366
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
366 points (98.7% liked)
politics
26007 readers
2340 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The greater context still applies. The comment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It was a reply, not a standalone comment.
No it doesn't, what are you even talking about. You were criticizing the content of a comment specifically responding to and highlighting the change in context - now you're trying to say that the context is the same as that which you presented in your original comment. Please stop making stuff up to justify your position, especially in sub-discussions where your initial position isn't even the subject.
Alright, the condescending parts of your comments might be a sign that responding will be a mistake, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re engaging in a discussion in good faith.
Here’s my understanding of the discussion:
Level 1 Post linked to article about “President Donald Trump called for Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to be imprisoned Wednesday morning amid his administration's deployment of National Guard members”
Level 2 DrFistington replied: “The minute JB removes protections … I'll be more than happy to assist”
I understand this to either mean DrFistington will help Donald kill his enemies, or more likely it’s means: when this happens, DrFistington will kill fascists.
Level 3 I replied by asking what difference it would make if Donald takes that extra step. Seems very close to what we have now. I am still interested in how this step would be significant to DrFistington. Either way, this event doesn’t seem to change the state of things much.
Level 4 NuXCOM_90Percent responded to my question with reasons that DrFistington would be saying he’ll kill people.
Level 5 Triumph responds to the part where NuXCOM_90Percent said in one of the reasons he was giving in response to my question that people are taking action against this administration by continuing to show up.
Level 6 In response to Triumph response, I referred to surrounding context to back up NuXCOM_90Percent point that no one is taking the action—specifically the action of killing fascists because DrFistington statement implied he hadn’t taken action yet, and it seems like NuXCOM_90Percent was referring to this.
From my understanding illustrated above, this is directly related to DrFistington saying he’s waiting still to do any killing. It does not seem to me to be a brand new context, unrelated to anything above. I see a thread running through the whole discussion.
I could have misunderstood any of this though. I’m happy to receive clarification or confirmation from any of the commenters.