11–20 of 532 posts
can't access due to UK online safety act
A form of protest I assume, assuming he runs no business in the UK and no other reason to think the UK Gov has any interest in policing an .com blog run by someone who doesn't live there nor hosts the website there.
(I'm not against that form of protest per se, but let's be clear about who's doing the blocking)
[flagged]
What makes you think they didn’t? What makes you think this is the solution to that problem?
I’m so glad that Kyle wrote this. I’m so sad that he had to. Pay attention to what’s going on and vote.
Voting is what got us in to this. This is supported by a majority of the US. You do not live in the country you think you do.
I’m so glad that Kyle wrote this. I’m so sad that he had to. Pay attention to what’s going on and vote.
Voting is what got us in to this. This is supported by a majority of the US. You do not live in the country you think you do.
The election was fairly close. The winning candidate got elected by a coalition of people with differing views on an number of individual items within his platform. That does not equate to certain approval by the majority of the American population of any of the things the linked article recounts.
All that said, as an American living abroad who votes left, the use of terms like “kidnapped” and “abducted” to describe immigration-enforcement actions seems really weird to me and my expat peers. There are quite a few democratic, developed countries high on freedom-ranking lists that widely deploy law enforcement to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants and visa overstayers. Sure, deplore lack of due process when actual citizens get caught in the net, but so much use of these loaded terms isn’t even about that, it’s criticizing actions against non-citizens.
Can folks who live in Chicago confirm/deny/comment on the extent to which this article gets it right?
(I have no reason to believe that it's an exaggeration, but I sincerely hope that it is.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed
If you don't understand how critically violent Chicago is, especially in the number of Black people shot and murdered every week, then you have no business being engaged in this topic. Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think they didn’t? What makes you think this is the solution to that problem?
My point is everyone has been silent about Chicago's violence for decades, and only now they seem to care because it's not Black people being targeted. It's straight up racism to not care about Black people's welfare but care only when it's other people being endangered.
wholly disingenuous to compare the two.
but yours is the standard misdirect on anything "Chicago" so I'm confident being disingenuous was intentional.