So I think we’d all agree that if people were being herded onto boxcars and delivered to incinerators that would clearly be a time for violence. Not happening right now (that we know of), but our homegrown Führer may change his whim at any moment. My question is “What is the line that makes violent protest acceptable?” The first time a cop shoots a protestor? Military does it? Does the shot need to be fatal? Life altering (think paralyzing)? And if so, why does it have to at a point where it’s SO MUCH HARDER to come back from, as opposed to now? Which wouldn’t be easy, mind you, but their positions aren’t fully fortified yet, so better than 6 months, a year from now. Especially when we can all see where it’s going, to the point of inevitability. And before I get called out on that, any criticism needs to include exactly how the critic sees this de-escalating in any other manner.
Hoping for some thought provoking discussion here, because let’s face it - Republican actions are making things go downhill fast.
you're long past the "when they came for the..." phase. you figure out on your own if you're gonna start shit.
I am honestly bewildered, how come nobody's shooting at those bearded fat fucks? ain't this the place with most guns per capita? "legal" and otherwise? and I don't mean to enact change. or diminish their numbers. or accomplish some lofty goal.
just indiscriminate, random, asymmetric warfare that says: from now on, this is one of the options on the table. your stupid face in a tweetdunk isn't the worst thing that can happen to you no more. from now on, when you put on your pretty man costume with the patches, you may be doing it for the last time.
fatass does this for a paycheck. guerilla does it for free, outta fervor and hate. wanna lay some odds?