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?
Warning about gradual authoritarianism isn’t proof it’s happening. If you think lines are being crossed now, cite facts — otherwise it’s just a slippery slope argument replacing evidence.
all the things I’ve mentioned are already happening. but it’s no concern to me, because I’m lucky to live in a free democracy that’s not being ruled by a wannabe authoritarian. good luck in die Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika and don’t forget to add some salt and pepper to the boots you’re licking. what’s liberty if not blindly following all the rules without question, right?
Calling normal enforcement “authoritarian” and adding insults doesn’t make a legal argument. Facts and evidence still matter.
remember that “legal” here means anything trumpy and his strategically appointed puppets decide for themselves what is deemed to be legal. you’d defend invading Greenland and call it legal because your Great Leader wants it to be …
Extra judicial killings, unapproved acts of war, extra judicial deportations
Oops, there ya go. All real things that exist and are documented by ours and several other nations.
Listing charged phrases isn’t the same as proving they apply here. “Extrajudicial killing,” “acts of war,” and “extrajudicial deportation” are specific legal terms with defined elements — intent, authority, jurisdiction, and due process standards. You don’t establish them by assertion; you establish them with findings, rulings, or documented patterns that meet those definitions. Yes, abuses by governments exist and have been documented globally. That doesn’t mean every controversial enforcement action automatically qualifies, nor does it excuse skipping the legal analysis required to reach those conclusions. If you believe those labels apply in this case, the burden is to show how the facts meet the legal criteria — not just that similar abuses have occurred somewhere before. Conflating real historical abuses with an unresolved incident isn’t accountability. It’s shortcutting the argument.
Hey dipshit the courts he’s defying already proved and ruled on it. Nice try. He’s openly and illegally defying court orders.
Courts can issue rulings and orders, but whether someone is actually defying them — and whether that defiance is “illegal” — is ultimately determined through legal processes and enforcement mechanisms, not social media declarations. Calling it “openly illegal” doesn’t replace due process or evidence.
That’s not how it works. Courts don’t determine what is illegal, they determine through evidence whether or not someone has done something that is illegal.
Which was done, and yes, what they did was illegal. And then they defied the courts. Which is illegal.
Are you stupid?
You’re misrepresenting how the legal process works. Courts can determine guilt or order compliance, but enforcement and due process are what make a ruling effective. Simply asserting “it’s illegal” on social media doesn’t make it so in practice — it’s still a legal process, not a declaration of opinion. Name-calling doesn’t strengthen your point. If you want to explain how a court ruling has been legally enforced or adjudicated, go ahead — otherwise this is just rhetoric.