Trump Regime denying citizenship to children of some gay couples.

[aerius]

It's because we're getting to the point where words alone might not do the trick. The first amendment protects thought, speech, and religion. It does not protect actions.

The average person has to become uncomfortable enough/fearful enough to move from words and shouting to, shall we say, more assertive and physical action with all the risks that entails. Trump and his associates are already coming for the immigrants and Muslims. Until the average person realizes he or she could be next all too many are willing to hide their heads in the dirt.

In other words, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

It also protects freedom of peaceable assembly, ie. mass protests. It's perfectly legal to get together with as many like minded folks as you can find and sit your asses down in front of the legislatures every day until the politicians cave in to your demands. Those rights are protected unless you start throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails and the cocksuckers in Congress.

Now, if the US has reached the point where folks can't get together and have a peaceful protest without having their 1st Amendment rights violated, I'd argue that it's time to break open the 4th & final box.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting. So the president with the lowest approval rating in the last 80 years commits, and I quote:

This is one of the most blatantly Nazi-esque and despotic acts we've seen yet from this regime, one which appears to start laying the ground work for stripping millions of people (ie, anyone born outside of a traditional marriage) of citizenship.

And you, and the people of the US aren't willing to stand up to it because reasons.

Falsely implying that physical violence is the only way of standing up to something.

I've given my reasoning, and nobody has actually bothered to try to propose a serious counter-argument (or at any rate you certainly haven't), because your thought process appears to be less "What can we do that will actually accomplish something" and more "HULK SMASH!" Which is understandable on an emotional level, but that doesn't mean it'll actually accomplish anything worthwhile.

I don't want to simply achieve peace at any price. I want to win against fascism, by the least costly and most likely to be successful means of doing so, whatever that may be.

I find this interesting since people are willing to protest, riot, and keep on doing it until much lesser wrongs were righted, for instance, the Rodney King riots back in 92, or the mass protests held in several major cities following the shooting of Trayvon Martin. And yet, when in your words, you have the existential future of your entire nation at stake, you, and the people aren't willing to exercise your 1st Amendment rights beyond writing angry words on the internet.

The 1st. Amendment does not grant a right to engage in violence. I think you're mixing up Amendments 1 and 2 there.

And I said why I didn't, at least not yet. Because I'm not convinced it would actually accomplish anything except the momentary satisfaction of venting one's rage at the cost of getting a lot of innocent people hurt, and making the overall situation worse.

Keep in mind- a lot of the far Right really, really want the Left to engage in more violence. They want that fight, they believe they will win it, and they believe it'll give them the final pretext to make America a fully-fascist nation (or, in the case of the ones who are actually working for the Kremlin, to cripple the US and its allies). And right now, they're probably right.

[Jub]

TRR, I think people are asking you where the massive anti-Trump protests are? Where are the waves of citizens protesting a war in Iran? Why isn't their a chain of people around the White House and the Senate 24/7 calling for change?

If the left was as loud out in the real world as they are online they'd make the news nightly with their protests.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, I think people are asking you where the massive anti-Trump protests are? Where are the waves of citizens protesting a war in Iran? Why isn't their a chain of people around the White House and the Senate 24/7 calling for change?

If the left was as loud out in the real world as they are online they'd make the news nightly with their protests.

That's fair.

But there were big protests when Trump first won, and when he first announced the Muslim ban. His officials were publicly heckled after the family separation policy hit the news. And then it kept happening. Honestly, I think people just got fatigued.

Or maybe not. The unusual Democratic turnout for a midterm election last year was telling. We'll see if that holds next November.

[Broomstick]

It also protects freedom of peaceable assembly, ie. mass protests. It's perfectly legal to get together with as many like minded folks as you can find and sit your asses down in front of the legislatures every day until the politicians cave in to your demands. Those rights are protected unless you start throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails and the cocksuckers in Congress.

Meanwhile... how are you paying your rent?

It is perfectly legal for an employer to fire you if you don't show up to work, whether it's because you're engaging in political protest or just playing hooky to binge watch a show on Netflix. One day marches don't do much, a settled in protest lasting weeks or months means risking economic ruin for the participants with no guarantee of success. Which is why the long-term protests typically show up when people don't have jobs and thus have little to nothing to lose. Even then the response may be send in the army to force a clearance with nothing accomplished and a pat on the back for the armed troops shoving around unarmed peaceful protesters.

It's easy to sit back in your armchair and say "do this". It's a different story when you have people dependent on you, when you want to fight the good fight and NOT become homeless and starving. Which is why homeless, starving people can become dangerous to the establishment - they've already lost most of what holds most people back.

The fact that a person at the poverty line in the US is still able to achieve a certain level of comfort - shelter, clothing, food, even some entertainment - keeps the masses passive. At a certain point the billionaires figured out that if they allow the proles some level of "wealth" they may still be stressed and unhappy but even so contented enough not to rock the boat by open rebellion. Bread and circuses - it's not a new thing.

Which is why I say it has to get worse before it gets better. People have to be uncomfortable enough to take risks.

[The Romulan Republic]

Problem is, the masses' usual response to economic hardship these days seems to be "Blame it on the brown people"- which means fascists can channel that anger to their benefit.

[Gandalf]

Indeed. If the last few years haven't made people "uncomfortable enough," they'll presumably keep on blaming Goldstein and Eurasia.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed. If the last few years haven't made people "uncomfortable enough," they'll presumably keep on blaming Goldstein and Eurasia.

Oh, the economy's doing better now than it was, say, in 2008/2009. So its not really like its so bad that if this isn't enough, nothing would be.

Its just that if it got worse again, I'm not at all sure the outrage would swing in our favor. Otherwise, I'd be fucking rooting for a recession at this point.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, right, and broadcasting anything we might do to oppose this regime and thereby get ourselves arrested before we can actual DO anything is going to help.... how?

Which point seems to be lost on a lot of folks on the internet. Anyone who is doing something like sheltering migrants, or otherwise opposing what's going on, is now running a real risk of loss of freedom, employment, etc. And you want folks to talk about what they're doing in public?

Rest assured that if and when I do anything to oppose fascism or a repeat of some of the shit that went down in the 1930's and 40's talking about it on line is the LAST thing I'm going to do. Because I can't effectively oppose anything, or help anyone, if I myself am behind bars. Some risks are worth running, but not in a stupid manner.

You're not wrong, but that makes it awfully hard to coordinate your efforts, exchange useful advice or intelligence or just not feel like you're completely alone. Individuals or small groups working in isolation can do little of consequence by themselves.

If anyone's looking into a concrete plan of action and wants to coordinate their efforts with others, by the way, you should probably hit up the Tor Project. It's probably not a perfect solution but it should at least make you harder to trace.

Whatever your personal views, I (and I suspect the mods will agree) don't think its appropriate to use this board for what is, given the context, pretty blatantly an attempt to organize militia activity with a view toward armed revolt.

You would be incorrect. He's talking about means to resist a tyrannical regime in the age of the internet and a panopticon surveillance state. He isn't advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. That he's predicting that this regime is going to be the US government because he doesn't think Trump will accept electoral defeat is neither here nor there; and he's rather pointedly directing people who have such violent leanings elsewhere.

Stop fucking reporting everything that you vaguely dislike. Jesus.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is possible that my perception of his post was not entirely accurate- and indeed this is one of those circumstances where I am delighted to be wrong. This is an issue where I tend to react very strongly, because it strikes directly at some of my deepest fears, and some of my most deeply-held convictions. Sometimes, that makes me too quick to lash out or jump to conclusions, and in that case, I apologize. I also want to be clear that I have nothing whatsoever against Zaune personally, despite our disagreements on politics, and that whatever objections I may have to some of his posts are not driven by personal animus. But my concern is sincere, and is not motivated simply by "dislike" or disagreement.

It is simply false to say that I "report everything I vaguely dislike", or to insinuate that I report people simply because they disagree with me. If that were the case, I'd report things far more often than I do, and I'd have been banned long ago. This is a false accusation which certain people on this board have repeatedly leveled against me, and to see it publicly repeated by a moderator in an official warning gives it credence that it should not have.

To be clear: I respect your authority as a moderator to rule on what is or is not permitted on this board (within the limits of the law, obviously). And I am not trying to contest your ruling wrt Zaune's post. But I think that it is fair for me to clarify when my motives have been misconstrued, whether maliciously or unintentionally. Just as Zaune clarified the intent behind his post. I chose to do so publicly, rather than by PM, not out of any desire to challenge this board's rules or the authority of its moderators, but because I feel that a public misrepresentation by its nature requires a public correction.

I sincerely hope that this will be the end of this sidetrack, as I have no interest whatsoever in derailing yet another thread into an argument about my personality, motives, or character, rather than the far more important and interesting topic at hand.