Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Me and a lot of people at my school are going to walk out of school and protest ICE bc they are coming to our county and we are going to show that we are not happy!!!! >:3333

Literally who are you?

Whoever they are I'm sure the glowies know by now.

Back in the day we used to skip class too, just because we felt like it rather than all these moral excuses

I went to one of those K-12 charter schools like in 8th or 9th grade and skipped classes damn near every single day, and no one ever gave a shit. In fact IIRC it was open campus. I'm not sure how charter schools work but I feel like that had to be illegal.

Hey man, we have the First Amendment for a reason. Be safe and make the most of it.

Awww, it's retarded.

Whoever you are you should go for it :) Just be sensible and stay safe.

Though well meaning, you will never make a difference and are doomed to failure unless you seek the bushido path and scour these weaknesses from your life.

So if they're just gunning down citizens now, when do citizens start shooting back?

Trump would love such an excuse to declare martial law and send even more, actually trained people to shoot people.

I hear this a lot from various folks (A lot of Euros) who point out that "Wasn't the 2nd amendment specifically for shit like this?" but this is the thing:

Most of the pro-gun folk in the US lean on the right wing side of things, so they're not really going to be setting up armed rebellions just because some lib/left protesters get killed. If anything, they're celebrating such things or at best shrugging their shoulders.

Hell, probably some of them joined ICE in the first place.

Yes I do realize this and know the military has bigger guns in the first place. But if I ever win the lottery I'm going to hand out guns outside Catholic churches and mosques.

Actually forget protesting, at this point I just want Yellowstone to blow.

Worth pointing out though that people at Catholic churches and mosques are going to be socially conservative in ways you don't like. Obviously you should hand them out to college students in well to do areas and see if any of them will grow a testicle.

She should've just went straight to the hood if she actually wanted those guns getting some use

Le epic atheism strikes again. DAE doesn't believe in magical friend from sky xD

What makes you think I'm am atheist or that you know anything about me? Aside from you being a retarded faggot anyway.

Hold up... The Catholics are liberal now? o.O

The lesson of feminist women who helped get the current Iranian regime in power comes to mind. Sure, they tolerated the hijab. A small price to pay to overthrow the Western imperialism-backed Shah (corrected from "Shaw" for hetero-malk). Just an inconvenience. And then ten years later when they started being executed, they had sudden post-nut clarity: if you value freedom, liberalism, the cause of the oppressed, things like that, don't tie your fate to religious fundamentalists.

It's a bad idea for people supportive of, for example, LGBTQ+ rights, to ally with groups who have members that have engaged in literal "gay bashing," discriminatory laws, and throwing them off of buildings. And yet here we are. The propaganda is so powerful that ANYONE who isn't the white-protestant majority is an ally, when in fact some of these minority groups have more in common with the MAGAs than the young college students trying to "fight the colonists."

Not that I'm necessarily accusing Catholics and Muslims of automatically being fundamentalists (nor am I accusing all deeply religious people of hating gays/etc.; but we know such people exist and have often times had lots of power). I'm just saying man, you're playing with fire when you ally with social conservatives when you are socially liberal/progressive JUST BECAUSE they are minority groups and maybe believe in government programs for the poor, etc.

.

.

.

tl;dr Coalitions of convenience can backfire.

I made a comment about giving guns to law abiding American citizens, which they have a right to own, and you got nervous when they happened to be minorities. That right there would be mission accomplished.

I just think if Hispanics and other minorities have to be afraid to even go to the grocery store because they can be harassed or worse by gun toting masked thugs based solely on what they look like, it's only fair that the people who are fine with that should get a reason to feel a little nervous too.

You sound like someone who might have liked the Black Panthers.(not the Marvel character).

"Everyone should have guns to defend themselves against tyranny!"
"Whooo that's so American, fuck yeah!"

"EVERYONE should have guns, not just the portly white men who fetishize them."
"Whoa now, hold on, that sounds like the greatest possible threat to the internal security of the country."

I'd heard about them but never read anything in detail. Looks like they were illegally spied on and sabotaged and made to look like criminals by the government. Is everything in US history after WWII just one convoluted propaganda campaign?

Guys! I can't believe it! I've just realized, I think the government might be....evil?!

(It might be more accurate to say that anyone in power anywhere ever is doing this or at least attempting to at all times.)


(But not on CYS of course. Nothing to worry about, you're in good hands. )

Glory to CYStia! ^_^

Is everything in US history after WWII just one convoluted propaganda campaign?

You're so close to getting it.

World* history.

Who gets nervous about that? I'm a liberal dude. I'm just pointing out that liberals allying with cultures that are literally illiberal can end poorly for liberals. And I pointed out such a historical case (Iran) to make my point: shortly after the literally illiberal people had power, they executed all the Marxists/feminists/etc. that helped them get power.

Wait, are you not aware that good chunks of American Muslims and Catholics are socially conservative, and about half of American Catholics voted for tRump? Actually, hold on, let me check that.... Yep, turns out 55% of Catholics voted for tRump per Pew: Pew Research: Behind Trump’s 2024 Victory, a More Racially and Ethnically Diverse Voter Coalition.

"Trump won a majority of Catholic voters, taking 55% of the Catholic vote to Harris’ 43%." Per Pew.

So yeah, my issue about arming Catholics and Muslims is not because they are "minorities," it's because roughly half of them are social conservatives who think the country would be better if the Constitution was replaced by their holy book (That part's a bit of hyperbole, but I hope you get my point).

...

EDIT: Forgot to respond to the ICE comment.

Who said I support ICE? Arresting or even detaining someone because of what they look like smacks of violating the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. ICE clearly has, at least in my non-expert opinion, repeatedly violated the Constitution. To me that makes them criminal.

...

EDIT2: This site has lots of extremely Christian protestant people. I am not attacking those people. As long as you let others be free, I care not whether you think gay sex is an abomination per Leviticus 18:22. Just keep it secular and I'm good. Same with Muslims and Catholics. Over 30 Christian-majority nations allow gay marriage (might even be 40 now), and I think over a hundred allow freedom of religion. As long as your religion is kept between you and God, why would I care? My point here is that there are a good chunk of people among this group (Catholics and Muslims) who do not share these liberal values.

Kamala did not inspire confidence.

But also most Catholics I know are both very much against Trump and also didn't vote this election, in the same way they don't ask for raises at a job they've been working at for 15 years only to make less than the new hires. There's a real defeatist attitude of "there's no point". (And living in a red state, they might be right.)

43% voting Democrat still seems like a huge amount when you consider the way evangelicals went all in though.

Of course, the vast majority of black voters went for Kamala, but I'm not sure if they're really among the ones actually angry at Tdump right now. And across the board it's really hard to say how much race and gender is a factor in things like that--but looks at the actual numbers it looks like Michigan had the highest percentage of Catholic voters by far, and well duh, that's a very white state. . But I'm seeing discussions on him losing those kind of swing votes recently (guess they're finding out the cost of alliances of convenience), and the Catholic Church as an entity at least is taking a strong stance regardless of what US voters are doing.

I don't really have a point, just autism. But the people being targeted by these crackdowns are for the most part going to be Catholic by default.

Edit: I will no longer edit in response to your edits, calm down with those jeez

LOL sorry I really should use the app to preview my posts.

Anyway, I do wonder if this is just a trend, and maybe they'll all have buyer's remorse with the whole supporting the extreme right.

EDIT: My two edits are not my only edits, for people wondering. They're just the edits that added entirely new parts of the argument. Okay that's all no more I swear.

I think aside from the question of voter demographics, some of the earlier posts were all sort of straddling the line of a 2nd Amendment rights discussion anyway, which should probably just be its own thread. (Luckily/unluckily it is only relevant if Wildblue wins the lottery though, because I'm sure benholman's contributions would be fun.)

EDIT because see I can do it too: the extreme right in the religious sense by and large are the kind of Christians who think Catholics are pagans, will tell you they hate denominations, and can't make up their mind on whether Christmas trees are evil or not.

I'm one of those weird left-leaning people who does wonder if the Democrats have erred by being so staunchly opposed to the Second Amendment. Maybe that's just emotion speaking, but when you see people's rights crushed by the Storm Troopers, and they just get away with it 95% of the time, the thought does occur. I mean, WOULD they so flippantly abuse people's rights if they thought a nutjob or furious person might shoot them?

Then there's the argument that if there are more guns, police would be more likely to use lethal force quicker.

I'm not educated enough by any stretch to have a valid opinion here, but it seems that the more concentrated power the government has, the less freedom the people tend to have.

Does an armed public deter state tyranny?

Does an armed public escalate state violence?


I'm sure someone here knows....

Man reading this from the outside is pretty crazy. If you escalate violence against the state, the state will escalate its violence in turn and while I know you all like to cosplay gun-ho Rambo's, I'm pretty sure none of you have a tank in your backyard.

Unless you're plotting a civil war instead, in which case go ahead. Though you'd probably let those commie Asians WIN since they're still united like a hivemind, allowing them the power to bomb other countries rather than their own!

I would very much like to see the American Civil War, Part 2; I'm just not going to participate in it directly.

Didn't need to type that one out chief. Already knew you were retarded

...how do you think that worked out for people in Civil War pt 1?

Yeah, that's the issue, the circumstances the Second Amendment was created by and that America itself was founded under no longer exist, the founders could not even conceive of the military power and far reaching federal control over the narrative available today, even most people today don't get it.

Hell, a mob of regular people can only even be directed by Trumpus Christ to storm the Capitol when they're white and middle aged and fat enough and it's all unprecedented enough to not be immediately perceived by clueless polite Democrats as a threat. Regular non violent protestors in DC will get tear gassed and driven off so that Trump can take a photo of himself holding a Bible.

And a man filming with his phone will get gunned down by goons and most of my relatives will be fervently defending the shooters and saying the guy had it coming. Someone ACTUALLY using a gun, Trump would have a field day with and use as an excuse to declare martial law or enact a bunch of other far reaching policies he's been itching to pull the trigger on. Look at the reaction when those two National Guardsmen were killed. (by a man with a history of working with the CIA but shhhh.) Or the more obvious example of Charlie Kirk. Everything is just fresh straw to spin with in the hands of the people who control the brainwash machine called Fox.

I don't actually know what the solution is, even nature taking its course on an old man with dementia and more cheeseburger grease than blood in his arteries isn't going to close Pandora's box. These escalations of force are just one more chapter in the playbook on power abuse that Trump has outlined for every President to come, as well as the knowledge that half the country just doesn't care what they do or how much hypocritic reversal or straight up criminality it involves.

I guess it might somewhat break apart the cult of conservative conformity at least once they're lacking the figurehead, but that's assuming someone else doesn't just grab the same lever now that they've seen what makes the cows go mooo.

Back to your original point though, it's typically the far right guys who start buying more guns and organizing into militia groups in response to a Democrat getting into office, it's part of some elaborate cosplay where they're all LARPing about how they're prepared to live off the grid in the woods to resist being CANCELED or the 5G mind control waves or whatever. But these types could become a smal, short lived terrorist cell at most, due to the fact that yeah, technology exists and armed rebellion by regular chuds isn't going anywhere.

"Regular non violent protestors in DC will get tear gassed and driven off so that Trump can take a photo of himself holding a Bible."

That one made me contemplate illegal actions at the time.

I think the idea is they are banking on the police and National Guard deciding AGAINST massacring Americans. That is, you fight back enough to where the men and women from your neighborhoods who are pointing guns at their own people suddenly decide they aren't going to be a party to murdering fellow Americans, and they mutiny, and you end up forcing the government to the negotiating table.

Yeah that's not going to happen.

Civil war would involve the following: airstrikes on civilian houses and places of business where maybe an insurgent walked by once; women and girls being raped by occupying soldiers who then cover up the crimes of their comrades; guilty and innocent people vanishing without trial into black hole prisons that make ICE detention facilities look like pleasant vacations to be tortured, sometimes to death; intentional massacre of civilians. These types of things have happened, to greater and lesser extents, in Ireland, in Spain, in Lebanon, in Mandatory and modern Palestine, in Syria, in Myanmar, the list goes on. Civil war is horrific.

An armed public uprising would be an escalation of violence that would produce unbearable and unlivable conditions for literally everyone in the country. The Dems are right to be skeptical of the possibility of private citizens overthrowing the state.

UD would love that!!

There's also the fact of how isolated modern people are from their neighborhoods and communities. Any kind of "rebellion" would have to be organized with fellow radicals via the tracking devices everyone carries with them at all times, that continue to track you even when turned off.

Authorities as a whole also pay a lot more attention to the activities of potential leftist troublemakers than Bubba's United Militia of the First Ushers of Christ's Kingdom or whatever doing training activities in the woods, even when these are the ones who tend to do crazy shit like trying to kidnap governors and overthrow states.

Really, I have no idea what it is about Michigan that makes it so full of radicals, just something about being a swing state I guess.

Even before modern technology uprisings of ordinary people against organized military were almost never successful. Basically you need another state actor to make your revolution a success. (Fighting for independence as a colony in which the colonial power has lost interest seems to be the most common exception)

It's a state that had open carry with no permit and concealed carry even before Texas did. 

There's no state inspection on vehicles which can basically just be 4 wheels and an engine, and under certain conditions you could technically drive while legally blind since the doctors can't report you.

It's the home of not one but two of the most violent post apocalyptic cities without an actual nuke going off. (Obviously Detroit, but really Flint is a bigger shithole given they can't even get clean water)

It had the most "militias" at one time in the US. Not sure if that's the case anymore but I'm sure they all didn't disappear.

Age of consent is 16.

And it somehow never had the death penalty (Not even a little bit)

Combine that with politicians suggesting to arm hobos with shotguns and like I said, it's the wacky Mitten state.

I am very skeptical that US soldiers would comply with those kinds of orders (use of jets on civilians, etc.). I know I used the term "Storm Troopers" to describe police earlier, but the military is made up of a very diverse group. It’s not a monolithic killing machine. You have people from every social category; many are there for the money, or the benefits, or to "scam" the system—joining the MPs so they never see combat, then claiming disability after serving for a few years so they can get thousands of dollars a month for the rest of their lives due to "back problems" from marching/rucking.

There's a massive leap from "I joined for the GI Bill" to "I'm going to fire a missile at a Starbucks in Detroit."

It's one thing to agree to bomb Iran or Iraq, where soldiers are more willing to believe the propaganda they are told because those people are "them." It’s easy to dehumanize when you're "othering." But the degree to which the brainwashing must take hold for them to deliberately attack US civilian infrastructure on a large scale would have to be incredible. The press is a lot freer than in those nations, and the speed of information is a lot faster than it was in the past.

You can get away with that stuff decades ago or in nations where there is no free press. But I am skeptical you could in 2026 in the US. You would need a total breakdown of the information environment. Because even IF someone massacred a bunch of Americans, that right there would be the END of everyone associated with it. Whistleblowers would sing. Heads would roll. Leaders would defect or flee.

Bombing "them," those vaguely brown-skinned foreigners that soldiers can easily convince themselves aren't real people? Easy. Bombing people who speak your language, dress like you, go to the same religious services you do, root for the same NFL teams you do, play the same video games, use the same gas stations, and follow the same people on X? I find that to be a lot harder to pull off. These soldiers have families in neighborhoods that look exactly like the ones they'd be told to completely destroy. I doubt they'd blow up their own people for a politician.

Re: "othering" other Americans. Police are like 85% Republican. It's probably easier for them. The miliary is a lot more balanced (per Military Times, 52% Independent, roughly one-forth Republican, 14% Democrat). That means there are hundreds of thousands of people who come from the group that has 80-something percent against the army being used on rioting Americans. So nearly 40% are waiting to mutiny—and that's assuming Republicans are a monolith. Also, I think some 40-50% of the army is non-white. So that's another factor about the ease of "othering" fellow Americans to the point that they would just massacre them.

So yeah, I just don't find it plausible that the military would turn high tech, devastating military equipment against Americans—even if ordered to.

That's the reasons why border guards or prison guards often become hit squads for dictators. They are trained to think in terms of us and them.

You're not a countryman, neighbour or anything else when you cross the line into "enemy". The National Guard opened fire on demonstrators at Kent State for protesting. In 1985, the Philadelphia PD set a deadly fire in a row house by dropping an incendiary bomb on it from a helicopter, in order to end the MOVE organization. In any system, in any time, when you challenge the state too much, you get hammered.

Your assertion that the military would not take violent action against insurgency in the country is just laughable. Especially because armed insurgency would necessarily mean that your heroic group of civic-minded armed liberals would, necessarily, be shooting at cops and soldiers. 

Also, I hate to break it to you, you don't have a free media environment. People get their news from large corporations and monied interests that turn them into cattle. The world is now full of people who have replaced reality with a hallucinatory and frightening series of images absorbed from short-form video content and cable news. ICE just brazenly executed a guy in the street, and the Fox news contingent are fervently defending them. Do you think that's a conclusion people would arrive at on their own? 

This is to say nothing about the role of AI on social media, where consensus is easily manipulated with fake accounts. In a few more years, video itself will be easily fabricated. It will be trivial to edit a video of an insurgent walking into a building that is then destroyed by an airstrike, or adding discarded firearms on the ground to re-contextualize a massacre of peaceful demonstrators. It's a post-truth media landscape. 

Somehow we went from me mentioning that armed protestors MAY cause a deterrent (from fear of a blood bath and political nightmare) to—in your first reply to me—"airstrikes on civilian houses and places of business." That's not even a subtle strawman, it's an entire giant Japanese mecha robot made of dry, gas-drenched matches.

But seriously: I’m talking about first-order response to a single armed standoff or protest, or something on that scale, not an end-stage civil war scenario. The disconnect seems pretty solvable: I am not talking about such an extreme situation where we have open war in the streets. If you are, then we're not really having a debate, we're just talking about vaguely related things.

"Your assertion that the military would not take violent action against insurgency in the country is just laughable."

Interestingly enough, I didn't say they would "not take violent action." Re: laughable: You started your argument by saying:

"Civil war would involve the following: airstrikes on civilian houses and places of business where maybe an insurgent walked by once; women and girls being raped by occupying soldiers who then cover up the crimes of their comrades; guilty and innocent people vanishing without trial into black hole prisons that make ICE detention facilities look like pleasant vacations to be tortured, sometimes to death; intentional massacre of civilians. These types of things have happened, to greater and lesser extents, in Ireland, in Spain, in Lebanon, in Mandatory and modern Palestine, in Syria, in Myanmar, the list goes on"

and supported it with four people killed (by National Guardsmen) at Kent State (out of hundreds and possibly up to three thousand students present; only 28 of more than 70 fired) and ELEVEN in the MOVE incident (by police—eventually leading to the resignation of the commissioner and eventually a major payout to home owners in 2005). I do appreciate how you've so nicely illustrated the scale issue I am referring to, however.

It's a waste of time debating if we're not debating the same thing. I never used the word "insurgency." What I am referring to is closer to the Bundy/BLM incident (discussed below). Nor did I say military would take NO action. I said I'm skeptical they would send in jets, etc.

The Bundy/Bureau of Land Management standoff fits the situation I am referring to far better that angry students, and better than a few rebels hiding in a house. An actual armed standoff between many civilians and the US government, where guns were brazenly brandished at federal agents.

Per the DOJ, a total of more than 200 people, about 40 militia members in a drainage channel waving their guns at cops, more than 20 armed up on the overpass, took up position against law enforcement. Slowed traffic to a trickle with armed men, and made statements like "We're about ready to take the country over with force!" You know what didn't happen? Someone getting shot. In Syria this armed standoff would have ended in hundreds of deaths. Instead, federal officers backed down because they didn't want a blood bath.

Does the US state commit atrocities against Americans from time to time? Sure, these two things you mentioned, four poeple dying at Kent State and eleven with the MOVE situation, certainly prove this. But the problem here is that they could have escalated to a horrific, bloody shootout in the Bundy standoff, and instead chose to just leave—because not leaving meant dead officers, dead suspects, major political heat, etc. At Kent State, they could have killed God only knows how many more over rocks being thrown at them. But instead there four deaths, and most of the National Guardsmen present did not even fire. We didn't see the result you seem to suggest would happen. We saw controlled violence, or no violence at all.

"Your assertion that the military would not take violent action against insurgency in the country is just laughable. Especially because armed insurgency would necessarily mean that your heroic group of civic-minded armed liberals would, necessarily, be shooting at cops and soldiers."

My assertion is that it would never even get that far. Civilians would fire back at cops, and IF there was an order TO THE MILITARY to massacre people as you argued in the first response, there's a high chance (based on the demographics of the military) people would disobey those orders. You would then have a standoff, negotiations, and then it would end. Like with the Bundy standoff I mentioned above.

So my claim isn't "the state would never kill civilians." It's your "civil war/airstrikes on businesses" is not a realistic response by the U.S. government to armed protestors firing. The more realistic trajectory is this: the people who are shot at shoot back, some number die quickly, specialized units mass, leaders scramble to contain optics and legality, and you either get a negotiated standdown or a targeted raid, not indiscriminate bombing of commercial blocks.

"Also, I hate to break it to you, you don't have a free media environment. People get their news from large corporations and monied interests that turn them into cattle. The world is now full of people who have replaced reality with a hallucinatory and frightening series of images absorbed from short-form video content and cable news. ICE just brazenly executed a guy in the street, and the Fox news contingent are fervently defending them. Do you think that's a conclusion people would arrive at on their own?"

When your press is free, you get plenty of spin and lies. There is no place where there isn't spin—the difference is who is doing it and why. But the point I was making is this isn't a situation where the state can monopolize the narrative. There are too many competing media sources with audiences with diametrically opposed political views—catered to by those competing media sources. Few people in America would be unaware for long of the military firing missiles into Starbucks and Burger King.

Regarding "post-truth media landscape," you're assuming people just become more obedient in this landscape when they're just as likely to become more skeptical. Even for MAGAs, as seen with the disillusionment with the Epstein thing. Many of the most mindless of all the sheep turned on their false god over that. So it cuts both ways. You will have sources posting lies, and instantly you will have sources countering them, sometimes with the truth, sometimes with competing lies.

tl;dr

Idk man, your original post sounded like you were describing a heartwarming end to a movie, and I don't make any generalized assumptions about the betterness of human nature winning out anymore. Especially when a man was just executed on camera by federal mercenaries while pinned to the ground, and everyone around me is demonizing the victim and defending the shooters.

We live in an environment where people will angrily deny a mass shooting of elementary aged children even occurred just to own the libs, and come to the kneejerk defense of the conduct of the Uvalde police nobly standing around scratching their asses while another went on, I just really don't think there's anything that could happen on any level that will shake the blind, masochistic loyalty of a large part of the country.

But again, the leader of the cult is old and will die even if it ends up being on his fourth fucking term, and while I'm not able to predict which way things will go, there will at least be more splintering in the far right, and best case scenario, maybe eventually we can just get a breather a few years of a boring white guy who doesn't do much of anything and especially doesn't use Twitter.

The point with that wall of autism: it is not a dichotomy of "the armed populace overthrows the government" vs "the government mowes down the populace." There is a third possibilty, shown in the Bundy/Bureau of Land Management (at least dozens brandishing arms, disobeying federal officers, and brazingly threatening them) in which the government—a group made of people—decides it's just not worth the trouble.

My original post was arguing that social conservatives are not going to be the eternal friends of progressives and liberals, so I'm not sure what you mean there. Unless you mean my "gun" post, which was just me asking which side of the coin armed protests would land on (destruction by the government or the government backing down). The post after that was explicitly arguing that the government is far more likely to stand down than massacre by the hundreds or thousands, like what happened with the Bundy/BLM incident I linked to. Clearly they'll kill a few as well. But hetero brought up things like the Syrian civil war, airstrikes on civilians and so on, which is far removed from what I was talking about. Maybe he just wanted to discuss something else, which is fair. But I sure wasn't talking about when it's taken that degree.

But yes, you're right that roughly half the country supports ICE. And your comments about Catholics ring true. Which is why I am hoping this 55% support of trump is just a trend. Maybe the pro-trans people and socialists went too far and lost the centrists—I don't know, I just hear the rhetoric. But given how far tRump has gone overboard (as he fraknly said he would), I think (hope) that these people and others like them will remember why they don't traditionally vote for right-wing nationalists.

You literally just had Joe Biden? I don't think he is an option now.

Oh! I get it now! The Catholics in America are Mexican! (Sorry, British, so all of our Catholics are conservative old white folks who're descended from the Irish. Essentially just Protestants with rosaries.)

Oh right, I guess it would be different over there lol. I'm sure we have some like that too, especially in the northeast. But in South and Central America as well as Texas and California they had this catastrophic event known as "the Spaniards" happen in the 1500s, and as a result 50% of Hispanics are Catholic still.

(This is also why the capybara is a fish.)

No fucking way this retard just called him the Shaw 

No fucking way this retard's panties got wadded up over a spelling error.

A lot of Catholics vote Democrat and for obvious reasons are strongly against ICE. The problem here is that somebody's tiny churchgoing abuela is not very likely to ever use a gun. If the goal is maximum chaos then sure, a mosque may be more on the mark, but End actually has the right idea in that case: forget ideologies, give out shotguns, liquor, and machetes to the homeless.

Sounds like a party! ^_^

Just to elaborate on the Catholic thing, the Pope and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have been pretty vocally against the way the immigration crackdown is been handled, and in the beginning of all this a lot of churches had to put out notices telling people just not to attend since ICE was camping them to harass people over their paperwork.

Probably a bad idea.

Agreed.

Hand the guns to groups of mentally ill homeless people instead.

This was seriously proposed in Michigan back in 2018 since there was an idea to let homeless people defend their carts and against violence better by giving them shotguns.

I sometimes miss that wacky mitten state. (Not that rabbit though, Yoopers can go fuck themselves)

It's decided, if I win the lottery I'll give mentally ill homeless people tannerite to defend their carts with.

This thread reminds me of when old member Honor4Ever made a post saying he was going back out there to riot during the 2015 Baltimore Riots.

Didn't hear from him again for several years since he got arrested.

Do so in compliance with the law or you might get shot (illegally probably, but you can't sue your way out of being dead). If they declare it a riot and/or order you to disperse, do so and try again next time. Do not destroy property. Do not act violently. Those are not protected speech, and you'll not only ruin/end your protest, you'll undermine political support, which is the entire point of a protest. Just because "you're right" does not give you carte blanche. You must obey the law. This is for your own safety. Ignore this at your peril.

The OP just meant he's going to stand outside his middle school during 3rd period social studies and discuss anime with his friends.

Better than doing nothing

Sure, don't be Fabrikant's grandparents.

Technically this only true for half my grandparents, but yes make sure you are among the right half.

My grandfather actually protested a lot, just for the wrong side. He was a proper Nazi living in a very socialist area (the other kind of socialist), so ended up in a fair bit of fights. After the war was over he saw the light and flipped completely in a matter of days.

When I was a child there was still a lot of awkwardness around in Germany. Because all the nazis were still there, they just weren't nazi anymore. Sure the leaders got hanged and others went to prison, but people like my grandfather just started businesses and had normal jobs. It was a bit weird. Makes me wonder where the ICE goons will be in ten years.

Kids, be like Fabrikant's grandparents, make sure you're on the winning side within 3-5 days.

I actually didn't even hear about the whole ICE situation for days because, apparently, the U.K cares more about the Beckhams throwing tantrums than it does about immigrants getting murdered or Trump starting World War 3..

I still can't decide if WWIII being started over Greenland would be novel and unexpected enough to be worth it.

I'm just looking forward to the moment when Trump accidentally sends the American troops to invade Iceland because he can't get the name right.

(To be fair, Iceland is green and Greenland is icey. They should really switch names to stop confusing people.)

Just give him a sharpie and make sure he circles the right one.

... Because Trump knows where all the countries are on a map?

They should ask him to draw a clock while they're at it.

And the whole point of the names WAS to confuse people!