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?
If we’re going to debate this seriously, let’s focus on specific policies and actions, not just emotional labels.”
spoken like a true politician. have a look at history - something we’re taught a lot of in Europe, especially WWII - and ask yourself in what ways ICE isn’t going down the Gestapo route. ironic to be about “liberty” when civilians get stripped of their rights for just existing and killed for expressing their opinions
remember your views when the US eventually turns into a totalitarian state and starts arresting your loved ones because they have opposing views
Invoking the Gestapo isn’t analysis — it’s a rhetorical shortcut. The Gestapo operated in a one-party dictatorship, without courts, warrants, due process, or constitutional limits, and carried out mass torture and extermination. ICE operates under statutory authority, judicial review, warrants, and is regularly challenged — and constrained — in U.S. courts. You can oppose immigration enforcement, criticize tactics, or argue for different laws without collapsing everything into “WWII = therefore Gestapo.” That analogy strips real historical atrocities of meaning and shuts down serious debate. And no — people aren’t being “killed for expressing opinions.” That kind of framing ignores facts and replaces them with fear narratives. If you think specific rights were violated in this case, name them and point to evidence. Otherwise this is speculation, not history. Liberty isn’t protected by declaring every institution you dislike to be Nazi-adjacent. It’s protected by applying law, evidence, and proportionality consistently — even when you don’t like the agency involved.
that’s a lot of words for not wanting to see or admit that change is a gradual process. ofcourse trumpywumpy won’t immediately and aggressively install such kind of police - the backlash would be too immense and he’s not THAT stupid (one might think). it starts small and gradually evolves to something worse. from detaining people who are known to not have papers, to detaining and questioning everyone that has a different kind of skin color, to just randomly search houses or raid workplaces, to monitoring phones and communications … and thus it grows into more gestapo-like territory.
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.