Whoa, when I posted this I didn’t expect anyone to actually agree with me. Thanks for renewing my hope in the world!

It’s impossible to verify that through any objective lens, as every situation is unique and there’s no control group to compare it to. There’s no way to isolate variables, and any alternate timeline is merely hypothetical.

The French Resistance played an important role in WWII, but for most of the early war they were hiding out and keeping a low profile so they wouldn’t get steamrolled. Without Allied support, it wouldn’t have been enough.

Today, technology has advanced to the point where it would be next to impossible to keep an organized resistance of comparable size undetected as long as they managed to.

Any appeal to history is inapplicable because the advancement of modern technology and the resulting imbalance of military might is such that it has no historical analog.

It’s a bit of an overgeneralization to act like men are sex-obsessed and view relationships as a transaction where they can purchase sex by being nice.

It’s human to want love and care, but so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.

Likewise, if a man is kind to a woman he’ll generally be regarded with suspicion, like “what are you trying to get out of this?” Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them. It seems it’s impossible to be a man in the vicinity of women without opening oneself to being labeled as a misogynist, no matter what you do.

The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.

I’m aware that the situation is bad. I haven’t argued otherwise.

The argument in question is about methodologies, and for now I’m saying a violent resistance would be counterproductive.

I’m not claiming to know a viable alternative. But doing nothing is better than making things worse.

Sorry, it’s just hard to approach these topics from my angle without bracing to be punched in the face…

It’s not about whether trump or ice care about the rule of law, it’s about whether the courts are capable or willing to intercede.

They’re not going to be able to help if you punch an agent in the face, much as he might have deserved it.

“Wahhh, you didn’t give me the Nobel Peace Prize, so now I’m making thinly veiled threats to invade our mutual ally. Also, look I got a FIFA peace prize and I stole a medal from the Nobel laureate.”

Except he probably doesn’t know the word laureate…

And there literally are documents recording Denmark’s rights to Greenland. But by trump’s logic of “Only cause boats landed there a few hundred years ago,” I guess the US doesn’t have rights to the land it’s on?

Also, trump has done nothing for NATO except weaken it. Other NATO countries are gearing up their commitments in spite of him, not because of him.

WHEEEAAAAATOOOOONNNNNN!!!

This is the writing style of an 8 year old!

My thoughts exactly.

Sure, if they’re apprehended by ICE, by all means they can choose to resist. But if they’re outnumbered it probably won’t be effective, and will only increase the amount of brutality they’re subjected to.

Plus, if there aren’t any legitimate charges to book them with, fighting back gives agents the charge they need. Otherwise there’s a higher chance of being released.

And if you don’t fight back, then they might shoot you, as is evident by now. But if you do fight back, then they’ll probably shoot you. So what degree of risk are you willing to accept? Cause it’s a sliding scale, not a coin flip.

Nice deflection. I never claimed gender is immutable. You just brought cis/trans distinction into a discussion about man/woman.

So gender isn’t obsolete per se

So it’s only obsolete if we’re talking about cis men? Cause if you meant anything else by that, then why would you even bring it up? Is it obsolete or is it not obsolete?

Don’t give me “per se,” cause that just leaves you room to carve out exceptions for anyone you don’t think is oppressed enough to deserve your sympathy or acknowledgement.

Rapists will always prey on people who are more vulnerable than them. Things like prison rape show that a person’s genitals aren’t always a factor. Mtf trans people also get raped.

Rape is an evil, vile, despicable thing to do to another person. That’s a bit of a red herring though, because my question was about how this topic reflects on gender roles. Cause it seems like the same people who want to say “gender roles are archaic and should be done away with” are in favor of sending a man into a situation where a woman might be in danger. But wouldn’t that make it a gender role?

By the way, cis men get raped too. Using mtf as an example to show that a person’s genitals aren’t always a factor is akin to saying “Only women get raped.” Especially when combined with your statement that “Ftm would be pretty safe.” So what’s your agenda, to claim the world is ultimately safe for men?

So are you saying men should do the dangerous stuff, fulfilling the gender role of “protector”? Because most feminists would be allergic to a statement like that. And yet here they are, saying “The world’s too dangerous for women, so they need to send men to do the dangerous stuff.”

My only point one way or the other is that it displays a glaring inconsistency that needs to be examined. There’s no need to insert the cis/trans distinction into the mix; if gender roles are obsolete, then it doesn’t matter; and if they’re not then the only difference it makes is in how men or women perform their gender, and whether they’re cis or trans wouldn’t change that.

Is your smart idea to get your friends and neighbors bombed by the US military?

It seems like you’re the one fundamentally misunderstanding the organizational structure of state and local governance.

The mayor appoints the police chief. Walz has political power and influence over the mayor of Minneapolis.

No he doesn’t. There is no direct chain of authority from the governor to the mayor. The mayor is elected by the people of Minneapolis, and directly answerable to the people of Minneapolis. The governor is elected by the people of Minnesota and is directly answerable to the people of Minnesota. They often work together on mutual goals that require cooperation, but neither one is accountable to the other.

Walz doesn’t even appoint the MSP police chief; that position is chosen from within the ranks via promotion. The closest thing he could do is appoint a new DPS commissioner, which wouldn’t have much effect.

The “rules” I’m referring to are about breaking this established order that I’m referring to. Breaking those rules means actually pressuring (or in some cases removing) people in their positions that refuse to defend the citizens of the state. Breaking the rules means using the state power to defend citizens against the federal invasion.

Those wouldn’t be breaking any rules, but this isn’t about rules. It’s not about being “against the rules,” it’s about feasibility: what’s possible and what’s not possible. Here’s what the mayor of Minneapolis said:

Why are we put in this position? We’re put in this position because we have approximately 600 police officers in Minneapolis, far fewer that are able to work at any given time. And there are approximately 3,000 ICE agents in the area.

For the record, MSP has about the same number of troopers as MPD, and they’re primarily tasked with traffic enforcement.

And if your idea is to recruit more people to the police force who will fight ICE, how do you plan to convince a bunch of leftists to become cops?

Lastly, it’s not like the leadership is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they’re following the legal process to seek an injunction:

Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration Jan. 12, calling the surge of federal law enforcement into the state “unlawful violent conduct” and “excessive force.”

The lawsuit seeks a court order to halt the immigration crackdown. So far no temporary measures have been ordered, and the lawsuit is pending.

It’s all they can do right now. Sure, it’s a constitutional crisis, but violent means of resistance aren’t called for until all other options have been exhausted. That means secession isn’t on the table unless midterms are either canceled or ignored.

Mobilizing the national guard against federal agents would amount to open rebellion. No matter how corrupt and unqualified the federal administration and DPS/ICE troops are, it exposes the leadership of the state, the guard, and all its troops to legal penalties up to and including treason which can be punishable by death. And we all know how republicans are frothing at the bit to execute people. So unless you’re confident that your state guard can win against the feds, that move is unadvisable. And since it would bring in full military mobilization, it would be a detrimental escalation. Not beneficial to the people of Minnesota or Minneapolis.

The governor and the mayor know these things. They know more than you do, so stop calling them cowards for not doing enough. Nothing they can do is enough, and anything they can do would be akin to thrashing while caught in quicksand.

No, my smart idea was to stop this all from happening on election day. Ever since that fell through, I’m all out of ideas.

Any “leftist” who boycotted the vote shares partial responsibility for the mess we’re in. Kamala Harris wasn’t perfect enough? Trump just gave Israel $3.3 billion for their military.

Anyone who would let a fascist take over because they couldn’t vote for a liberal is a leftist in name only. So stop blaming the people who are saying “a revolution is not going to make things better.”

Free lube

They did that anyway. It took the allied forces closing in on two fronts to put a stop to it.

How did that turn out for them?

🪞

Cause you’re being annoying

Me saying it isn’t what makes it true