago’s role as a welcoming city.”

top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 408 points 1 year ago (28 children)
  • [–] 88 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Waiting for the first politician with power of a police department to say this. The police will likely turn on that person. But it needs to be done. States/Cities need to defend their citizens. Or at the very least show how the existing systems have failed and fallen fully to fascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The will of citizens comes second to the rights of all people. It wouldn't matter if 90% of the country wanted this. It would still be an unconstitutional infringement of rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Laws/rights are just thoughts and words. If 90% of the population wants something—barring some extreme use of force—they're going to get their way.

    Simply declaring something unconstitutional or illegal is a paper shield.

    That's not to say that there isn't value in codifying these things. It helps maintain long term positions/policies when the government swings across the centrepoint, but they only work because the majority of the population agrees with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Most specifically, it's to provide a framework so that small changes are orderly and big changes deliberate.
    Laws provide a framework that tries to resist change to the maximum degree possible, with the benefit that it's generally agreeable enough to enough people that it's preferable to the danger and force involved in not having them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    replaced with a government that serves the will of its citizens.

    What are we going to do about the 20 to 40 percent of people who support ICE and other horrors?

    edit for clarity: replace "this" with concrete

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Realisticaly, unless we are doing forced deportations or removing their voting rights, they are unfortunately gonna still have a voice in the process, but its society's job to educate the next generation to make sure they don't become those idiots. As long as the idiot's party never attain a majority, or try to overthrow the democratic process, its just a permanent minority that is loud as fuck, but has no teeth. There's always gonna be those types of regressive people, even in the best fuctioning democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    shows up to that movement with pitchforks

    While we're on the subject, how DID pitchforks become the universal symbol of rioting and revolt? As a weapon, I mean it's decent I guess. You could certainly kill someone with it for sure, but it's not some ultimate weapon. A chainsaw certainly has more raw terror inducing imagery. You see someone with a pitchfork in a 1-1 setting, and you could fight them off. You could grab the pitchfork as it's being used against you and have a chance to fight back.

    But a chainsaw? How do you fight a guy with a chainsaw??? Or a gun???

    I guess what I'm saying is, if we happen to pass a hardware store along our march of revolution, could we pop in for a sec, so I can buy a chainsaw???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Chainsaws:

    • Tripping while carrying a pitchfork is less likely to result in a fatality than a chainsaw
    • Chainsaws rely on external power sources before they become heavy abrasive clubs
    • Reinforcements won't hear you engaging your pitchfork from a block away
    • A pitchfork is lighter and longer, making it easier to wield and have a potential for higher force with lower torque
    • Chainsaws don't like being used on fluid-filled fleshy bits, which can result in a tangled nightmare bogging down your weapon while you try using the "stuck shopping cart" maneuver on something noncompliant and screaming
    • Pitchforks can be quickly shared between targets. Chainsaws quickly share bits of targets between you and anyone nearby

    Guns:

    • Requires training
    • See issue about external power sources
    • See noise issue
    • Friendly fire

    You could grab the pitchfork as it's being used against you and have a chance to fight back.

    Push harder

    • ❌ Pitchfork: Long, unbalanced weight, gets stuck when embedded in a solid medium
    • ✅ Softball bat: Less cumbersome, well balanced, doesn't get stuck in squishy
    • ✅ Miracle Blade^®️^: Abuse as desired and Chef Tony will hand-deliver you free replacements, CHEESE CHEESE
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Spears, and (pun) by extension Pitchforks, being long is not a draw back. It is a stabbing weapon you could take out someone with a baseball bat before they even get in reach to be a risk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Spears (pointy sticks) are the oldest weapon. They might have been created by non-humans. They helped us come down from the trees and vanquish large prey with teamwork.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Eh, would not the club be the first weapon? Followed closely by our evolutionary omgwtfbbqhax: the accurate and powerfully thrown rock?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Not that they weren't used first, but rocks and clubs would not have allowed us to come down from the trees safely full-time. Pointy sticks allowed us to more safely injure and kill, while keeping claws and teeth at a distance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    The police use Roman legionary techniques to force protestors back.

    If you take the mindset that you're preparing for a nonlethal war and prepare beforehand by bringing tasers and attaching them to very long wooden sticks, or topping the stick with pins that may get stuck in skin but will break when stuck in skin, or even just use the very long sticks, all you need to do is find enough people to drill in classical battle formations for a while. I think the phalanx did good against a Roman shield wall if it didn't have to maneuver much, which is perfect for city steeets.

    Hell, you could go the whole nonlethal bullets route with 3d print guns, but I think firing weapons may result in very much and very lethal escalation, so while I wouldn't recommend it I don't see why 3d printed guns couldn't be used in a staggered fire formation like they used in the 1800s, except you'd just keep preloaded single use pistols in the back pre-loaded with nonlethal rounds. It would be inaccurate as all fuck but that's the beauty of infantry formations in the 1800: the guns were inaccurate as fuck. At least in the beginning.

    If they're safe enough to use against protestors then the police shouldn't have a problem, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I'm pretty sure it's an old trope from early horror films. The villagers would arrive with torches and pitchforks to drive out the monster. This clip from Frankenstein (1931) actually has a mob with torches and clubs, but a similar clip from Bride of Frankenstein (1935) shows a mob with seemingly all kinds of tools including pitchforks and a pickaxe. (I can't find a full clip from Bride of Frankenstein, just this quick shot in the trailer.)

    A similar mob appears at the end of The Adventures of Hucklberry Finn (1939), coming for Jim.

    TV Tropes has a whole section on this trope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The article said they repelled in from helicopters to raid an apartment building. What a bunch of cosplay losers. Lol. Intimidating your own residents and citizens for daddy trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 92 points 1 year ago

    Imagine that! The consent of the governed.

  • source
  • [–] 84 points 1 year ago* (32 children)

    States need to be putting out their own narratives and setting rules, not just letting the rump regime set the narrative ("Portland is burning to the ground!", "Chicago is a war zone, the most dangerous city in the world!" etc). They should use their own messaging. And states should band together to take a stand.

    Here's an example of the type of propaganda and tactics that Governors, mayors, etc. should use:

    "Gangs of masked criminals are running rampant, impersonating ICE officers to commit crimes against defenseless civilians, who don't know who to believe! [give an example or two]. This cannot stand--we must have law and order!

    Therefore I have signed an order that our City Police (our National Guard may be called to help them if necessary) will arrest anyone who cannot show that they are an ICE or law enforcement agent. To distinguish them from the criminal gangs, Agents must wear badges in plain view to identify themselves and are prohibited from wearing masks that hide their faces. They must show valid warrants and provide their badge numbers when asked.

    Anyone who cannot show they are a legal agent and acts violently toward or violates the rights of civilians may be assumed to be a criminal and be arrested. Furthermore, citizens may protect themselves or others in self-defense. If you are an ICE agent and don't display your badge, you have only yourself to blame if anyone assumes you are one of these criminal gang members and acts accordingly.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Aren't there thousands of well trained former park rangers that need something to do & might have a bit of an axe to grind?

    I know where I live they already meet all the requirements for state law enforcement. Deputize them. Have them show up anywhere ICE is, 100-200 deep. Demand to see their law enforcement credentials, every time. If they refuse, arrest them.

    If they get violent, "pacify" them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The single biggest hurdle we have is how much the media loves Donald Trump. You could have the perfect narrative that convinces 100% of viewers to switch sides and it still wouldn't matter if 3x as many people heard his lies. You'd still lose. The right owns the media at this point and there's basically no way you're reaching half of the goobers Trump is. I'd bet most Americans couldn't even name their reps.

    Not suggesting you or anybody else does so, but.... If I were running a counter op, the first thing I'd do was bring down right wing media centers by targeting their transmitters. Splinter their national voice. Next you'd need to hit social media sites, but that's a different tactic where you'd essentially need a bot army to make them unusable by dumping massive amounts of AI slop nonsense (they're halfway there themselves TBH). You'd still have an uphill battle convincing the cult to switch, but at least you'd stand a chance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    It's true that the media focuses on trump. That's why the rhetoric directed at him by Newsom and Pritzker has worked to get plenty of media attention. The conflict of governors either mocking or talking tough to him and his reacting to them appeals to the media, which gives the opening for opponents to get their messaging out. Of course as you say, they'll spin it in trump's favor as best they can, but they'll report what is said.

    As you say, right wing media has been a major factor getting us here, but that now includes all the corporate-owned major broadcasters, especially CBS and CNN but the others as well, not just Fox, Newsmax etc. All the major network and social media is already aligned with the regime. So it's a bit late for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    ^This is weak little bitch mentality right here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Who says who can and can't dictate policy now? There are no longer any rules. Laws are violated continuously by the very government that is supposed to follow and enforce them. The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper now. A right-wing authoritarian power, enthusiastically supported by at least a third of the populace, has control of all three branches of the federal government. Troops are being deployed against the residents of states and cities the regime doesn't like. The federal funding they are owed is being withheld. There is no more "you can't do that", there's only strategy and tactics on how to deal with the situation. The available options are shrinking every day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There are no longer any rules

    NYT just ran an article today, interviewing academics who study countries that have slid from Democracy into Authoritarianism

    Quote from Prof. Sean Westwood :

    The most permanent damage, however, is the precedent. With these guardrails shattered, the temptation for a future Democratic administration to launch its own campaign of retribution — using a weakened system for its own ends — becomes immense. This is the grim, iterative nature of democratic backsliding: each transgression lowers the floor for the next, creating a cycle of political revenge that, once started, is nearly impossible to unwind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Strategy and tactics tell us that your idea is not realistic. You need to understand that laws are threats of violence and the last person to speak in any situation is the person holding the biggest gun. The mayor of Chicago cannot out gun the federal government and it's nonsense to suggest he should try.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    "Resistance is Futile" is a catchy philosophy, but not exactly a convincing one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's not what I said at all. He is resisting. But he isn't talking about arresting Federal agents like an online idiot who doesn't know how anything works.

    Pardon me for living in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Don't forget I also said a big part of the strategy is in the messaging, which needs to be ramped up exponentially. Loudly and repeatedly using strong rhetoric and deliberate propaganda, which is (usually exaggerated) messaging designed to achieve a goal, and what trump has been doing effectively for years.

    Notice how trump backed off after Pritzker talked tough? Then Nosferatu (Stephen Miller) talked him into it again. Miller is the driving force behind how they're using ICE. trump is continuously being manipulated by whoever has his ear at any time, and that includes --or can include-- his opponents if they know how to handle him.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    That sure is what it sounds like you're saying, and while votes on lemmy are largely meaningless, they do seem to indicate that most people share the interpretation of your message that I've arrived at. Is it possible you're not expressing your position as clearly as you think?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I can see how my first comment might not have been clear, but surely I can't get much clearer than "That's not what I said at all". It sounds like you're suggesting that your interpretation of my comment is what I meant regardless of what I was trying to say.

    The mayor's plan of "Ice free zones" is a great strategy because it sets up the inevitable court case. Regardless of what anyone on Lemmy thinks, the guy talking about "There are no rules anymore" is the doomer, not me.

    There are, in fact, rules, and we either use the courts or [redacted so I don't get banned]. Police officers arresting ICE is not on the table both due to federal supremacy and also because cops are fascists anyway and most are pretty happy about what ICE is doing. If you think cops are going to save you, you haven't been paying attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Okay, I think part of the pushback you're getting is due to you being just flat wrong about how local / state / federal law enforcement interaction works - a state municipality can absolutely arrest federal LEOs. It happens, not with frequency but it is not unknown by any means.

    This situation is largely unprecedented in the political landscape but legally it's completely feasible for the Chicago mayor to do what's being proposed, and while I do doubt CPD would choose not to be their usual bastard selves, in a great deal of recent reporting they do appear to be siding with the city over ICE (or at least, not siding with ICE over the city. Which is shockingly egalitarian by their standards, really).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Tump is insane. If I were mayor or governor, there is no way in hell I'm risking my own safety for this. If he starts messing with elections, sure because he becomes a persistent threat even for me. Otherwise I'd wait it out

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

    If you aren't willing to do that you have no business being a mayor or governor. Protecting the people you represent comes with the gig.

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

    Protecting? Yes

    Risking your life? No

    That said, if you postulate to mayor now that trump is in power, you should expect thing to get violent

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    We are well past the point where protecting people entails a risk. We have been since the first term, you cannot have one without the other in the current climate. If these governors and mayors can't accept the fact they need to resign and let someone with a spine have the reigns

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    If he starts messing with elections, sure because he becomes a persistent threat even for me. Otherwise I’d wait it out

    If?! He's been doing that out in the fucking open for nearly five years...

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

    I might not remember this correctly but didn't he basically say "so if I declare a state of war I can postpone elections indefinitely?". That is what I'm talking about. Everyone messes with elections to win, and even that fact he didn't do 2 consecutive terms is kind of proof that he didn't take it as far as he would have liked. That is fine-ish: it's very damaging, but at least it has an end date and could be never elected again. But when he postpones elections, now you are In real trouble, because the ONLY option is a revolution

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    He said a lot of crazy shit like that since he was first elected. The thing I was referring to is that he and his circle deliberately riled up a crowd to the point of storming the capitol, obstructed the response to the attack, and only back-paddled when it was clear the scheme had utterly failed. That was a coup attempt. He openly tried to subvert the constitutional order. And then the weak response given to that by the opposition made it possible for him to get re-elected four years later. And it was already clear what he would be doing, he told everyone who would listen from the very start what he would do and then proved it beyond any doubt on January 6th.

    So not only did he already attempt a coup because his ego couldn't take the loss (i.e. "messing with elections"), but beyond that his party is aggressively gerry-mandering their own states, they are messing with the election related laws, they are trying to acquire voter registrations from Democratic states. Trump has openly questioned the two term limit for presidents, he sells Trump 2028 merch for fucks sake, he constantly threatens political opponents in public, has said he would like to be king or dictator, and so on and so forth. It couldn't be any clearer where this is going. How much more proof do you need before you will accept that he is a "persistent threat" to the constitutional republic?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Have you killed any ice agents? No? Why not? Don't tell me you are scared.

    What would it take for you to risk you life for your job?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're scared, and that's okay. Don't try to wriggle free. Just accept who you are and know that there are others who are much more brave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    My great-grandfather would lose his shit if someone had told him that feds would be invading states against the wishes of the local governments. We forgot what America is supposed to be.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    My grandfather fought actual Nazis, sometimes I ask myself what he would think of our political situation today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    My grandfather fought actual Nazis

    My grandfather was in the Navy during the 1940s. My uncle was in the FBI during the 1980s. My brother is in the National Guard in the 2020s.

    The times, they are a-changin'.

    I ask myself what he would think of our political situation today.

    There's a joke about going back to 1789 and telling George Washington what has happened in the past 250 years.

    And his first response is "Wait, you let a black guy become president?! That's not what we fought for!"

    His second response probably involves asking to see "Hot MILFs in your neighborhood"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I think that was Ben Franklin and not Washington. Ben was quite the lady chaser. He once had an exchange with a French woman who insulted him for being fat, she said 'if a woman had a belly like yours, we'd all think she was pregnant!' To which he replied, 'this belly, madame, was on top of many fine ladies over here recently'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    My grandfather lived long enough.

    He always said “I killed the nazis once I can kill them again if I have too”

    We had to pull him from the nursing home because he kept yelling at the younger trump supporters in there. He called them the “me generation. All they care about is me me me”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 28 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    I don't know what happened to all the pre Rand Paul libertarians that everybody thought were paranoid talking about government overreach in the 90s?

    Federal agents dropping from a fucking helicopter to an apartment building in Chicago, kicking down doors, zip tying crying children, keeping people they just pulled from their homes in cuffs for hours without letting them contact a lawyer, and raiding the entire building like fucking pirates to steal peoples valuables is so fucking far beyond "overreach."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    what happened to all the pre Rand Paul libertarians

    I was one of them. I was in deep. I've met Ron Paul multiple times. I know some of his former staffers.

    I will tell you what happened:

    • They were right that in fact the Government is spying on everyone, and bald-face lied about it (Clapper)
    • They then assumed that the Government can only lie, and that everything official is by definition untrue
    • A supermajority of them are religious faithful. They can be super educated but they still believe in Bronze-Age fairy stories and "personal Truth"
    • ... which made them easy targets for Russian disinfo

    It's so banal. But it's the truth. I know because I watched my former friends turn into people who intentionally spread COVID, to "show up the hoax"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    They're keeping us separated by race. As long as it's "inner-city thugs" aka black people or latinos, the majority of rural America can handle it until it's too late especially if they only consumer curated propaganda. Well, that's what they hope. the people in charge of this are actually pretty fucking stupid though. Let's show them how wrong they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    Started with immigrants, definitely moving towards targeting people in inner cities to test the waters, then based on that recent memo next is "Antifa" or anyone opposed to the Trump admin.

    People still refusing to see this are in for a hell of surprise when they wake up to a swat team raiding their suburban and rural homes, and find out wanting the Epstein files released means you're also an official member of Antifa.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm an eternal optimist as long as I can breathe air and feel love. I think they're moving too fast. I think they've crossed their Rubicon and what's waiting in Rome isn't what they think it will be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Man, I hope you are right. They sure as hell have been moving very fast.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    They are, I'm a pretty good judge of people A lot of them seem fine-tuned to the legal system in the same way that an ant is fine tuned to move sand. They don't seem to have a lot of instinct as to human relations, and there are 330 million of us to relate to. We can't take it forever. And I believe they think that we can. I grew up redneck as possible. My family and old friend group are getting pissed. that is a fucking pterodactyl in the coalmine if you knew those guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’m an eternal optimist

    Yikes, how does that happen?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Haahaha to be honest, psychedelics and a near-death experience. All I know, is that whatever happens after death (which appears to be a lot, a lot more than what happens here) as long as I can keep my soul as clean as possible, the physical comings and goings of this place are very transient. Spreading love when I can brings it back and then I can share it again. The poorest people have nothing but money.

    Prolly it's a defense mechanism too because of how fucked things are, but I have felt and seen far too much love and beauty to allow myself to be defeated by the biggest losers on the planet. Fuck that, life rocks. They can eat shit, I'm gonna rave my way to the apocalypse if that's where we're goin. And if it doesn't, we don't need to wait that long for the end, so what's the worry either way?

    But the psychedelics and MDMa were the keys tbh, would have been harder to get there otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Personally? I got a little older, developed my sense of empathy more and stopped associating with libertarians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I got older, developed more empathy but especially during these times, I have more and more found myself drawn to civil libertarianism. I don't want government overreach regardless of who's in charge. The people (not corporations) are supposed to control the government, not be controlled by the government.

    Government involvement in people's personal lives should be minimized when possible while keeping in mind that the entire point of having a government is supposed to be to protect and benefit the people. Except, for some dumb fucking reason, we let the supreme court decide that corporations are people too.

    I think if we have any chance of surviving, we have to make overturning Citizens United a nonpartisan issue (which it really should be and easily could be if all the propaganda and disinformation around it was removed).

    T.L.D.R.:Government regulations should protect and serve people not control them. A government controlled by the people (bc surprise, people are not corporations) should regulate corporations and technology, not the other way around. I do not buy that human focused (as in protections for the people, their rights and their privacy) regulations placed on corporations and technology are "inhibiting progress" any more than I would believe somebody telling me we need to start cutting brake lines in all vehicles bc they "inhibit speed."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My great-grandfather would lose his shit if someone had told him that feds would be invading states against the wishes of the local governments.

    Ah yes, I recall that sentiment very common to the 1860s in certain sub-Mason Dixon line states. Also popular in the 1950s after Brown v Board.

    Unfortunately, the times have changed and the Neo-Confederates are the ones running DC now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, half of my family is from Southern Tennessee/West Virginia/South Ohio, the other half is from Eastern Canada and Northern Michigan, where I was born. (I mean, European, Jewish and First Nation but I just look white. Most of them, aside from those fleeing the holocaust, came over in the 1600s so its been long enough to become pretty mixed) I'm sure both sides had different reasons, but they had the same sentiment. This here land is yours, and nobody comes in unless you invite them. Neighbors all had that same agreement. That's a bigger part of America than a lot of people know.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 76 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Seeing what is happening reminds me of Eisenhower seeing the concentration camps for the first time and immediately calling for the media to photograph everything and for members of congress to view the atrocities in person. He knew that there might come a day when the world wanted to pretend that it never happened and insisted that there be enough evidence that there was no way anyone could deny the holocaust.

    It was the greatest act by a president (in my opinion) before he even became the president.

    The lesson being, everyone in these cities need to be recording everything, so that when the blatantly criminal administration and its enablers are finally held to legal account (and they will), there can be no denying what they attempted to do in America in 2025.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We need a EU Edition archive.org. Upload all evidence there. Someday Google search engine will become like Baidu and you can't find any of the massacres anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    wwhy not decentralize it entirely.

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

    I mean, problem is, its not a wikipedia that takes only 100GB, archive.org is in the TB and PB range.

    If the funds can only sustain a max of 500 PB (for example), if you split that funding to 2 sites, you reduce it to 250 PB, if you want a EU site, a US site, and a Australia site, for example, you're splitting the same pool of funds to just 166PB. I highly doubt people that usually donate $50 to one site is suddenly gonna find the money to donate $50 to each of the 3 sites, so the natural course of events is to split their donation to 3 sites.

    (I mean, if you wanna make a personal backup copy to "decentralize" it, you can already do it yourself, just start downloading. I'm talking about a 100% clone of every bit of data, I don't think individuals are gonna be able to maintain 500PB all by themselves and constantly check for data corruption)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    To be fair, you definitively can decentralized parts of it using protocols such as torrents, which work great for that purpose. It ensures multiple locations having redundant data, a means of retrieving that data again, and constant checks for corruption

    And actually come to think of this, this already does indeed happen, though only for a subset of the data. It's much more tricky legally when it comes to copyrighted works.

    If anyone has some spare terabytes of storage space, I do recommend you to see where you can contribute that space with torrents of this sort. It's better to use that free space for good than just letting it sit idly by

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 104 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Makes me think, however flawed the American democracy is, the federal set up does indeed hamper the attempts of tyrannical consolidation. Diversity is not without issues, but having enough diversity allows deviation from enforced thoughts. So diversity is indeed a strength. This is what the MAGA wants to rid.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    they're still black bagging people off of streets in broad daylight, in plain clothes with zero identification, and sending them to whothefuckknows...if your federal setup cant stop that then what the fuck is it for?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago

    Amazing that demanding from the agencies to adhere to the rule of law makes some people really, really itchy.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    1 comment in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post