News

35867 readers

2581 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

543

Protesters decrying the killing of Renée Good know what they saw with their own eyes. (www.motherjones.com)

submitted 1 month ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In the immediate aftermath of the ICE killing of Renée Good in Minneapolis last week, the Trump administration smeared her as a “domestic terrorist,” claiming that she had weaponized her vehicle. They labeled Good a “violent rioter” and insisted every new video angle proved their version of the truth: Good was a menace and the ICE agent a potential victim. That’s despite video evidence to the contrary, showing Good, by all appearances, trying to leave the scene of the altercation, while ICE agents acted aggressively. Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, spent Sunday doubling down, insisting that Good had supposedly been “breaking the law by impeding and obstructing a law enforcement operation.”

So, on Sunday, I joined the throng in Manhattan for one of many dozens of protests held around the country this past weekend. In the middle of Fifth Avenue, surrounded by raucous, defiant New Yorkers, I asked protesters the simple question: What did you see?

“I mean, it seems like the bottomless, self-radicalizing thing that the government is going through,” said Anne Perryman, 85, a former journalist. “Is there any point when they’re actually at the bottom, and they’re not going to get any worse? I don’t think so.”

“I think there’s a small minority of Americans who are buying that,” said Kobe Amos, a 29-year-old lawyer, describing reactions to the government’s gaslighting. “It’s obviously enough to do a lot of damage. But if you look around, people are angry.”

“I saw an agent that overreacted,” he added, “and did something that was what—I think it’s murder.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've seen large groups of people pushing a few agents off from abducting some latinos, and it works. I've seen probably 5 different videos in the last few months of that. It actually works to save people from being disappeared when we have the numbers.

Where is your red line for getting "serious"? When he cancels midterms or otherwise rigs it against any Democrats? What they just ignore the courts (as they've done a bunch of times in other areas).

[–] StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dude read the fucking room

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Everyone should determine where their own line is that, once the regime crosses it, they go into "fuck this we're changing it" mode. Crossing the Rubicon type stuff. It's important to make that red line ahead of time because otherwise you can get lulled into inaction since they do things just a little worse and worse so you're the boiling frog. There's a "They Thought They Were Free" quote about this, where they descended into genocide little by little, causing no one to push back.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I have no idea what you mean by "serious," only that you clearly mean something different by that word than I do, to the point that you offer it in quotes as though it is your euphemism for something else. Go ahead and define it if you want to discuss it.

And I have no idea what you mean by "red line" either. A line suggests a point at which I will change from one position to another, but I've repeatedly and explicitly stated my positions without generalities all along. Why do you have such difficulty stating what you plainly mean? Just go ahead and say it. What are you referring to by "red line"?

EDITED TO ADD: You know what, never mind. I've reread your comments and you are clearly just advocating for violence. Get lost. Blocking you now.