It’s always the same with these guys:

When they’re winning, it’s ruthless and relentless, everything you get is your fault, and you’re a fool and a dipshit if you don’t get on board.

As soon as things start not going their way, they start the waterworks. It’s all unfair, it’s horrible, how could people be so mean to us. Don’t they believe in all of our common humanity? How could they?

This is literally 100% the reason why a jury of your peers exists.

The founding fathers went through a system where dipshits like Stephen Miller could just make up whatever they wanted, and the people had no role, and they fought a whole war to cancel that system. They knew exactly what was up with it.

Edit: If, by some chance, you wind up on a jury where this comes up, just pretend you’ve never heard of it. Even having heard the term, or understanding the concept, will almost certainly get you disqualified from the jury. You can do the exact same process of deciding that it’s a bunch of bullshit that whatever person is being accused of whatever when it’s pretty obvious that they were not the one in the wrong, without it being called “jury nullification.” It’s just justice, it’s just common sense, like I said it is the whole intent of having a jury.

I’m actively frustrated by the lack of coverage other genocides are getting.

So you saw a story about atrocities in Myanmar, and your reaction was to get very upset because there’s a lack of coverage of atrocities in Myanmar. Got it. And then you said “no one will do a thing.” Hey, what has the West been “doing” about Gaza? I feel like that’s an important question. If they haven’t been doing anything (aside from deporting Palestine supporters and giving weapons by the planeload), it’s okay to say.

How many hundreds of Isreal/Palistine protests have happend? How many thousands of people have made an official statement. How many people have lost VISAs and been deported for talking about it?

One of these things is not like the others.

This sort of gets to my point: I actually somewhat agree with you about Palestine consuming an outsized reaction compared to other horrible things going on elsewhere in the world and other urgent issues. But there are reasons for that. A lot of those other things, “we” aren’t causing and supporting the whole time it is happening. And, that’s only, as you said, from the population. In terms of what “the West” is doing geopolitically, they’re arming Israel, deporting or denying visas to Palestinian activists, and sometimes giving them prison sentences for speaking up about it. Nobody in “the West” if you mean government is doing shit about it. It’s still happening, just like Darfur, and instead of Anthony Blinken condemning it and putting sanctions on the perpatrators, he’s giving arms to the RSF to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. So to speak.

You basically can’t say it’s a genocide within mainstream media (New York Times, TV, State Department brief). They’re planning on continuing to stall and help it happen until everyone’s dead. I think that’s why people are upset about it.

I’m saying its one of several and the only reason anyone talks about it is because jews are on one side.

Maybe that is a tiny percentage, but most people who hate Jews don’t mind Arabs dying either, and most people at these hundreds of protests you are talking about also have no problem with Jews. A lot of them are Jews. That’s sort of the core of my point: I don’t get how you think that caring about Gaza correlates with not caring about Myanmar. Surely people would mostly either care about both or neither (if we’re talking about the population), right? And the fact that they care and it’s being reported is why we’re talking under a story about Myanmar?

Anyway, what has the West actually been “doing” about the genocide in Gaza? If they haven’t been doing anything, it’s okay to say. I feel like you keep not really addressing that question.

Yes. I read the Lancet’s study estimating the total deaths (and then some more recent follow-up ones which come to a variety of conclusions), I read a handful of UN reports past and present in a good bit of detail, I watched some video of what’s actually happening, I read a huge variety of sources including Israel’s and the Arab world’s and US and non-US news sources a lot of which include criticism of the others so you can get a solidly well-rounded idea of what is happening. I’ve had some conversations on Lemmy where someone was swearing that something would happen in the future in some particular way, and I predicted something else, and my prediction was the one that came true because I’m generally on top of what is happening.

Anyway, what has the West been “doing” about Israel / Palestine? That wasn’t just rhetorical, I’m genuinely asking you what you’re talking about.

Also what do you mean bringing Palestine into it in the first place (my last question)? Are you implying that someone who does care about Palestine would therefore not care about Myanmar? If that’s what you’re saying that doesn’t make sense to me. Or am I misunderstanding that part, what are you saying?

What have they been doing about Israel / Palestine? Outside of a bunch of protests the West hasn’t been “doing” anything about either one (well, aside from arming the Israelis the whole time).

Also, it’s not really an either/or if that’s what you are implying. What’s happening in Gaza is so much worse than Myanmar that it kind of makes sense that they would be more vocal about it… but I suspect that outside a handful of openly partisan actors, most people either care about both (because they care about human rights) or neither (because they don’t). Right? Or no? I’m just a little confused about what viewpoint you’re taking here.

Trump is probably nettled about Russia’s claim to have tested a long-range, nuclear-powered cruise missile, the Burevestnik

Let me tell you a little story about an American missile called the “snark.”

The name was the sort of joke that weapons engineers like to make. It was supposed to navigate itself autonomously to its target in the Soviet Union by watching the stars. It did not have horizontal stabilizers, and flew itself pointed in a weird nose-up attitude the entire way. Once it arrived at its destination, it was supposed to detach the warhead and then pull up violently in order not to get in the warhead’s way, which caused it to break apart in flight. They said with a straight face that the falling debris would help to confuse enemy radar, as if this had been a purposeful design element rather than something that they weren’t bothering to fix.

It did not do its navigation very well. One of the strategic bomber pilots was quoted as saying that he felt a hell of a lot better about flying his bomber knowing that the plan was for a bunch of these things to be wandering aimlessly above Asia and distracting everyone’s attention from what his bomber was up to.

Anyway, they tried it in about 1961, and it sucked so they stopped. And I think the US in 1961 was in a lot better position than modern Russia to do these kinds of things effectively.

Just a little story to distract everyone from the horror of Trump and what he is doing

One thing about this is that it seems to labor under the assumption of a symmetrical (or near symmetrical) fight, and that is exactly the last thing that a resistance group should be doing.

He talks about guerilla war in parts of it.

All these human traffickers have homes to go back to at night, and if enough face repercussions, it will quickly become difficult to find people willing to stick their neck out and possibly become yet another new fountain.

The same is true of judges, Democratic congresspeople, state governors… all kinds of people. So you’re right back to the symmetrical conflict.

Yeah, it is excellent. He put it in the public domain, it’s on the internet:

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/126900/8008_FDTD.pdf

He wrote a bunch more that are a little more in depth (there are references in the appendix for some specific details about particular tactics), but that one is the pamphlet condensed version which is still pretty comprehensive.

Yeah, because everything was fine and everyone got soft and complacent.

Like it or not, we’re coming to the end of that, we’ve not even scratched the surface of how bad it’s actually going to get. The people and communities that smarten up will (sometimes) survive, and more and more, the ones that do not will not.

The second frog turns to the first and says “you’re being alarmist, things aren’t that bad.”

This sounds like the second frog.‡

You gotta read what I wrote again then lol

You definitely have way more faith in our (metaphorical) neighbors and the system than I do.

Absolutely not. Actually one of the really alarming things to me is that I don’t think this country has the structures and traditions in its society anymore that would enable it to build and maintain a working technological society (let alone a working democracy). I hope I am wrong, but I actually don’t even think that the current fascism crisis is the worst thing that we’re facing. I think it is a symptom of a much deeper disease which is a lot harder to get rid of than any one leader or political faction no matter how fascistic.

It would help if you included resources that prove that that book was the pretext for double digit successful revolutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dictatorship_to_Democracy

It’s known to have been directly involved in Burma, the Arab Spring, Serbia, and Angola. It’s been translated by local activists into Amharic, Arabic, Azeri, Bahasa, Belarusian, Burmese, Chin, Chinese (simplified and traditional Mandarin), Dhivehi, Farsi, French, Georgian, German, Jing Paw, Karen, Khmer, Kurdish, Kyrgyz, Nepali, Pashto, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Tibetan, Tigrinya, Ukrainian, Uzbek, and Vietnamese. I have no idea how many of those led to it later being involved in a revolutionary attempt (let alone a successful one) in a “proof” sense. I was just telling you what I think about it.

Here’s a story: https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/23/world/gene-sharp-revolutionary/index.html

The author is the real deal. He’s spent time in federal detention in the US, he’s spent a lot of time with people in resistance movements in these places.

I want to call your attention to this part specifically:

The Burmese were amazed by Sharp’s theories. They couldn’t believe they had been fighting and killing for 20 years when there was an alternative.

I don’t know if you can really call modern Myanmar a “success story” but to me they seem like they’re making more progress now than in 30 years of bloody armed confrontation with the military, which of course is more capable at military things.

You likely have no idea who you just killed and who’s coming to investigate it

I saw a bodycam video once where some cops were attempting to speak with a woman who had signs of mental illness who was alone in the house with a small child. One of her relatives was alarmed by this situation, called the cops, and a couple cops were now trying to retrieve the child from the house calmly, without success.

The sergeant showed up, said maybe it was a fake custody situation, said maybe someone was in the country illegally, yelled at the woman who had called the police, and had everyone leave.

Once the cops left, the woman he had yelled at tried to go in the house and resolve things herself, the mentally ill woman physically attacked her, and the cops came back and long story short it all got sorted out. The sergeant actually apologized to the woman for being an “asshole” in his words. Sure. But also, the situation could easily have ended with a dead kid or the woman who called the cops getting shot or something.

Bottom line: Yes. There are plenty of good cops out there, don’t listen to Lemmy about it. But there are also plenty who are incompetent or it’s just not a good day for them. Don’t just give a goddamned statement.

fascism does not care about legality, and it doesn’t care about pretext

Very very true. However, most of the country does. If they were already “doing it themselves” and this stuff didn’t matter, they would have arrested Pritzger, kicked Jimmy Kimmel off the air, that CBP commander in Chicago wouldn’t be showing up to court every morning, things like that. There is a reason they’re starting by focusing on vulnerable communities without much support from the rest of society, and obeying this elaborate pretense that they’re “enforcing immigration law” and pretending to stay inside those boundaries so elaborately.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if the citizens of Chicago had been obeying your advice here so far, Pritzger would have been arrested by some sort of federal agents already.

All I can really say is read the book. I know you have your way of looking at it and I’m honestly not trying to disrespect it, because I get it, but also, how many successful revolutions have you written the guidebook for? I think for Sharp that number is close to double digits now.

Yeah. I mean you might be fine. If the cops show up, you explain what happened and you didn’t do anything wrong, and everything checks out, you might get to go home and the detective might call you the next day just to close out the loop and you’ll be fine. But… do you want to bet the rest of your life on it working out that way?

Again, be polite. As a matter of realpolitik it is extremely important that you not fit into the “hostile suspect who just killed somebody” bubble. But, also, while you’re being polite and getting access to your lawyer as quickly as possible so you can clear the air and give you reasonable statement to them, it’s still Shut the Fuck Up Friday. You have no idea what the cops and prosecutors may decide to read into what single sentence you happened to randomly blurt out while your blood is still pounding in your ears.

I also started training in Brazilian jiu jitsu which is a pretty fun way to get into shape. I am getting good at grappling and choking big guys out.

Honestly everyone should take some kind of self-defense classes. I know something about it but I am horribly out of shape right now, which probably isn’t a good idea.

And it doesn’t hurt to level up some skills that you can use to help your community if the does unthinkable happen.

This is very sincerely a really good point. I might do some first aid classes and things, it does indeed seem like shit will get quite a lot wilder before it ever gets unwild again.

But I do have an expectation that I’ll need a gun eventually, and if that’s true, I should have one now so that I can practice with it.

Yeah, I feel you on that. You’re not wrong.

My van was down by the river though, it’s good because you can go swimming every morning like John Quincy Adams

call the police, give a statement, go home, and sleep like a baby

This is the only part I strongly disagree with

I actually have seen someone ask a lawyer about this. The answer the lawyer gave was:

• Call 911 right away
• Say you’re in a fight and you need the police, give the location, hang up
• Wait for them to arrive, cooperate. Probably best to put the gun down before they arrive. They will be twitchy, they will really want you to give a statement. Do not. Be fully cooperative and respect their desire not to get shot and to know what’s going on without saying anything. Say you want a lawyer and you’re happy to cooperate with a statement after that. Probably they will arrest you.
• Once you’re in contact with a lawyer, your statement to them can be through your lawyer. Be friendly and polite, but also, just because you didn’t do anything wrong doesn’t mean you can’t get fucked.

I modified step 2 slightly, this was from back before there were cameras everywhere so you probably need to be more mindful of that. Don’t do anything that makes you look guilty, definitely nothing that makes you look dishonest. But for fuck’s sake don’t just “give a statement” if you just killed somebody.

I don’t pretend to be any kind of expert, but I’m happy to talk about what I do know if ever you’re interested.

I’ve done shooting at the range a few times. I know the physical mechanics, I’m talking about knowing what to do and how to react in a situation where people are killing each other or might start killing each other. Like a lot of things, it seems straightforward until you’re in it, and then all of a sudden it really doesn’t.

Like I feel like even if I did one of those “tactical situation” training weekends or something, I wouldn’t really like that gave me anything about what I actually need. What I need is how to make the right decisions. And, like I was saying in the other comments, I don’t feel like gunfire is even really any kind of solution to what I see now as the most urgent active physical threat to my safety. If it was a mob of Proud Boys? I mean, maybe. But on the other hand I probably don’t have a mob’s worth of bullets.

Again, maybe I’m wrong in all this, maybe I will regret. It’s hard to say. Maybe I will regret staying in the country at all. Let’s see.

Read the book. It’s based on a lot of research and it’s been actively used in practice in defeating a whole lot of governments a hell of a lot more repressive than Trump’s.

Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.

The maintenance of nonviolent discipline against violent opponents facilitates the workings of the four mechanisms of change in nonviolent struggle (discussed below). Nonviolent discipline is also extremely important in the process of political jiu-jitsu. In this process the stark brutality of the regime against the clearly nonviolent actionists politically rebounds against the dictators’ position, causing dissention in their own ranks as well as fomenting support for the resisters among the general population, the regime’s usual supporters, and third parties.

Emphasis is mine, that’s the answer to your question. He actually says later on that there are circumstances where violence is needed, I couldn’t quickly find that quote, but he basically just lays out the history of where and how different types of resistance action have worked.

I realize it’s not convincing when I just quote it out like that. Read the book. There are strong reasons and historical examples for everything he’s saying in those quick summaries.