this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
295 points (99.3% liked)

politics

24335 readers
3478 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The alleged officers detaining hundreds if not thousands of people each day in California and across the country are often masked. They sometimes refuse to answer questions, including which agency they represent. They threaten force — and even use it to make arrests of bystanders — when they are challenged.

In the first video I watched, a man in an unmarked car detains another man sitting on a bus bench in Pasadena. The man presumed to be a federal agent has on a vest that simply says “Police” and a cheap black ski mask that covers every bit of his face — the kind that looks like it was purchased on Amazon and that we have previously most associated with criminals such as robbers and rapists. A few of his colleagues are in the background, some also seemingly masked.

If these men approached me or one of my kids dressed like that, I would run. I would fight. I would certainly not take his word that he was “police” and had the right to force me into his car.

In the second video, another presumed federal agent jumps out of his unmarked vehicle and draws his weapon on a civilian attempting to take a photo of the license plate.

Yes — he points his gun at a civilian who is not threatening him or committing a crime. Folks, maybe you consider it a bad idea to try to photograph what may or may not be a legitimate police operation, but it is not illegal. This alleged officer appears to have simply not liked what was happening, and threatened to shoot the person upsetting him. The man taking the photo ran away, but what would have happened had he not?

These actions by alleged authorities are examples of impunity, and it is what happens when accountability is lost.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 125 points 3 days ago (3 children)

People need to start dressing up like ICE thugs and abducting/robbing wealthy white conservatives. When they insist they're citizens, dismiss their documents as fake. That's the only way this will end. The powerful need to be just as terrorized as the rest of us.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 31 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Impersonating police or military is usually a very high risk thing to be doing.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago

Failure to act, not doing things while you still have time, also has a very high risk.

Its a very, very common mental miscalculation to only look at the risk on one side of the balance sheet.

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

When it becomes high risk to simply exist, that might finally be the tipping point.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Historical anecdote: Germany never had a tipping point. The people effectively folded.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Thought_They_Were_Free

In 1953 Mayer interviewed ten male residents of "Kronenberg" (in reality Marburg) to understand how ordinary Germans felt about Nazi Germany.[2][3][4] The town, located in Hesse with a population of 20,000 and a university, was controlled by the United States during the postwar period of occupation.[5] The interviews occurred during Mayer's term at Frankfurt University's Institute for Social Research as a visiting professor.[6] All ten were in the lower middle class.[4] The author was not a German speaker and the men did not speak English.[7]

The interviewees had the following occupations: baking, cabinetmaking, clerking at a bank, collecting of bills, police, sales, studying, tailoring, and teaching. Walter L. Dorn of the Saturday Review wrote that the interviewees were from a pro-Nazi bloc that was the "anti-labor, anti-capitalist, and anti-democratic lower middle class".[5] The tailor had served a prison sentence for setting a synagogue on fire, but the others were never found to have actively attacked Jewish people.[5] Mayer read the official case files of each interviewee.[2]

The author determined that his interviewees had fond memories of the Nazi period and did not see Adolf Hitler as evil, and they perceived themselves as having a high degree of personal freedom during Nazi rule,[8] with the exception of the teacher. Additionally, barring said teacher, the subjects still disliked Jewish people.

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

A bunch of ICE are neither, they are just bounty hunters

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 53 points 3 days ago

The political climate in America is deeply imbalanced. Right-wing violence is so common because it is tacitly or openly sanctioned by the state—it aligns with existing power structures. This is why, historically, regular Germans didn’t rise up against the early Nazi movement: the violence was coming from those the state favored. When left-wing groups try to mimic these tactics—like impersonating secret police or kidnapping elites—they invite swift and deadly repression. The government does not treat both sides equally. One is shielded; the other is crushed.

[–] ShoeThrower@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

~~police or military~~ any federal employee

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Also to do basically every single thing ICE is doing that your pizza delivery guy isn't.

And if you have a really good pizza delivery guy, some of the stuff they both do.

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Honest question, what's a solution that doesn't carry risk?

[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Internet comments. Albeit it's no risk no reward.

What's the difference though?

Is there some essential "policeness" that "real" police have?

Are they announced with oils? Blessed by the divine?

They're not enforcing laws, they're not working for a collective good, they're not maintaining 'order', so genuinely what would the difference be?

I'm not necessarily endorsing. I think this goes some ugly places, but it's illegal when they do it too.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People also need to carry pepper spray.

[–] jmf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Just pepper spray?

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

They will simply escalate violence with more violence. Our security apparatus has two decades of experience with counterinsurgency to snuff out people who choose this.

This is not a "violence isn't the answer" post, more of a clarification. Expecting to break the enemy's will through terror is always a fool's errand when doubling down/locking in is an option. This will end when one side has killed a sufficient amount of the other side to where they can no longer complete their objectives.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We tried to control Afghanistan and Iraq for like 2 decades and look how that turned out...do we really have that much experience? If so, we didnt learn a whole lot.

[–] NecroParagon@midwest.social 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately suppressing the domestic population is easier than trying to nation build halfway across the world. We can be pretty damn effective at oppressing our own population.

[–] Thassodar@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But one thing you seem to be overlooking is that there are more of us than them. The population of a city, even just part of the population who do not support this, is more than almost every police station across the nation. You can't suppress 100k+ people with a 10k-20k police force. The more you do, the more people who are going to resist. Add the military if you want, we still outnumber them.

You can point at the protests but those are peaceful. That's not suppression, that's keeping shit civil. Once bullets fly it's gonna be harder to keep people in one self contained area, especially if you have people shooting from their windows.

[–] NecroParagon@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

I agree with the sentiment, I just don't think Americans are going to actually go to that length. At least what I've learned from my 28 years in this country. I feel like the chilling effect is going to be stronger than most might hope for. But I hope you're more accurate than I am in this regard.

[–] immutable@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 days ago

Yea but they are going to escalate anyways.

There is some cost that will be too great for your enemy, and it need not be attrition.

The wealthy are few, and they have nice lives of safety and comfort because they can pay a subset of the workers to protect and serve them. Be that police, politicians, private security, etc.

There are 3 cost / benefit calculations in play in this scenario.

  1. For those with wealth there is a cost to squeezing the population, the benefit is increasing their share of the wealth. Resentment, social instability, etc. These things aren’t free, wealthy people have to pay for security, pay for media to keep the populace on their side, pay for politicians. If the cost to obtain wealth outweighs the benefit, it isn’t sustainable to continue pursuing it.
  2. Those that serve the wealthy. They get paid through salaries, benefits, access to power, and social status. They cost is that they work against the interest of the rest of us to protect the wealthy.
  3. The rest. Society at large is a game where the cost is giving up violence, allowing the state to monopolize that. The benefit should be that the state wields that in the interest of the common good. That contract appears to be broken. So now we have a new cost / benefit scenario playing out. The cost of action against the state has been made very high, you see the groups 1 and 2 know how to play this game. They will beat you, they will imprison you, they will kill you. When those groups start ramping up the costs you should realize it’s for a reason. The benefits of tearing down the state get higher and higher the more authoritarian it becomes. The state would like to have your obedient labor without providing anything back to you. At some point people realize that there’s more benefit in destroying or reforming that system, which generally ends up with the people in group 1 and 2 having less comfort and power.

Terror really isnt the thing group 3 should be focusing on. Cost is.

It should be expensive to be in group 1 or 2, so expensive that people don’t want to be a part of it anymore. That’s how you win this group fight. You can see that groups 1 and 2 realize this and so they want to make the cost of doing anything to jeopardize their groups as high as possible.

It remains to be seen if anything will come of it. Americans have proven to be incredibly willing to accept insanely high costs that only benefit the few wealthy. They will go into bankruptcy to pay for egregious healthcare. They will fund the police 100x over the social systems that would prevent crime in the first place.

We are at the end of a nearly century long project of the wealthy propagandizing the populace. So much that “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” a phrase intended to mock the idea by being plainly impossible is just a thing people unironically say.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You do realize we are at war, right? The conservative Christian portion of the population has declared open armed warfare upon the rest of us. That needs to be how you center you're thinking. We are at war. Start acting like it.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

...yeah, I think the part where I said "we will need to kill enough Nazis until they are physically unable to carry out Nazi shit" painted that picture.