Funnily enough, these flagged topics seem to spark a lot of conversation, and the voices of the government supporters are not heard here...So they just flag and move on, not even trying to defend their position

Hard to do when your position is essentially indefensible.

First, there is no evidence that they were censored because of keywords. Crazily enough, they may have been censored by god (or simply datacenter issues).

Second, if there were such censorship features, then it shows that the US was right to buy TikTok. Imagine if National Socialists or those who are against liberty and justice had access to such features.

Third, we are in a time of great danger, thus requiring great actions. What is the danger? It cannot be explained. What is the solution? To re-use the past. In early 1000s, the Germans were both holy and roman and justly created living space in the East. Hundreds of years later, we started Manifest Destiny. Similar to 南进 of the Vietnamese, we should recognize the job has not been finished. This requires rewriting history. While China existed for 5000 years, the US has existed for 6000. The Jewish, Christian, and American spirits merged together, and people of 100s of different dialects were pulled into the area, and the wave of freedom moved back abroad. This was the formation of the American language, a true melting pot. While many Americans have genetic ties to Europe, they have one difference, a spirit that is free and mobile. Unlike the Europeans who stay in one place and look down at the wandering Roma, the Americans are inherently mobile, experiencing new ways at life. This is the Spirit and what allows for Americans to manifest the destiny of the world from East to West.

I comment a lot about these matters on Reddit, and I'm very much against all that's happening in the USA.

But the reality is that the discourse i see here in these types of political posts is the same as on Reddit and the like. (Whether For or against )

It would be great if somehow the discussion added something different. Like the post about Iran censorship and the suggestions on technology to bypass it (I learned about Snowflake) .

But the problem with US related politics is that HN people are very emotionally invested (being Americans most of them) and that makes the discussion become very visceral.

They offer a chance for awareness, which is literally step one. Americans are some of the most propagandized people on Earth, and most don't even know it.

It's crucial that the tech community develops more awareness around censorship - no small share of the responsibility is with us.

Censoring stories about censorship, on a premier tech community and investment forum, just because the discussion gets 'visceral' is simply capitulation to any entity willing to try and make a discussion toxic. We need to do a lot better than that.

He's not even what I would call MAGA, but it still seemed like a gulf that is impossible to bridge.

They're not entirely different though. The similarities are critical to understand; the parts where both parties differ wildly from reality in the exact same way.

For example: 98.15% of 2024 voters didn't hold openly arming genocide as a red line for their vote. I don't believe you can blame the 2 party system for that, not entirely - every adult human has an extremely clear moral and legal duty not to be voting for anyone arming genocide.

Speaking to Americans about this will furnish extremely consistent and predictable responses; none of which hold the smallest amount of weight. There is no rationale for genocide, ever. There is never a good reason to enable the mass slaughter of children, the bombing of an entire healthcare system, the mass targeting of journalists and their families, the poisoning of wells, etc etc etc.

Yet no matter how predictable the responses, there's still no getting through. We all know how delusional the MAGA crowd can be - but Biden repeated lies about 40 beheaded babies long after they were debunked to virtually zero pushback. That lie, and the one about mass rape, was used to 'justify' genocide. Millions of people still believe it. No one was ever held responsible for those lies, not so much as a slap on the wrist.

Biden vetoed 4 UN ceasefires against a genocide that had been already called out by virtually every relevant human rights org. And even after those vetoes, people like AOC - the supposed left wing of the supposed left wing party - told us he was "working tirelessly for a ceasefire". The entire political and media class chose to overlook this, and instead get worked up about, Idk, the 8 trans people competing in professional sports instead.

A party that can inspire such loyalty that it's members overlook participation in genocide can only be described as a cult. The blue cultists says the red cult are in a cult, and the red cultists say the blue cultists are in a cult.

And then there's the other third of the voting population - the faction who intensely dislike both parties, but can't be bothered to vote for a third option even against the most documented genocide in history. Absolutely astounding propaganda work.

And that's just regular people. Imagine how much worse it is for people in the military, where only Murdoch media is permitted and you can get jailed for reading things like Wikileaks. Imagine growing up in a 'privileged' elite bubble, where poverty is "necessary" and "deserved", where every billionaire "earned" their wealth, where some families with generational wealth are simply genetically "superior". Ugh.

So yes, many people live in wildly different realities - but the parts where the blue cult and the red cult have the exact same opinions, and so do even the "independents" (again, things like the 'necessity' of tolerating genocide from your leaders, or the socialist evils of feeding hungry children)... Wow. Truly, there is a vast, almost unimaginable gulf between America and the rest of the world.

... And they think they're free. They think the US is hated for its freedoms. It's fascinating, and terrifying - and the tech community has played no small part in every aspect of things getting this way, for decades.

This is sad to me because I really want to hear the other perspective, and there is no place that exists (that I know of) for people who disagree with each other to have a real conversation. Nothing left but echo chambers.

But I think HN falls into this trap because the down vote button is used when people disagree with the other person, which imo is a misappropriation and what prevents people from sharing unpopular opinions.

I guess wanting to hear the other side's perspective is not looked upon favorably here, just like everywhere else.

When you have a handful of sentences in your post, it may well be the one you're not expecting that triggered the downvotes.

Here, and on reddit, and anywhere with voting or people caring about the number next to their username, it's the most popular opinions at the top and everything else at the bottom or flagged. I genuinely don't understand what people get out of that.

And I guess I should specify that this is also why political topics get flagged. Sure, it probably has a lot to do with people flagging stuff that goes against their beliefs. But I also think that political threads here offer absolutely nothing aside from reaffirming existing beliefs. No one is trying to change anyone's minds, everyone is just yelling at each other. Threads about actual tech stuff can be very interesting and I do learn things from them sometimes. But political threads here are worthless.

edit: I do not mean /pol/, no one should ever go there

What you see is a mirage.

The problem with 4chan is that the loudest voices are the ones that have no lives, and can flood the board with their bullshit. You could be having a conversation with someone in one thread, meanwhile they're busy posting about the same damn thing in 3-4 other threads at the same time.

And that's assuming the person on the other end is real. These days, there are bot armies of paid shills or AI to worry about, flooding the zone with their narrative to the point where your voice gets drowned out.

You cannot have a decent social space without some form of active moderation and some protection against sockpuppeting. Not every place with both of those gets it right, but without both you're guaranteed to fail, and 4chan has neither.

But most people who talk politics aren't really interested in changing their perspective. That's why these echo chambers exist.

That's not a solution at all, the point isn't to hear unopposed, highly selective talking points, we know all that already, the media is full of it. The point is to see them defend their positions against fairly simple criticism which they block and the mainstream media doesn't address.

Why are you're assuming flagging indicates support of the government?

Maybe they're flagging because it's a topic that will generate much more heat than light. It doesn't have to be deeper than that.

Fascism and authoritarianism can come in both left, right, color, sizes, sex and age.

Altman and Thiel have long had YC connections (obv); and for the last year or so Garry Tan and PG have been full-throatedly cheerleading Musk and DOGE on their Twitter pages.

Then there's the many connections between YC and the 'defense' industry; you know, the one making billions of dollars from wars that people speak out about on social media.

It's very easy to explain why posts get flagged here. It's a lot harder to digest why they don't get unflagged. Especially when all the posts about it are quickly removed, every single one.

Followed by the usual sycophantic support: "You're doing a great job dang, we all love you so don't worry about these cranks", and "Well I'VE never noticed any censorship so it obviously doesn't exist" (Yeah dude that's how it works lol).

My view is that these are essentially the same group. "Not wanting to see politics" is itself just a partisan view in favor of whatever the Status Quo currently is. So if you're going through and flagging articles describing wrongdoing or calling for change, because they are "political," then you're just operating in the service of whoever is currently in power.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46771917

Given the consistency and speed of flags though, I don't think #2 is just "organic" flagging.

Thousands of people view these very quickly once they hit the frontpage, its enough 0.1% of those are willing to flag to see consistent near instant flagging.

But some people do that regardless who is currently in power, what do you call that? I'd call that "not wanting to see politics" and not being partisan.

Dan sold out his moral compass.

So I can only assume this one is flagged because the source is pride.com

Make of that what you will.

Only TikTok in the U.S., though; everywhere else it's Bytedance still.

Trump got empty hands, he got totally played by the nice words of Rutte.

Edit: Your conversation is really mind boggling:

"Trump got a great deal on Greenland!"

"What deal?"

"How would I know?!?!?!"

It is like they're brainwashed. Awful.

> Trump got a standing ovation at Davos and got a deal for Greenland

And you don't know what is the deal, at all, so how can you base your entire argument in something you simply do not know? You don't know, you simply do not know.

Greenland and Denmark weren't present to make a deal.

And to quote Trump: "Well, the deal is going to be put out pretty soon and we'll see. It's right now a little bit in progress, but pretty far along." (from https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W_UE7h3nTmQ)

The deal that is "now a little bit in progress", sounds to me like there is no deal.

It might be manipulating people at home, but you're closer (still not close, obviously) to Russia than Sweden as far as a trustworthy business partner or ally now. We're suddenly not making any long term plans that rely on America or American companies where it's avoidable, I don't know if you understand how big of a shift that is.

Sorry but you are suffering from some kind of delusion here. He's not manipulating public perception in any way that is beneficial to him or the US. He's crashing his own public perception (which was already in the gutter to all but the sycophants and blind loyalists) and taking the US' reputation with him

“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.” ― Lao Tzu

Let's run the clap-o-meter.

- Trump: https://www.youtube.com/live/qo2-q4AFh_g?si=1dLbyqmpVH39KtY1...

- Carney: https://youtu.be/CQOr9FcSf-M?si=vb4Z9fSOewRyV_7S&t=1130

Edit: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm24vjvy3n1o

"I was in the room when President Donald Trump entered and it's fair to say he got a good welcome from the crowd, certainly at the beginning. A standing ovation."

Exactly like you'd do with a toddler :)

After the previous public execution by ICE, Stephen Miller said they have federal immunity (which is a lie), and it led us to where we are now.

Trump is responsible for hiring these idiots.

People were leaving and stopped paying attention during Trump speech. It was just ... bad.

When the reporter asks: "Does it still include US having ownership of Greenland?"

Trump: "Um....eh...."

All this posturing and he ended up with nothing.

So the best we can do is anecdotal examples. And it’s also obvious that Trump avoided banning TikTok for months, illegally, because he wanted to have another platform serve as a mouthpiece. He now has that by forcing a sale of TikTok to his friend, Larry Ellison.

It should be fucking table stakes for being able to run a business with that much power and influence.

But I'm leaning towards incompetence. Some US generated stuff was most likely moved to Oracle shitboxes, causing encoding issues and unreliable streaming.

...or it's malice and they're scanning the data and intentionally throttling traffic for unwanted content.

https://i.redd.it/2stz13v1bsfg1.jpeg

There are quite a few reports on Reddit of users having any dm using that word being deleted.

https://old.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1qnxxgi/were_being_...

Which is hilarious sentence now because this government so pro free speech!!! sarcasm*

But seriously this is something that if my main gig was to create music or some art form, I wouldn't want to be on a corp run platform. I would want to own it myself and the all that data.

It’s really hard to say which video will work or not. What people react to and what not.

All I’m saying is that this could also potentially be explained by "The Algorithm" per se.

Anyway, considering that the purchase of the American TikTok was done with a purpose and there is documented collusion between the involved tech Billionaires and the political class behind the street executions in American cities that drive those protests, I wouldn’t be surprised that they are actually throttling this time.

https://www.theverge.com/news/867625/tiktok-down-weekend-bro...

Also, do you mean minority of the total US population or minority of the voting population?

For one reference point I fully support ICE. And I think it's wild you have local and state politicians encouraging actions against federal agents who are enforcing federal law.

The Gestapo, too, was federal agents enforcing federal law.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53939-more-americ...

21st century brownshirts, if you will.

No one can know what TikTok censors or penalizes in its algorithms. All other social media platforms are equally intransparent, what is new is that TikTok is not American.

https://www.theverge.com/news/867625/tiktok-down-weekend-bro...

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cp374n3ggngt

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/27/nx-s1-5689104/tiktok-epstein-...

Social media that actually have a large audience and that cannot be easily pressured by the US government?

This is the problem with any kind of censoring media. The initial intentions of those policies might have been good, but these kind of policies can so easily be abused for malign intentions.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00104140241306955

They raise alarms because they have low TikTok view counters. But mass killings of Iranian protesters is Iran's own business.

You may have gone onto the platform and seen nothing but the same sort of vapid memes as anywhere else, but you see that's just how insidious and clever those Chinese are.

We're not exerting control over the narrative, we're protecting the truth from foreign influence.

There is no genocide in ba sing se.

incredible beyond words that this was a unanimous decision by the supreme court. letting the us government set up whatever arraigned marriage it felt like for buying a social network is some wild meddling with businesses. and here we are, with the ultra capitalists doing exactly what they want to with one of the most popular social networks.

excellent write up for this absolute madness of a court decision, TikTok v. Garland and the First Amendment Anticanon by Evelyn Douek, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6118706

I've heard people say housing policy has failed because it's too neoliberal meaning too free market, and then other people say it's failed because it's too neoliberal i.e. too much government intervention.

Neoliberalism is basically just markets-by-default and evidence-based alternatives when they fail.

That's not though. I think the name is from the 'New classical school', oppose Keynesian economics. I think the meaning drifted to mean supply-side economics (direct inheritor from the Chicago school and the new classical school).

Neoliberalism can't be 'evidence-based' when it rejects basic observation (like those from MMT. You can reject MMT 'solutions', that's fine, I do too. Don't reject evidence though).

I think your criticism of it as not being 'evidence based' because it 'rejects basic observation' is emotive but fundamentally it's still a technical criticism, not a moral one. Neocon criticisms of neoliberalism (even if they misidentify what that means) revolve around the decay of traditional values, for example. Socdems around inequality (which to them is ipso facto bad).

But that's true that a lot of socdems don't really understand economic theory and so some criticism seems empty, because they repeat a criticism they did not understood. And that's ok, because macroeconomics is the less scientific of all social science field (for good reason), and who would want to bother with it (unless you're an idiot who took that in college because it seemed to pair well with math :/)

[1] https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/calling-commun...

Although re your actual point: the current admin only gifts things like this to a chosen few; a small subset of those with extreme capital. So it seems much more appropriate to call it cronyism, or some such thing, rather than capitalism in the sense of merely controlling capital.

Whatever the rules are, people end up adapting to and gaming them to entrench and grow their own position, typically at the expense of everyone else.

That’s a contradiction.

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

- Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

It's a contradiction only if you understand democracy as a theoretical ideal. Practical democracies, as implemented in western countries, in recent decades proven themselves to be completely controllable by capital, both the democratic elites and democratic masses.

I think we should rather go with practical outcome not the stated theoretical ideas. It's also a good way of evaluating communism and probably other systems.

And if they wouldn’t, they would be blocked or prevented of doing business in the US.

Wasn't there something about an amendment to their constitution? I believe it might've even been the first? Something about freedom of speech?

Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I could've sworn conservatives kept harping on about it.

It only restricts the Federal government (later extended to state governments IIRC?)

This is one of many reasons Federal government is now partnered with private business.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/google-admi...

They got Paramount and CBS and TikTok, are allied with Twitter, and still have a chance of grabbing Warner.

I don’t think American billionaires ever particularly liked Murdoch, an Australian, controlling so much of the media environment in their country. Maybe they’ll make an offer for Fox News that the Murdoch heirs can’t refuse.

Because if it were actual fascism, like the Hitler/Mussolini kind, you'd be arrest/dead the moment you spoke anything against it.

If you can freely call your leaders fascists for years, then it's not actual fascism.

This is... a pretty confused view of history, really. Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, and consolidated power over the next year. At this point there was a lot of criticism of the regime, both internal and external. Things got rapidly worse after, of course, but there certainly was a period where the Nazis were in power but that there was public criticism.

Even as late as 1938, there was significant public discontent RE Kristallnacht in particular.

Every political party had public criticism before they could gain absolute power to silence that criticism.

Thus, currently allowing some criticism is not enough to disprove the alleged march towards fascism. People with that viewpoint would argue that it's only allowed because power isn't consolidated enough yet.

Democrats/leftists/ANTIFA don't hate authoritarianism, They hate that they're not the ones in charge of dealing the authoritarianism on their opposition, as shown by the masked mob gestapo they set up in Minnesota doing "papers please, you're either with us or against us" on civilians passing by to confirm they hate ICE.

If Kamala-Walz would have won the election, they would have done the same to Trump and friends in republican states, and you would have called it "justice for Nazis", not fascism ,which is the justification ANTIFA use when they beat up innocent people.

[citation needed]

Also even if true, there's a vast difference between a rando on the street asking those questions vs a government agent. That's assuming the government agent isn't too much of a pussy to identify himself instead of hiding behind a mask.

If I show you camera footage on X of this happening will you accept it in good faith or nitpick it on why it's not valid?

>Also even if true, there's a vast difference between a rando on the street asking those questions vs a government agent.

Ah classic, so even if it's happening, it's not a bad thing because an unelected unaccountable mob is doing it, just like in third world countries.

It's in the name, antifascists. They rose from the fascism of the 20th century and have a proud history of fighting the original Nazis.

God bless them for carrying on the good fight!

Like I said before, you don't hate fascists, you want to be the fascists in order to justify kill people you disagree with. You just admitted it in your own words.

Curious what if you were to get hit by the same type of vigilante justice you approve of, and someone dishes out this type of punishment on you for fitting their definition of a fascist in their now prevailing worldview. As they say, "Live by the sword, die by the sword".

Umberto Ecos Ur-Fascism might be worth a read.

Fascism isn't just "things I don't like". It's specific behavioral patterns that lead to the worst crimes in modern history and that must be stomped out at any cost. Words have meanings.

Not to Fascists.

> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

Jean-Paul Sartre

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...

I'll leave it to you to conclude if it's worth giving this mamba good faith replies.

It looks like you have paramilitaries roaming your streets - not wearing ID or proper uniforms, covering their faces to avoid identification, not answering to usual democratic controls - executing protestors.

In the latest incident, they seemed to be beating and spraying a woman with a chemical agent for filming them, and then executing a bystander who tried to help her. The regime then tried to deny reality and falsely claim that they'd attacked said paramilitary operatives.

In any Western democracy (and I'm not sure if the US is currently part of that category) there would be a public investigation, but they seem to have been squirrelled away and the politicians who have spoken out about it have been threatened.

This all seems to be fascistic by any reasonable standard.

Covering their faces to avoid doxing and being attacked at their homes.

Really? Is that why they have vests with labels that say "POLICE FEDERAL AGENT" front and back? Maybe literacy is an issue.

> covering their faces to avoid identification

Same reason SWAT and special forces covering their faces. Because just like them, ICE arrests and deports violent criminals, cartel members, human traffickers, etc. Dangerous people that could identify their faces and then track down and kill their families in retaliation, exactly what lib-dem ANTIFA & co anarchists would love to do to them if they could see their faces.

And also then, why are the "protesters" assaulting them covering their faces as well if the good guys are supposed to show their faces and only bad guys cover their faces according to your logic?

>In any Western democracy (and I'm not sure if the US is currently part of that category) there would be a public investigation

Public investigations are meaningless now in this specific partisan case since the people have already made up their mind on who's guilty. So if the officer would be publicly investigated and then cleared, them dems would just say it was all rigged anyway.

The paramilitaries that executed Pretti are all wearing street clothing, and all wearing different clothing. They look like a mob.

> Dangerous people that could identify their faces and kill their families in retaliation.

Well that's convenient, because it also allows them to kill protestors or their families without any consequence.

> Why are the protesters assaulting them covering their faces

Pretti didn't assault them, and wasn't covering his face. He got executed anyway.

On top of which they have matching ICE issued vest with inscriptions.

>He got executed anyway.

Yes, accidents like this will happen when you shove law enforcement officers with a gun on you. Similarly, a lot of people also got "executed" by police without even having a gun, but just by simply by being uncooperative and pulling out their wallets from their back pocket with a sudden motion towards them as if they were pulling a gun. That will get you killed.

There's etiquette when dealing with police that people seem to have forgotten.

It's a fascist theme to have paramilitaries not wearing uniforms. See for example the mukhabarat in Syria. It makes them more intimidating, because they look undisciplined, and adds confusion to protestors as to whether they are dealing with someone who is part of the legal system. Why on earth would they not be issued with uniforms?

> Yes, accidents like this will happen when you shove law enforcement officers with a gun on you.

Pretti did not shove any "law enforcement officers". The first physical contact is a shove on Pretti by one of them.

BBC did a frame by frame analysis: the first shove happens at approx 1:00 in this video. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/l0057wmt/bbc-verify-an...

If you disagree, please provide a source.

The first time they seem to be aware that he has a firearm is when they disarm him, and the execution happens after that, so I don't see how that is relevant.

You're leaving the part out where a gunshot is heard right before they "execute" him. The officers with their fingers on the trigger pointed at him during detainment, got scared of that gunshot and jumped on the trigger by accident. It's an unfortunate accident but not an execution. Read up the legal definition of execution. This is not it.

Please stop making up stuff.

Feel free to look at the timeline here.

https://news.sky.com/story/10-shots-in-5-seconds-how-did-the...

It just leaves me wondering - how do you look yourself in the mirror each day? I guess it must be super easy if you just look at what happened there and think shooting a guy 11 times from close distance is an "accident".

Pot calling the kettle black.

>the only hope I have is that you are an actual russian troll

Yes, you are not the minority opinion, you are 100% correct and everyone disagreeing with you is a russian troll.

And I think - if I lived in 1930s Germany, I would also want to believe that my country isn't turning into a place where the rule of law isn't respected and where citizens are executed on the street without due process. After all, people are posting criticism of the government in the papers still, so it can't be that bad. That family next door that disappeared - they probably did something wrong. And the dude that got shot by the Gestapo on the street - he probably did something wrong too. Or maybe the officer made a mistake - it's just an accident after all. Nothing to worry about.

I think it's in our nature to gaslight ourselves, because otherwise we have to confront the horror of the world and also who we have become. You have become a person who goes on the internet and tells people that the shooting of Alex Pretti was an unfortunate accident. I hope that there is a day - maybe in 10 maybe in 20 maybe in 30 years - where you look back at yourself and think "damn why didn't I see what was going on".

>> everyone disagreeing with you is a russian troll.

You have your coping mechanism which is clearly just lying to yourself and others on the internet - every single comment asking you for evidence, proof, or in return - giving you those when you asked - you have ignored, because clearly you aren't actually interested in what is happening, you just want to stick to your point of view, something which you accuse others of doing.

For me, the only method of not going insane reading internet forums nowadays is assuming that either people like you are bots, or are doing this on purpose to elicit a reaction(kids call it ragebaiting nowadays?). If you really hold these views....then what I said above applies.

You are literally insane if you think this is a matter of "etiquette" or that it was an accident.

Essex police haven't fired a single bullet in the last 10 years, and they are able to provide effective policing anyway. But in US a bunch of gestapo officers have a man pinned to the ground, with his gun taken away, and then they shoot him?

At least the real gestapo had the decency to ask you to stand against the wall looking away before they executed you.

As I asked you in another comment - do you want to live in a Judge Dredd universe where officers can just execute someone like this? And I repeat, it's not an accident. If it was, they would have shot him once.

Only if you misreport crime, ignore grooming gangs and arrest people for Tweets as "effective policing" in the UK.

>And I repeat, it's not an accident. If it was, they would have shot him once.

Police are trained to always fire multiple shots, as learned from firefight reports, people are left in capacity to fire back even when they have several rounds in them.

And when there are 8 people on top of them, they're facedown on the ground, their hands are stuck in front of their face with no way to get at the waistband in which they had a legally concealed firearm, which one ICE officer removes while another waits for him to be out of the way before another executes them?

People got shot from police mistakes like these all the time. It's an accident, a bad one, but not an execution, as everyone on the left calls it.

Citizens have no duty to cooperate with police in their investigations. Citizens have first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights. I suspect that your idea of "being uncooperative" includes "following unlawful orders."

Thanks, good to see great mental clarity and debate skills.

> includes "following unlawful orders."

Except the judge decides if the order was unlawful, not you.

You don't get to decide on the spot that the order you received was unlawful and can just resist arrest if you feel like it.

You cooperate with the orders, and then your lawyer will seek justice and compensation on your behalf is the way the officer handled himself was unlawful. That's the way it works.

Right now, ICE goes out of their way to beat and arrest protestors and steal their cameras. They're not yet mowing them down but by that time it would be a little late to do something about their conduct. Remember that the current US president admires how the CCP crushed the student protestors in Tiananmen square with tanks and guns.

Beyond that, much of the establishment and industry tried to work with him using a softly, softly approach. They thought they could steer him, temper him, leverage his popularity for their own ends. Of course, that didn't work out for them

  November 1921 (Munich): During a speech at an NSDAP rally in a beer hall, an unknown assailant fired shots at Hitler from the crowd amid a melee, but he escaped unharmed. 

  1923 (Thuringia): An unidentified person attempted to shoot Hitler during a rally, but Nazi supporters outnumbered opponents, forcing the attacker to flee. 

  1923 (Memmingen): Another unknown individual tried to assassinate Hitler with a rifle but retreated when confronted by his followers. 

  July 15, 1932 (Munich): An assailant fired shots at Hitler and SA leader Ernst Röhm while they dined at Cafe Heck, but both were unhurt. 

  1932 (Nuremberg): A bomb was planted in the lobby of Hitler's hotel, but it was discovered and removed before detonation. 

  1932 (Berlin and Munich): Two additional attempts occurred, one involving potential poisoning at the Hotel Kaiserhof in Berlin (where Hitler and staff fell ill after a meal, suspected to be deliberate contamination), though details are limited and perpetrators unidentified.

You originally implied the Weimar Republic itself used fascistic tactics. But your examples show nothing of the sort (and are obviously just an LLM dump, which disinclines me to continue this conversation)

Yes, I'm sure they were lone wolves who happen to have massive resources for political assassinations, and not backed by hitler's political opposition. Please, let's end the conversation here since it's clearly not going anywhere.

As per history proves, the ones who lose the battle are the fascist, since both the allies and soviets were guilty of the same atrocities in their colonies that they accused the nazis of.

> As per history proves, the ones who lose the battle are.

What are you trying to say? Mussolini called himself a fascist. Hitler modeled his nazi party on Mussolini's fascist party, he openly admitted that and admired him. Fascism is not some word that was invented post-hoc to describe very bad people.

Think about what you're saying. You're trying to defend the indefensible.

Come on man, don't debase yourself like this.

It's what fascist regimes do to anyone they deem noncompliant.

Impressively, you managed to misrepresent a fact with every single word in your sentence.

You have something that looks worryingly like the Ceaușescu's Securitate "disappearing" citizens - including a little 5-year-old boy - off the streets.

Justify that.

Justify kidnapping a terrified little boy who should be at school with his friends, and locking him up in prison.

Go on, justify those actions. Let's see if you can.

You have armed thugs abducting and murdering people on the streets of American cities.

"Stenvik said another adult living in the home was outside during the encounter and had pleaded to take care of Liam so the boy could avoid detention, but was denied. Liam’s older brother, a middle schooler, came home 20 minutes later to find his father and brother missing, Stenvik said. Two school principals from the district also arrived at the home to offer support."

" An agent had taken Liam out of the car, led the boy to his front door and directed him to knock on the door asking to be let in, “in order to see if anyone else was home – essentially using a five-year-old as bait”, the superintendent said in a statement."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/21/ice-arrests-...

Again, how do you look yourself in the mirror every morning?

This probably means everyone else is also getting their reach crippled.

Remember that even with clear video evidence, the administration lies about the events and tries to spin it as domestic terrorism.

So imagine what they are doing, and will do, without video evidence.

This is probably one of the darkest times in America... You have an administration that normalizes lying and violence, and a tens of millions of Americans that are choosing to close their eyes and suspend their morals because they're scared and confused.