The whole thing is a goldmine of little quotations.
"Are you Haitian?"
And:
"Okay. Awesome."
"Own up to your mistakes, man. You're a grown adult."
The big smile / face of preparedness on the face of the black guy walking up to the car was pretty excellent too, as is the unanimous consensus in the comments that they're happy this dude is getting hemmed up.
Is going on Bluesky to bicker with people who smash the windows of banks that fund genocide and climate collapse going to help me do the stuff I’m working on?
I mean, I don't know about that, but preventing them from becoming violent against ICE (which is what we were talking about) when you come into contact with them in your specific area, and in general talking about the inadvisibility of it on the internet and elsewhere, seems like a good idea. It's actually specifically the fact that being vigilant about this will help the stuff you're working on (by making it possible for you to do it without maybe getting shot) that make it specifically important.
Gene Sharp actually talked about this: The absolute necessity of maintaining discipline about nonviolence if that's what you've decided is tactically necessary at the moment, or completely separating in a visible and public-relations-understandable way from people who are doing that if you're unable to prevent it. It is one of the a few key elements which is both vital and a lot harder than it might seem. A lot of random people tend to show up with all kinds of vigorous personal ideas about what might lead to the movement's success, including actions which will fuck things up for the movement on a truly catastrophic scale. (Again - this is why police tend to plant agitators who will deliberately take things in that direction. They wouldn't do that if it was fine for it to happen.) This kind of "live and let live" approach as to whether or not to get violent against state forces is very specifically dangerous in a very specific way.
(They actually talked about this on the Gaza flotilla, too: They did drills and training for how to react when the Israelis were approaching to avoid giving them any kind of impression of violence or resistance, because it's very easy for them to just start shooting and that's not what is wanted. Part of the qualification process for even being allowed to be physically present was that you had passed some tests as far as your physical ability to get mistreated without reacting.)
Does that make sense? I feel like I've said this 2-3 times now and you keep rebooting back to square 1 of your side of the conversation, as if I hadn't said it.
“I did actually say: ‘Would you mind if I gave a couple of thousand Tomahawks to your opposition?’ I did say that to him. I said it just that way,” Trump said, recounting the conversation.
unless I see them as directly in conflict with whatever specific task I’m trying to do.
In a whole lot of situations, protestors applying violence against government forces is very much directly in conflict with the protest succeeding.
Not always, but a lot of the time. That's what I was saying.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=political+defiance&ia=web -> https://therevolutioncontinues.substack.com/p/pursuing-political-defiance
But I’m not going to tell the black bloc folks how to do their job and I expect they won’t tell me how to do mine.
"I'm not going to tell the police-planted agitators how to do their job and I expect they won't tell me how to do mine."
Honestly, what you're saying sounds pretty similar to what I'm saying (IDK why you felt the need to couch precisely what I am saying behind this phrasing of "But I also recognize..."). But this sentence in particular is precisely the opposite of both what Gene Sharp's research recommends, and what I've heard of as the general practice in US protests. Maybe it's different now (and, like both of us are saying, different situations are different), but from people I've spoken with the best practice when someone near you is getting violent is pretty much the exact opposite of letting them "do their job" unhindered.
It's very rare for some blanket rule like "violence never works" or "non-violence never works" to be accurate about this kind of thing.
The easiest way to resist fascism is for the existing conservative party that it's trying to hijack to vigorously reject it. It works well enough that you don't really hear about examples when it happened, because they didn't turn into fascism. Anyway, we already stumbled at that hurdle a long time ago, so it's irrelevant.
The second-easiest way is nonviolent resistance, or what Robert Helvey called "political defiance.". That stands a pretty good chance of undoing tyranny while also preserving the structures that will enable a decent society in the aftermath. It's historically by far the most reliable path (which sure as shit doesn't mean it is reliable.)
Violent revolution is the hardest way. There's obviously a lot of bloodshed by innocents and the guilty alike, and it also makes it more difficult to galvanize a resistance from "undecided" participants because they may see the resistance as terroristic or dangerous. You have to already have a critical mass of support in order to embark on this path, because you will gain relatively few supporters along the way, and a large number of previously unaligned people may galvanize against you in a big way. And, worst or all, it carries the added risk that the society that comes after the revolution may be even worse than the fascism you just overthrew. Violence that destroys important structures of civil society tends to beget more violence that destroys important structures of civil society.
Sometimes, you need violent revolution, it's definitely not "never" the answer. But it is a very hard and dangerous road.
Yeah, I get that. But also you have to read the room. I can say that from personal experience that if you ask the doctor a little bit uncomfortable question about their personal experience and history, it's all of a sudden no longer super important to be totally transparent about everything because we're all adults here and we can just tell the truth and why would you even think of doing anything different.
(I mean, I get it. You should tell the truth to the doctor even if it's something intensely personal or w/e. I just don't get why it can't be a conversation that starts off along the lines of "Anything you want to tell me, or do you just want me to take it out?" Just as with cops arresting other cops for DUI or something, I notice this total abandonment of social norms or preserving anyone's dignity or safety et cetera only applies in one direction, when they are speaking to a "patient" or "suspect" or w/e. They have not abandoned the whole concept, not at all, they're just applying it selectively and not to you.)
"This is HUMILIATING, stop taking pictures" -Owl
Also, they get very very angry if anyone calls them fascists, because that's not fair, and also you are the fascist in fact
If only there was a political faction where not caring about the truth and arguing violently in this emotional and self contradictory manner were one of the early stage hallmarks, we could stick a label on them
What I don't get is why the doctor involved in this situation is asking how the object got into the rectum. Every single story I've heard involves the question being asked, of "How did it get there?"
My medical friend: You know. What is to be gained by asking? What enlightenment do you think will be achieved? They might tell the truth. They might lie. Either way you will regret. Just fetch your forceps and get on with it.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul became the top official in the state to endorse Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani for New York City for mayor on Sunday, marking a shift for a strident defender of Israel as mainstream Democrats grapple with surging public support for Mamdani’s criticism of the Israeli regime over its ongoing genocide in Gaza.
In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Hochul wrote that she and Mamdani shared priorities like making the city more affordable and ensuring strong leadership of the New York Police Department. She also took an oblique shot at Mamdani’s two main competitors: current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who President Donald Trump’s team has reportedly pushed to drop out of the race, and Andrew Cuomo, who would have a better shot at winning if Adams did so. The former governor lost the Democratic primary by just under 13 percentage pointsto Mamdani in June.
“In light of the abhorrent and destructive policies coming out of Washington every day, I needed to know the next mayor will not be someone who would surrender one inch to President Trump,” Hochul wrote. Trump, apparently displeased with the endorsement, called it “a rather shocking development.”
Hochul’s support for Mamdani followed nearly three months of hand-wringing from the de facto leader of New York’s Democratic Party, who has expressed skepticism of Mamdani’s policy proposals that would require tax hikes on the wealthy and more public spending. Now, Hochul’s endorsement sets her apart from the top two Democrats in Congress — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — who have both declined to weigh in on the most heated race in New York City.
As a result, New York’s Democratic establishment remains split over whether they should rally behind Mamdani, Cuomo, or — seemingly – no one.
Nearly three months after the primary, only four members of the Democratic congressional delegation representing New York City districts have endorsed Mamdani: Reps. Nydia Velázquez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jerry Nadler, and Adriano Espaillat. Only Velázquez and Ocasio-Cortez backed Mamdani before his primary win.
“We have a Democratic nominee,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters earlier this month. “Are we a party that rallies behind their nominee, or not?”
Many members of New York City’s financial elite, set on edge by Mamdani’s promises of a freeze on stabilized rents and othermeasures to lower the city’s cost of living, have been plotting to keep him from securing the mayor’s seat in November.
Democratic Reps. George Latimer, Ritchie Torres, Gregory Meeks, and Tom Suozzi have endorsed Cuomo. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Reps. Dan Goldman, Grace Meng, and Yvette Clarke have not made endorsements in the race.
Urging her fellow New York Democrats to back Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez has pointed to her support of President Joe Biden during the 2024 presidential election even though he was not her preferred candidate.
“We use our primaries to settle our differences and once we have a nominee, we rally behind that nominee. I am very concerned by the example that is being set by anybody in our party,” Ocasio-Cortez said earlier this month. “If an individual doesn’t want to support the party’s nominee now, it complicates their ability to ask voters to support any nominee later.”
Outside the city, Rep. Pat Ryan, a Democrat who represents a swing district in the Hudson Valley, endorsed Mamdani last week. Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen, a moderate from Long Island, was the first Democrat to publicly denounce Mamdani’s campaign after his win but has not endorsed a candidate in the race.
Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Jeffries pointed to a statement he made to reporters last week: “I certainly will have more to say about the New York City mayor’s race in short order.”
Offices for Schumer, Gillibrand, Goldman, Meng, and Clarke did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Nadler, who announced this month he will retire at the end of the current congressional session, addressed his change of heart toward Mamdani during an interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer on September 5. During the primary, Nadler said he would not back Mamdani because of his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and what Nadler called Mamdani’s lack of experience. Nadler told Lehrer his decision to endorse Mamdani after he won the primary was a no-brainer.
“First, he was the Democratic nominee,” Nadler said. “Second, what are the alternatives? You have the mayor, who’s a crook, and you had Andrew Cuomo, whom I had said should resign from the governorship because he was a repeat sexual predator.”
Goldman, whose Manhattan district Mamdani won in June, endorsed state Sen. Zellnor Myrie before the primary and has said he has spoken with Mamdani but won’t endorse him without “concrete steps” to assuage fears from Jewish New Yorkers about hate crimes in the city. It’s not clear what further steps Goldman wants to see — Mamdani has repeatedly said he takes concerns about antisemitism seriously and that he would take steps to protect all of his constituents — Jewish and otherwise.
Clarke endorsed New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams before the primary. Meng, who did not make an endorsement prior to the primary, congratulated Mamdani on his win in June and a campaign that she said “built coalitions & mobilized underrepresented New Yorkers!” But she stopped short of endorsing Mamdani.
Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, which supports Mamdani’s campaign, condemned the party establishment for neglecting to rally behind Mamdani.
“Establishment Democrats have no plan to support the workers targeted by Trump’s agenda,” Gordillo said. “If establishment Democrats refuse to get behind Zohran, they’re not just rejecting the vision of an affordable NYC — they’re rejecting the 500,000 voters and counting who are behind Zohran.”
A top Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives is backtracking on a proposal that would have given Secretary of State Marco Rubio the power to revoke American citizens’ passports if he decides they have provided “material support” to terrorists.
The proposal from Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., sparked a backlash from civil society groups after he introduced it as part of a larger State Department reorganization bill last week.
On Sunday, after The Intercept’s coverage sparked widespread opposition, Mast introduced a manager’s amendment that would strip the provision from the bill he introduced days before. The manager’s amendment itself must still be approved at a Wednesday hearing to apply to the larger House bill, which itself faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
Civil liberties supporters celebrated Monday, after warning last week that the bill endangered the right to travel freely. One advocate had warned that it essentially granted the secretary of state “thought police” power.
“It’s a really great thing that this provision got struck” said Kia Hamadanchy, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “It was hugely problematic, created a huge risk of abuse, of politicized enforcement.”
A Foreign Affairs Committee spokesperson said in a statement to The Intercept that the language “shouldn’t be controversial.”
“This provision is just one small part of a larger comprehensive, State Department Authorization Act that the House Foreign Affairs Committee introduced last week,” the spokesperson said. Confirming the move to withdraw the provision, the spokesperson said that “the committee will not allow this distraction to overshadow the bipartisan effort to restore command and control of the State Department to the Secretary.”
Under Mast’s original proposal, the secretary of state would have been empowered to refuse or revoke passports of people they deem to have materially supported terrorists.
Activists were especially concerned the provision could be used against critics of Israel, given Rubio’s aggressive move to revoke green cards and student visas from noncitizens who have publicly demonstrated support for Palestinians.
Mast’s amendment would also remove a provision that would allow the secretary of state to revoke passports for people who have been convicted or charged of material support of designated terror groups.
Update: September 15, 2025, 4:27 p.m. ETThis story has been updated to include a statement from a House Foreign Affairs Committee spokesperson that was received after publication.
Wait, why is there a Hasan stan community on Lemmy? Reddit is definitely not removing the debunking posts, they were stickied on Hasan's sub there for quite a while. Where is this getting removed from?
I can't believe we're still talking about this either, but sure.
They "became convinced" because they studied the evidence from Hasan's own stream, including not just his refusal to do logical things like show the collar immediately during the many hours of streaming when people were asking about it (he only showed it after a break), refusal to identify which model of collar it was and claiming it was only able to vibrate (and then people figured out and proved that it was a shock collar which had been modified to look like a vibrating collar, poorly), other objectively abusive behavior like grabbing and yanking a dog by its tail, hiding the shock remote (which was exactly in the location he reached for during the CollarGate incident) when there was a camera up at a different angle that could see it, and so on.
Lol
For the "did not shock" contingent: What's even your explanation for what happened? Was it a vibrating collar, or a modified shock collar? Why did he modify it and when? Why was he sure that Kaya "clipped herself" when he didn't see it happen, and why did he later change the explanation to that she didn't know how she hurt herself (and why are his stans still contradicting his explanation and insisting it must have been her dew claw and they know that that happened)? Do you think it was the dew claw, or do you think it's unknown how she hurt herself? I just want to hear what is the coherent explanation for what happened, and see whether it makes sense and lines up with what we can literally see with our eye balls.