In relation to this, thinking about a new community for Political Activism. Calls to action, that kind of thing.

The rules would be super simple:

  1. Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]

  2. Absolutely no calls for violent action.

  3. No links to fundraisers. Too rife for fraud and abuse. Stories about fundraisers would be fine, but no GoFundMes, etc.

Think there’s room for PolticalActivism?

  • Lydia_K@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    This looks like an astroturfing account, only ever comments on political stuff parroting the fascist lines.

    Should we be honored to have gotten big enough to spend resources on for astroturfing?

    • libertyforever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      3 days ago

      “Astroturfing” is a convenient accusation when you don’t want to engage with the argument. I’m one person expressing a view — you’re free to disagree, but try addressing the point instead of inventing motives.

      • Lydia_K@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you looked at the the different camera angles showing that it was a straight up murder and didn’t have a shred of basic humanity then you wouldn’t be saying any of the propaganda bullshit that you are.

        • libertyforever@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          2 days ago

          Calling something “murder” doesn’t make it so, and calling disagreement “propaganda” isn’t an argument. If you think the self-defense standard isn’t met, explain why without assuming bad faith.

          • Zoot@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            He broke every department policy in going in front of the vehicle. He raised his firearm before she began to move again. By the time he actually shoots both feet are completely clear of the vehicle, and his entire body is leaning over the front of the hood. By the time he is at his 2nd shot he is to the entire side of the vehicle, shooting into an open windows his third shot goes into the back of her head.

            It’s pathetic that someone who has shown they have eyes can see this is any other way then “This ice agent wanted to kill somebody and created a reason to do so”. It was premeditated murder.

            Thankfully I’m not a lawyer, and neither are you. However, even MPLS police chief, MN BCA, and Governor seems to disagree with you, so maybe stop happily eating kristi noems shit and have some actual critical thoughts for once.

            • libertyforever@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              2 days ago

              Policy violations ≠ premeditated murder. Intent has to be proven, not asserted, and self-defense is judged on reasonable perception at the moment — not frame-by-frame hindsight or political reactions.

              • Zoot@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Maybe go back to grade school as well, since clearly you’ve forgotten how to fully read and analyze what someone has written.

                • libertyforever@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  The video evidence from multiple angles shows that the ICE agent who fired his weapon was not standing directly in front of the SUV until the driver reversed. In other words, he wasn’t stationary in front of the car the whole time — the vehicle’s own reverse motion put the ICE agent in front of the car.

                  The law still distinguishes between violating policy and committing murder. Intent must be proven, and self-defense is judged by what was reasonable at that moment, not by hindsight or political opinion.

                  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    12 hours ago

                    His own phone video shows him circling the car to photograph the bumper stickers so that he could determine “what side” she was on. Only then does his own video show him moving in front of a car performing a three point turn so that he would be bumped. The federal terrorist committed premeditated murder you fascist liar.

                  • Zoot@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Boy your reading comprehension is awful, not to mention apparently your eyes as well. He was very much in front of the car, before reversing, while reversing, and then only after she cranked the wheel to avoid him entirely did he step out of the way to shoot her in the head.

                    Don’t know what else to say man, already told you you’re not a lawyer and that even our item police chief, and DHS itself say the guy was in the wrong and had no reason to shoot, because he broke policy and did everything in the exact opposite way as they’re trained.

                    I’m sure you’ll just ignite everything I’ve read though and repeat exactly the same thing you have been.

              • Tanis Nikana@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Oh, I’m not debating, Mr. Vance. This isn’t a debate, there is no evidence, there’s no arguments.

                I’m harassing you for being a fascist.

                Fascism always loses in the end. Turns out, only fascists want to live under fascism. Everyone else will fight back. :)

                • libertyforever@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Claiming there’s “no evidence” while refusing to engage with evidence isn’t moral clarity — it’s opting out of thinking.

                  • Tanis Nikana@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Ah yes, you know your rules of debate and argument well.

                    It’s just, well, that (and the whole outspoken fascist thing, let’s be real) won’t win you any affection or interest at parties, won’t endear you to anybody else, but hey, your role model Stephen has an office down the hall, and he’s just as lonely and extremely racist and fascist as you are! If he’s in the White House, just like you, then maybe you could make something of yourself.

                    Does Erica Kirk feel like a couch on the inside?

              • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Fuck your “debate”. It is unquestionable that Renee was murdered. You are a fascist piece of shit.

                • libertyforever@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  If something is “unquestionable,” it should be easy to explain without insults. Calling it murder doesn’t make it so — that’s a legal conclusion that depends on evidence, intent, and the standard for self-defense. You’re free to be angry. You’re not entitled to replace facts with abuse and call that certainty.

                  • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    NO. I reject your sanewashing bullshit, because it is both falsehood and in service to evil.

                    I watched the videos. From every damn angle before and after Johnathan Ross killed Renee. He knew what he was doing, and had absolutely no remorse for what he did. He killed someone, and fled the scene of the crime.

                    You have no integrity, “Liberty Forever”. The only liberty you possess is the kind that is completely void of morality, that wants to be free of consequence and justice. No different from Trump, Noem, Kash, and so many other horrible people that are leading my nation into destruction and suffering. You are a monster just like them, the only difference being that you lack their authority to hurt people.

                    Your words must be called out for what they are: deceitful and malicious.