FishFace

FUN!

That would be some context about your thinking that it would have made sense to include in your first comment, given the thread context!

I dont get it lmao you get arrested without arms anyway so… why you even have guns in america for anyway if not for against nazis?

I'm an outsider but I think the reality is very clearly not that simple.

Most people are still not being arrested, and most of those arrested or involved with the police or federal agents are not being assaulted with deadly weapons. It's not at the point where it is some kind of obvious choice to make it a fight.

In fact, in reality, that is rarely the case I would say, because the fascists are incentivised to not make it so clear cut and obvious, because then people fight back. That's why the worst crimes of fascist regimes are usually conducted in secrecy and with denial. Even when e.g. France was conquered by the Nazis, most people were not part of The Resistance.

But Yiddish is itself a Germanic language, and modern German dialects like Bavarian do have "Schof" = "Schaf" = "sheep". Is there a better etymology for Schof here? And Seckl < Säckle < Sack would be perfect for scrotum too, and in high German you can call someone "du Sack" to mean they're an idiot also.

But they aren't. They're the colours corresponding to the peak frequency responses of the cone cells in your retinas.

Primary colours are not made up, they are the approximate peak response frequencies of the cone cells in your retinas.

In the UK we had Guy Fawkes' night for that, though it has now been somewhat supplanted by the reimported Hallowe'en traditions from the USA.

Of course, the USA was supposed to have Thanksgiving to hold Christmas at bay, and apparently that didn't work, so good luck.

Let's recap. The comment you replied to said that it would be false to say "ICE executes a US citizen by shooting him in the back of the head" because ICE didn't kill him, and he wasn't shot in the back of the head.

You replied (sarcastically) with "That's OK then," implying that you thought it was necessary to tell someone who stated correctly that ICE didn't kill a man that what ICE did wasn't OK. To be clear, that person didn't say, "this is fine because the guy is still alive", they were just correcting someone who falsely said ICE killed someone.

So why do you think literally anyone here thinks it is OK that someone got shot? Nobody has said that it's OK. Just to spell it out:

you have read someone making a correct point that ICE didn't kill someone as "ICE shot someone, but it's OK."

To me, that says one thing: you think that it is not important to speak the truth about ICE if that truth is that they didn't behave in the worst possible way. Any truth that doesn't align with the narrative of "ICE bad" is not important truth to you, right? The only statements that should be written are those which criticise ICE.

Does that sound about right? If so, then I'll just say again: you need to be better than that. If not, then what possible reason do you have for asking "do you think it's OK he got shot" when no-one said that it is OK?

All the time? Or only some of the time?

Does the truth only matter to you if it's aligned in all respects with the narrative?

Be better.

That colour scale can get in the bin.

What struck me is that the CBP didn't even respond to comment. Even the IDF pretends to investigate its war crimes.