President Donald Trump called for Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to be imprisoned Wednesday morning amid his administration’s deployment of National Guard members to Illinois’ largest city.“Chicago Mayor should be in jail for failing to protect Ice Officers!” Trump wrote on his social media platform ...
There’s a whole lot of people acting, in Broadview for example. They’ve been hit with rubber bullets, pepper balls, and tear gas multiple times; live rounds at least once there, definitely elsewhere in the metro area; and people still show up every day. Trump keeps putting more boots on the ground on US soil. When shit pops off, it’s going to make Kent State look like a pillow fight.
Or were you standing up your notion of “action” as a strawman?
This implies not acting yet.
This implies that the context has been shifted from the initial comment to the new one proposed by NuXCOM, which Triumph was replying to. Come on with this.
The greater context still applies. The comment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It was a reply, not a standalone comment.
No it doesn’t, what are you even talking about. You were criticizing the content of a comment specifically responding to and highlighting the change in context - now you’re trying to say that the context is the same as that which you presented in your original comment. Please stop making stuff up to justify your position, especially in sub-discussions where your initial position isn’t even the subject.
Alright, the condescending parts of your comments might be a sign that responding will be a mistake, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re engaging in a discussion in good faith.
Here’s my understanding of the discussion:
Level 1 Post linked to article about “President Donald Trump called for Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to be imprisoned Wednesday morning amid his administration’s deployment of National Guard members”
Level 2 DrFistington replied: “The minute JB removes protections … I’ll be more than happy to assist”
I understand this to either mean DrFistington will help Donald kill his enemies, or more likely it’s means: when this happens, DrFistington will kill fascists.
Level 3 I replied by asking what difference it would make if Donald takes that extra step. Seems very close to what we have now. I am still interested in how this step would be significant to DrFistington. Either way, this event doesn’t seem to change the state of things much.
Level 4 NuXCOM_90Percent responded to my question with reasons that DrFistington would be saying he’ll kill people.
Level 5 Triumph responds to the part where NuXCOM_90Percent said in one of the reasons he was giving in response to my question that people are taking action against this administration by continuing to show up.
Level 6 In response to Triumph response, I referred to surrounding context to back up NuXCOM_90Percent point that no one is taking the action—specifically the action of killing fascists because DrFistington statement implied he hadn’t taken action yet, and it seems like NuXCOM_90Percent was referring to this.
From my understanding illustrated above, this is directly related to DrFistington saying he’s waiting still to do any killing. It does not seem to me to be a brand new context, unrelated to anything above. I see a thread running through the whole discussion.
I could have misunderstood any of this though. I’m happy to receive clarification or confirmation from any of the commenters.
Oh wow. I wasn’t aware that Broadview had apparently received legal permission from the governor and was deputizing people on the street to ensure they would face no consequences for anything they do.
You know. As opposed to people who have decided tyranny is worth risking everything to fight back against.
(Also, I was not aware of active armed resistance with most of what I hear being VERY isolated cases alongside the normal “peaceful” resistance. Which is the other aspect of what is being discussed here).
Ah, you’re one of those “unless people are doing what I think they should do, their actions are useless” ones.
… No?
I am one of those “actually respond to the discussion” kind of people.
Let’s drill down on that.
Heavily implies the previous poster is not doing shit.
Implies they aren’t talking about protesting and are instead talking about violence.
Your post
Seemingly describes action as (mostly) peaceful protest. Which… I have Thoughts on the effectiveness of it and am increasingly feeling like it was a decades long trap, but I also regularly work with the people organizing those and encourage people to get involved.
To be clear: People need to be aware there are consequences to peaceful protest as well. Your face WILL be recorded and plenty of the olds who marched for civil rights and the like semi-regularly get “checked in on” by local law enforcement or find themselves getting “enhanced screening”.
The personal and societal consequences need to be considered. And it is very valid to be wary of sticking your neck out. Which is WHY those “parade protests” still serve a big role.
But it is also important to understand the difference between “I can’t afford to get fired” and “I want to be protected while I engage in violence”.