politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
if ice is raiding my house, I am already dead. the only thing I get to decide in that scenario is how long it takes and who I take with me.
as for giving them the pretext, they will create whatever pretext they feel they need. they are already trying. remember the loser who shot migrants at the (Dallas?) ice office a few back? the only thing the government (and most media) would say about it was that he was shooting at ice officers when it was clear he was targeting immigrants.
fascism does not care about legality, and it doesn't care about pretext. if they do not fit the pretext they want in the timeline they want, they will do it themselves.
Very very true. However, most of the country does. If they were already "doing it themselves" and this stuff didn't matter, they would have arrested Pritzger, kicked Jimmy Kimmel off the air, that CBP commander in Chicago wouldn't be showing up to court every morning, things like that. There is a reason they're starting by focusing on vulnerable communities without much support from the rest of society, and obeying this elaborate pretense that they're "enforcing immigration law" and pretending to stay inside those boundaries so elaborately.
I can pretty much guarantee you that if the citizens of Chicago had been obeying your advice here so far, Pritzger would have been arrested by some sort of federal agents already.
All I can really say is read the book. I know you have your way of looking at it and I'm honestly not trying to disrespect it, because I get it, but also, how many successful revolutions have you written the guidebook for? I think for Sharp that number is close to double digits now.
It would help if you included resources that prove that that book was the pretext for double digit successful revolutions.
That said, "There is a reason they're starting by focusing on vulnerable communities without much support from the rest of society, and obeying this elaborate pretense that they're "enforcing immigration law" and pretending to stay inside those boundaries so elaborately."
Where do you think this is leading to, and the point theyre trying to take it always leads to armed resistance. Buy a gun and be safe. It's really not even almost a chore to have a gun tucked away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dictatorship_to_Democracy
It's known to have been directly involved in Burma, the Arab Spring, Serbia, and Angola. It's been translated by local activists into Amharic, Arabic, Azeri, Bahasa, Belarusian, Burmese, Chin, Chinese (simplified and traditional Mandarin), Dhivehi, Farsi, French, Georgian, German, Jing Paw, Karen, Khmer, Kurdish, Kyrgyz, Nepali, Pashto, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Tibetan, Tigrinya, Ukrainian, Uzbek, and Vietnamese. I have no idea how many of those led to it later being involved in a revolutionary attempt (let alone a successful one) in a "proof" sense. I was just telling you what I think about it.
Here's a story: https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/23/world/gene-sharp-revolutionary/index.html
The author is the real deal. He's spent time in federal detention in the US, he's spent a lot of time with people in resistance movements in these places.
I want to call your attention to this part specifically:
I don't know if you can really call modern Myanmar a "success story" but to me they seem like they're making more progress now than in 30 years of bloody armed confrontation with the military, which of course is more capable at military things.
Dang. Buying the book next time I can afford it. Thanks for sharing
Yeah, it is excellent. He put it in the public domain, it's on the internet:
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/126900/8008_FDTD.pdf
He wrote a bunch more that are a little more in depth (there are references in the appendix for some specific details about particular tactics), but that one is the pamphlet condensed version which is still pretty comprehensive.
Excited to get into this, thanks for elaborating
I hope your gun is securely “tucked away”. I have a kid and adding a gun to my household would make it statistically less safe.
I think it’s important to know how to safely handle guns, but in my life it’s completely unnecessary to own and maintain one. I know where I could steal a few if society collapsed, which I don’t think is likely anytime soon.
Kids aren't in my home
It’s actually not the kids in the house that makes it less safe, it’s the men (which I am if it matters). Or really just the gun, since suicide rates are way higher as well.
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
Spoiler is that most people killed by guns are shot by someone they know who owns a gun. Someone having a bad day/week/year with a gun is way more dangerous that someone without one.
The article later states they were trending toward higher risks in home invasions with guns, but did not have enough to be statistically relevant.
does most of the country care about legality and pretext? if they did we wouldn't have the president or supreme court we do.
I'm familiar with sharps writings. he makes really good points but I think you are vastly underestimating the complexity of a revolution in a country such as united states. yes, his texts have been instrumental in may revolutions but as far as I am aware they have never been tested on such a world stage, and certainly not with the myriad of technological factors at play in the US, which changes things drastically as far as what is feasible.
I subscribe to a far more franz fanon approach, which is that nonviolence relies on your oppressors sense of humanity. if they are opressing you, their sense of humanity is so drastically different than ours that it is frivolous to try to appeal to it.