The fact that the negligent discharges often involve experienced officers should be a wake up call that ICEs recent behavior isn’t new or just because of Trump - the incompetence is baked in.

Ah, adverse possession is also an excellent tactic! Of course, that’s also something that takes time, but definitely not a bad idea

Is there a lemmydrama like subredditdrama? Maybe a fedidrama community would work. I don’t know if one exists yet

Not every action has to solve every issue immediately. Things take time. Long term, tenants’ unions are ideal, best coupled with legislation to break up these property management companies and private equity firms that have a stranglehold on shelter.

A mass rent strike is an excellent demonstration of people power and a good first step in that kind of long term operation. If you have a better idea on an action that both mobilizes a large number of people and has an immediate impact, you should certainly share it. There are plenty of avenues of attack here.

I think it’s fair to expect students to use computers in a programming class. I don’t know if there’s a need for students to be using computers for the entire school day

I’m torn on this - Christianity (particularly evangelical christianity) has had an extremely negative effect on democracy in our country and has caused physical harm to others.

However, I think most people with a conscience subscribe to some form of philosophy or religion (even if atheists aren’t “loyal” to any particular perspective and may not even use titles/categories to describe their value system) and I think it’s fine for your morals/conscience to influence decision making. Even a purely scientific decision making process could be considered a form of philosophy.

That being said, most organized religion is about obedience to the tenets of said religion, not a method of asking questions about the world to try to find the most just way to proceed.

I know everyone wants to be a doomer about things like this, but Minneapolis has demonstrated clearly to the nation what organization can do. This is a good way to provide solidarity with neighbors who cannot go out and work due to ICE occupation. By making it so that nobody pays rent, it means landlords will not be evicting those who are most vulnerable right now.

It’s a good strategy.

Yet another instance in which the “free speech” right didn’t actually care about the 1st amendment, they just wanted to say the n word on Twitter without people yelling at them.

I wonder if they realize how obvious it is to others that their morals are a lie

Community gardens are fantastic! I’ve only just started getting into gardening. My parents have done it for a long time and use cold frames so that they can get food 10 months of the year.

Lettuce is super easy - some of its even made its way into my lawn from when I let it go to seed one year, lol.

My favorite trick is using an empty cat litter pail (the big ones with a lid, not the pour able ones), drill some holes in the bottom, put in a layer of rocks for drainage, and the rest with soil. It’s a great pot for growing sale greens, and the handle makes it fantastic for if I need to move it around. We can’t recycle the cat litter packs in my county so this is what I do with them

Normal answer is absentee voting, but that’s part of the reason MAGA has been going after it so hard.

This is a valid concern that folks need to take into consideration. It’s all well and good to say that long term liberty is more important than short term security, and I agree with that sentiment, but it’s better not to force people to choose.

This is why there are strike funds. In this case, I would recommend mutual aid - even a small group of 5-10 people can work together to save money by buying essentials in bulk. Larger groups can help each other cover rent, form daycare coops, and so on.

Best time to start a group was a year ago, next best time is today.

I find solace in doing things that will help others and maybe improve the world. Local food pantries and shelters need help now more than ever. Mutual aid groups can also be quite effective if nonprofits in your area are sparse or otherwise ineffectual.

Perhaps the actions of a few individuals won’t change much, but I prefer it to sitting around and waiting for the world to burn to a crisp.

I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.

I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.

I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn’t need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps “upgrade” it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).

In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.

Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being “aggro”? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.

Is that going too far? “Touch grass” is about the same level, I would think, but I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.

Apparently, waving two hands instead of one hand.

Under no circumstances should you expect a random civilian from another country to be familiar with specific US military procedures, particularly when they are clinging to the wreckage of their ship to avoid drowning.

And this is besides the fact that shooting shipwreck survivors in the first place is a war crime, regardless of whether they were surrendering.

Everyone in the chain of command on this one needs to face prosecution.

If you enter into debates with weak ad hominem arguments about someone’s age, you aren’t going to change minds and you will be steamrolled by anyone with an understanding of the topic.

Skimming your recent posts, I don’t think our political views are particularly different, so it’s in both of our interests if you are using the best arguments possible on these topics. This was not an attack on you as a person, so your hostile response is unnecessary.

I suppose I did simplify your argument.

I’ll restate, then: it’s erroneous to say that any young person/22yo with a strong opinion on taxes is being manipulated. Although life experience may prevent naivete in some cases, I think it’s incorrect to make a bold assertion like that because older folks are capable of being manipulated and younger folks are capable of being discerning and having the critical thinking skills to avoid manipulation.

I would also take issue with your follow up on whether owning property impacts whether or not someone’s opinions on economic issues are well defined. I don’t think people need to be personally invested in an issue to have a nuanced opinion on it, though it can certainly help (and you definitely want to consider interested parties when it comes to property tax- i.e., before a city raises property taxes, they should take into consideration property owners with fixed incomes, who do tend to be 60+)

I get that you were just making a short comment and didn’t intend to go deep into the weeds on it, but I find these kinds of assumptions dangerous.

It’s a bad position to be in. If they crash it will be bad, but if they keep growing and then crash it could be worse.

I kinda hate the premise that young age automatically makes you stupid or your opinions a result of manipulation. Someone in their 60s can be just as stupid as a 22yo, and a 22yo is also capable of having nuanced thoughts about politics and taxation. “Young=naive” is a bad trap to fall into when evaluating political opinions and feeds into the old adage about people becoming conservative as they get older.

I think this person is just stupid on their own, regardless of their age.

Also a valid point - it’s not necessarily a lack of options that’s preventing people from buying more efficient cars. “Lack of options” is more in play in choices to use public transport or drive

According to Chenoweth, the number refers to peak, not cumulative participation. She also says 3.5% is not absolute – even non-violent campaigns can succeed with less participation, according to her 2020 update to the rule.

That’s the opposite of what her update said (well, it’s rather misleading). Her update noted cases where nonviolence failed even when they beat 3.5% - including one case that achieved 6% participation. She did note that most successful attempts didn’t need to reach 3.5%, but also that reaching that is no longer a guarantee.

Her original research only went to 2006, there’s been a few recent cases which broke the rule. Like she said in her update, history isn’t necessarily a predictor of future results. I think there are also some very recent cases like Nepal where 95% of the movement is nonviolent, but violence at the very end of the movement tips the scale. (IIRC something similar happened with the Iranian revolution, though the results of that were decidedly undemocratic in the long run). There’s some nuance with Nepal as well- the organizers did not choose to go for violence, it was largely an unplanned mob reaction.

Based on the totality of her research (which is publicly accessible and based on publicly accessible data), I still think nonviolence is more likely to achieve success than violence, but it really annoys me when articles like this one overstate the effects. It makes it really easy to tear apart the argument.