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:
-
Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]
-
Absolutely no calls for violent action.
-
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?
🔔🔔🔔Faaaaaascist
Ding dong numbnuts, guess what? The law is the written reflection of society’s moral code. Some things are so fundamental to that code that seeing hard evidence of the crime being committed becomes tautological and nothing more needs to be said.
There is no law saying that any individual, or even a mob, can’t call a murder a murder. That is by design, the USA preserves our constitutional right to free speech. We’re only restricted from enacting a punishment (that right is ceded by the mob to our government). Knowing that, there are two options here:
I’m demanding a basic stand that is to be expected of any human in 2025 (aside from the cowards conditioned to put their heads in the sand). It’s not even that hard. There is concrete evidence of a murder right in front of your eyes, just call it a murder.
And even beyond the lofty heights of justice you’re just making yourself look like a fucking idiot
You: watches someone commit murder from 5 different angles
…
You: uhh acktually whether someone committed a crime is determined by applying law to facts. I’m gonna be a coward and hide behind papa Trump’s courts
Moral certainty is not a legal argument. Declaring “it’s obviously murder” is a conclusion, not evidence. Due process exists precisely to prevent people from substituting outrage for analysis. Disagreement isn’t fascism — it’s how law works.
Lmfao you’re such a joker. Just out here making yourself look like an idiot, blatantly denying reality, a perfect picture of cognitive dissonance. When they break into your house and shoot a loved one on a flimsy “self-defense” justification I hope you’re still preaching “legal argument”. 🥾👅👅👅
Disagreement isn’t fascism. Refusing to condemn Nazis murdering innocent people in public very much makes you a fascist cuck
Threats, insults, and hyperbolic hypotheticals don’t change the legal framework. The law exists so that we don’t decide guilt based on anger or outrage, even in tragic or morally upsetting situations. Equating measured legal analysis with being “fascist” or a “cuck” is itself an ideological attack, not an argument. If you want to actually debate legality, focus on evidence and elements of the law, not moral posturing or ad hominem attacks.
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH
Even on an obvious rage bait account like this, saying that dumb shit makes you a fascist cuck. There’s no debate here, just one fascist clown doing tricks for our entertainment 🤡👅👅👅👅💩👅👅👅
Resorting to screaming, insults, and performative name-calling doesn’t make your argument stronger — it just confirms there’s no actual engagement with the legal points. I’m not here to win an insult contest; I’m discussing the law and evidence. If you want to have a meaningful conversation about legality, we can stick to facts, legal standards, and reasoning — otherwise this just becomes a circus of ad hominem attacks, which isn’t a debate.
Lololol I replied to all of your points and you gave no response. You’re like a broken record when you get backed into a corner “L L L Legal… Legality… Court… Ev ev evidence… S s self defense… Ad ad… ad hominem 😢”. You’re like a tanky defaulting to “read more theory” because you have no fucking response.
Long plodding replies don’t change the fact that your a cowardly fascist boot licker who can’t answer a simple question: We have a synced video compiled from half a dozen angles (including his own fucking perspective) over the full encounter. Is that…
“I’ll wait for the courts to tell me how to use by brain” is not an answer. Go watch that woman get shot 100 more times if you’re not sure. If your answer in the face of that overwhelming evidence is anything but B, you’re a fascist who’s just as bad as the goon pulling the trigger.
Now give an answer
Legal self-defense isn’t about hindsight or perfection — it’s about whether a reasonable officer in that split second perceived an imminent threat, which the footage supports. That’s why courts don’t require flawless decisions, only reasonable ones under the circumstances.
BZZZZT Wrong answer. Please review my comment about the purpose of law, the court system and social contracts.
I didn’t ask you what the court would say. I didn’t ask about hindsight. I asked what you saw in that video. You refuse to answer. Why would that be?
You don’t get to plead the 5th here, you’re not on trial. Why can’t you tell me? Are you struggling to resolve the basic facts of the video with your dear leader’s marching orders? Trumps administration had no problem delivering their self defense verdict a handful of hours after the shooting, before they even had access to half of this evidence. Surely you can support your stance easily?
I want you to tell me, with no detail spared, why that woman deserved to be shot 3 times in the head