In relation to this, thinking about a new community for Political Activism. Calls to action, that kind of thing.

The rules would be super simple:

  1. Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]

  2. Absolutely no calls for violent action.

  3. No links to fundraisers. Too rife for fraud and abuse. Stories about fundraisers would be fine, but no GoFundMes, etc.

Think there’s room for PolticalActivism?

  • libertyforever
    18·
    2 days ago

    Calling normal enforcement “authoritarian” and adding insults doesn’t make a legal argument. Facts and evidence still matter.

    • pet1t
      3·
      2 days ago

      remember that “legal” here means anything trumpy and his strategically appointed puppets decide for themselves what is deemed to be legal. you’d defend invading Greenland and call it legal because your Great Leader wants it to be …

    • AlexanderTheDead
      21·
      2 days ago

      Extra judicial killings, unapproved acts of war, extra judicial deportations

      Oops, there ya go. All real things that exist and are documented by ours and several other nations.

      • libertyforever
        16·
        2 days ago

        Listing charged phrases isn’t the same as proving they apply here. “Extrajudicial killing,” “acts of war,” and “extrajudicial deportation” are specific legal terms with defined elements — intent, authority, jurisdiction, and due process standards. You don’t establish them by assertion; you establish them with findings, rulings, or documented patterns that meet those definitions. Yes, abuses by governments exist and have been documented globally. That doesn’t mean every controversial enforcement action automatically qualifies, nor does it excuse skipping the legal analysis required to reach those conclusions. If you believe those labels apply in this case, the burden is to show how the facts meet the legal criteria — not just that similar abuses have occurred somewhere before. Conflating real historical abuses with an unresolved incident isn’t accountability. It’s shortcutting the argument.

        • AlexanderTheDead
          11·
          2 days ago

          Hey dipshit the courts he’s defying already proved and ruled on it. Nice try. He’s openly and illegally defying court orders.

          • libertyforever
            15·
            2 days ago

            Courts can issue rulings and orders, but whether someone is actually defying them — and whether that defiance is “illegal” — is ultimately determined through legal processes and enforcement mechanisms, not social media declarations. Calling it “openly illegal” doesn’t replace due process or evidence.

            • AlexanderTheDead
              11·
              2 days ago

              That’s not how it works. Courts don’t determine what is illegal, they determine through evidence whether or not someone has done something that is illegal.

              Which was done, and yes, what they did was illegal. And then they defied the courts. Which is illegal.

              Are you stupid?

              • libertyforever
                15·
                2 days ago

                You’re misrepresenting how the legal process works. Courts can determine guilt or order compliance, but enforcement and due process are what make a ruling effective. Simply asserting “it’s illegal” on social media doesn’t make it so in practice — it’s still a legal process, not a declaration of opinion. Name-calling doesn’t strengthen your point. If you want to explain how a court ruling has been legally enforced or adjudicated, go ahead — otherwise this is just rhetoric.

                • AlexanderTheDead
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  Btw you failed to adequately respond to my previous comment, so here, you may try again:

                  That’s not how it works. Courts don’t determine what is illegal, they determine through evidence whether or not someone has done something that is illegal.

                  Which was done, and yes, what they did was illegal. And then they defied the courts. Which is illegal.

                  Are you stupid?

                • AlexanderTheDead
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  But we aren’t simply asserting that it’s illegal. There was a court case. It was ruled on. It was defied by the president. It is illegal to defy a court order.

                  It’s that simple. Do you need me to quote legal codes at you?

                  Again. Are you stupid? Rage bait? Probably rage bait.

                  • libertyforever
                    14·
                    2 days ago

                    You’re way oversimplifying the situation. Yes, courts can issue rulings, and failing to comply with a court order can lead to contempt or other enforcement measures. But whether an action constitutes an enforceable violation isn’t automatic — it depends on the specific ruling, the scope of the order, and whether formal enforcement or contempt proceedings have been carried out. Simply saying someone ‘defied the court’ doesn’t make it legally finalized or proven beyond process. If a court formally finds contempt or imposes sanctions, that’s the legally enforceable part. Until then, it’s a matter under investigation or adjudication, not a settled legal fact. Also, name-calling doesn’t make the legal argument stronger — it just obscures the issue. Let’s stick to the actual legal process if we want a meaningful discussion.”