A major reason police officers wear uniforms is for their obvious identification as a legal law enforcement entity formally trained and endorsed by the state. While it’s generally symbolic, it is at least a basic-ass demonstration of good faith identification/adherence to the law. EVEN IF it’s just performative, it’s still at least saying their actions will be in accordance with the law, and at least implying that their intent is enforcement of that same law.

However, if they not only ditch the uniform, but even literally wear things to mask their identity, the symbolism of good-faith action and intent go out the window. Why would any reasonable person trust such a blatant disregard for clear establishment of authority figures? Furthermore, if such symbolism is reversed in such a manner, how could any reasonable person not assume ill-intent? If they’re taking away even US citizens for an indeterminate amount of time and to an indeterminate place, then wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the people that encounter law enforcement to resist by any means–even lethal means? And to further compound the problem, there were recent high-profile political murders by someone impersonating a police officer. So not only are we unable to trust legitimate police officers while they’re in uniform, we now have(admittedly weak(for now)) evidence that the uniform no longer implies good-faith intent of the person wearing it. Which leads me to one final major issue; if our confidence in officers’ law-bound behavior is shattered, and our confidence in our citizen status to ensure our rights is shattered, and our confidence in police uniforms being fairly reliable identification symbolism is shattered, then what amount of confidence is left in any law enforcement officials when they then wear clothing that is symbolically indicative of someone acting in bad faith with ill-intent? And then local law enforcement, in uniform, protect and assist alleged federal law enforcement in their very high-profile raids.

So, moral reasoning aside, it would be unwise to even engage with any law enforcement or anyone that claims to be law enforcement. They can’t be trusted and their intent is unknown. They are visibly armed with a variety of weapons and are currently engaging in illegal operations systematically–even though the confines of current law effectively gives them legal means to do whatever they want. All that said, it can reasonably argued that it’s effectively a death sentence if you get swept up by someone claiming to be law enforcement, regardless of whether or not they can be confidently identified as such. All that to say: some fed bois are gonna get smoked before the end of the year and they’ve earned it by undermining themselves in the public eye. I have extreme confidence that things will get better in the long run, but as for the foreseeable future, the worst is yet to come.

Tl;dr: Law enforcement abandoning clear uniform identification for bad-faith/ill-intent symbolism logically justifies lethal resistance. There will probably be multiple shootings of feds by the end of the year at this rate. If some alphabet feds get shot, could be claimed as a cases belli for some real bullshit.

Man, one thing that kills me is democrats perpetually eating up the rabid opposition to populism. Like, I get it, obviously establishment democrats are gonna push back since it directly affects their status, but it’s like democrats have been falling into this stupid politics as a team sport bullshit real hard in recent years, and you see it with the blanket demonization of something like populism of all things. “Like, akshuallee, the elites are good bro”. They don’t think for themselves anymore.

Tensions within the GOP are growing, with hawkish Republicans supporting Waltz and Trump loyalists opposing him.

Fuckin gottem.

Well, when you figure out why exactly you want to do it, when you want to do it, and who all should be involved, build off of that with actionable steps. The why is the most important as you need to be able to communicate exactly what it is your demands are and what will be considered satisfactory to end the strike not only to those you need to negotiate with, but with those you want to participate and as a message to the public. Make a realistic ‘when’ so that you have a deadline and something concrete to work with. The who needs to be quantifiable. Do you want a certain percentage of workers participating before you start? Get a number and stick with it.

The main thing to keep in mind is to communicate with others and yourself in clear and actionable steps. Asking someone to strike with you? What does their role looks like? What will they be doing? When will they be doing it? What resources will be provided to them? Found your way to the negotiating table? What are your demands? What will you not compromise on? What are you willing to compromise on? Do you have someone who understands corporate lawyerspeak that can translate for you? Do you have a reliable way to effectively communicate the results of negotiations with the participating workers?

I think it’s better to try and start this yourself. Find like-minded people at work to help delegate out the tasks needed to organize and sustain the strike. As you organize, you might have certain organizations reach out to provide assistance, which would be great, but plan on doing it all yourself. Afterall, the movement is about empowering the workers, and what could be more empowering than having come together to do this yourselves?

Aw, why the downvotes? I thought it was funny.

Well, something does trickle down, it’s just not money/wealth…

Lemmygrad: claims to be anti-imperialist Also Lemmygrad: supports Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hmmmmm…

No, it’s really not the same thing. You can legislate better schools with a variety of methods, the main point being that you’re regulating government jobs(to oversimplify). You’re more limited to negative legislation for parents, such as punishing child abuse. I guess you could technically legislate certain mandates for parents to be better parents, but like, good luck passing said legislation. And even if you do(and this is the big boi), how the fuck do you enforce that??? And on top of even that, how can you be sure parents will be qualified/able to teach their kids such a wide variety of skills? You can fire teachers for incompetence and publicly investigate school districts for failing to faithfully implement good practice. And it should also be mentioned that shifting these expectations (especially via legislation) onto parents will disproportionately burden the poor who will be less likely to have the time, skills, or knowledge to teach said things.

… that restaurant?

I’m struggling with answering this question. I mean, obviously, I don’t know. I could give an opinion on what I think is most likely to happen, but what does it matter? Like, legitimately, what does it matter? And I do mean it earnestly, what would it matter even if I just so happened to be right about my speculation?

We all certainly hope that 2025 will be better. But I think the important thing to remember is that 2025 being better is possible. In fact, I used to be a homophobic ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian bigot. In my remorse over the person I used to be, I noticed I felt shame rather than self-righteousness over my condemnation of people just being who they are. In my longing to undo the evil I committed in the past, I realized I have the opportunity to fight for good, even if it means fighting what feels like my own reflection. I got better. I still have a ways to go and even more internalized prejudice I need to demolish, but at least I know getting better is possible, because I did it before goddammit. And if a dickhead like me can be better, can’t we all?

And even if things just turn to absolute shit, I know I can at least make my tiny corner of the world a little bit brighter if I can make myself better. And you know what? I think it’s good enough for me to know that I can start doing something about that right now. Afterall, as Marcus Aurelius would say to himself; It is up to you!

Ooo man, this is a super underrated take. Too often people get caught up in what the law is trying to do, how people could get around it, and what the incentives/disincentives are, while not really taking into consideration how the law would actually operate. Sometimes people get all conspiratorial about it trying to point to ulterior motives, but man, most of the time it’s more that bad-faith actors are taking advantage of what’s already out there rather than actively creating the problems they want to create.

My wife is gonna appreciate the meme, but yeah, she’s gonna roll her eyes about who the song is attributed to… all the more reason to send it.

Civilization III Final Fantasy IX Valheim Kerbal Space Program Stellaris Empire Earth Borderlands 2 Morrowind Halo: Reach Rimworld

The must be mentioned: KOTOR Bioshock(and Infinite) Final Fantasy 4, 14, 5, 6 in that order AOE 2 Red Alert 2 Total War: Rome, Rome 2, Medieval 2, and Shogun Lords of the Realm 2 No Man’s Sky Horizon series Space Empires V Battlefield 1942 Medal of Honor(the first one from the 90’s, not that bullshit reboot from 2010) Smash Bros Melee, 64, Brawl in that order Crysis Warcraft II: The Tides of Darkness Theme Hospital MDK2 Chrono Trigger

It was tough leaving some of those mentioned ones out of the top ten, but the top ten belong where they are for me for how definining they were/are for me.

I feel like you missed the point at the detriment of people taking your position seriously. Words and their definitions are very important in communication and I feel like semantics is something that is very undeserving of the flippant treatment it routinely receives.

If someone were to accuse someone else of lying, this also comes with an accusation of intent. It isn’t sufficient for someone’s statement to be false to be a lie, there also needs to be intent to deceive. Intent to deceive implies that the liar at least knows what they’re saying is untrue, and possibly implies they know what is actually true depending on the context. However, if there is no intent to deceive, it’s usually a case of that person just being mistaken. How frustrating would it be for someone to be accused of lying when they say something they believe to be true? And how seriously should they take their accusers when not only being told their view of reality is incorrect, but also being informed that their own intent is malignant when stating something they believe is true?

So, when it comes to describing something as a genocide, you’re also describing intent. If you tell people that they’re killing animals with the intent to extinct them, they’re probably not going to take you seriously. It’s probably better to have someone tell you what their intentions are rather than just assuming you can slap a piece of paper saying “this is you” on a scarecrow before drop-kicking it.

Oh shit! Independent Fundamental Baptist! I had to deal with living with that shit, too. At the end of the day, if the king james bible was good enough for Peter and Paul, it’s good enough for me. Also, rock music is the devil.

Weapon of mass construction.

Looking through your post history, you’re either the worst kind of troll, by which I mean you’re an extremely awful person, or you’re way the fuck off base for one or multiple reasons. I personally think you’re some young kid that believes they figured out some new age bullshit or something.

But also, you show lots of signs of psychotic episodes. Magical thinking, special knowledge, disordered thoughts/speech, etc. You doing okay?

Are you trolling, or are you just legitimately that oblivious to the experiences of others?

What about it? It’s not something we’re in control of. It just kinda happens. It can be extremely disruptive to our lives, hence the qualification of it being diagnostic criteria for a disorder. For someone who experiences it as something destructive in their life, it’s pretty fucking insulting to hear some jackass mythicize it as some “superpower”. Especially after demonstrating a lack of knowledge on a subject they seem to feel entitled to have an opinion about anyway.