politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Sorry, but some guy threatened another driver with a pipe in front of 10 cars in front of my house, and I was the only one to step in and I'm the only reason the situation didn't escalate. And the only reason I can think of why I did so, is that I don't have much to lose in practice.
It's scary to intervene and despite your pandering, I suspect you've never been in a situation where you have to choose to put your life in danger (I've also done mountaineering/glacier travel and got a pilot licence which really opened my eyes up too).
It's easy for you to disrespect her gracefully and talk crap when you've never been in a dangerous situation where you can choose to make a difference that might screw you permanently.
There are a million things that will run through your mind when you yourself are (ie, you will likely be advised by people that you could be in danger, etc). When the situation is outside of your control, you think differently.
You might disagree with her, but she has every right to protect herself. And she has every right to make that decision.
If I was in the same situation and my family was in danger, I'd make the same decision too.
It's not because she wouldn't want to do it, but, the decision may have been made to protect her family.
You brought up a personal story, which I appreciate. I am going to share my own as well. It is not my intention to compete with you. I have two stories I can share where I did intervene and was prepared to use violence. When presented with new evidence it became clear in both cases that violence was not the answer. Here's the one that happened the earliest in my life that also happens to involve cars.
When I was in high school, either junior or senior year, I was hanging out with my friend by the school parking lot. We were waiting for the traffic to clear out. There were about ten people left in the area in total. I think while I had my back turned talking to a different friend, my friend spotted a guy trying to jack a car in the school parking lot with what looked like a metal ruler. I couldn't believe someone would do that in broad daylight. I had to get a closer look. My friend said it wasn't worth dying over a car. I said it wasn't about the car and I didn't want to live in the world where we did nothing. By then the eight guys nearby were walking with us. We surrounded the guy. It turned out the man was trying to break into his daughter's car because she had locked herself out. Apparently this had happened more than once. I abruptly asked his daughter's name and he immediately said his daughter's name. My friend bought the guys story and he seemed to be telling the truth so we backed off.
The other story is more recent. I was alone in my apartment bedroom, a year or two before covid. I heard smashing noises and screaming coming from the apartment on the other side of the wall. I was tired and wasn't sure if someone was being murdered or just being noisy. I threw on some stuff for going outside. I went to the neighbors' apartment. The door was open and there was a guy sitting at the top of the stairs. He asked me who I was. I introduced myself. He asked me to be more specific. He then seemed really concerned when I told I was one of his neighbors. It turned out his 18 year old daughter was throwing a temper tantrum and was breaking stuff. He shouted multiple times to his daughter that there was an uber driver to pick her up. I could hear her clearly in the background asking what he meant by that. I said good luck with that and I left.
I am not going to analyze our stories. I bring this up to show that I do have the kind of criteria that you seem to think is required to discuss this topic. My point is that it's not a requirement. We have nothing to do with what we are discussing. This is about how people as a society respond to threats from fascists.
The woman in question is also not relevant to this discussion. Her choice is. That is it. It is not my intention to talk shit about this woman nor do I think any energy should be put towards that end.
Self-defense is when a person defends themselves from an attacker. What society would be doing by agreeing with her choice is saying that when push comes to shove people should trade liberty for life. There can be no resistance to fascism without risking all of our lives, because fascists will threaten everyone and anyone.
If people want a future that is worth living in for future generations then people as a society must uphold the idea of liberty or death. Society must accept the idea that people would be better off dead than in a fascist dictatorship or else people will end up in a fascist dictatorship. Liberty must be held above human life or else liberty will be lost.
This means being willing to risk every child. There is no life worth living under tyranny. Life under fascist rule is hollow and meaningless. If we trade in liberty for life then future generations will have a pointless existence. People should want future generations to have lives worth living.
The good news is that the Army put out a statement backing up the woman and criticizing the behavior of Trump and his campaign staffers. At the very least the Army stood up to Trump in writing.