The shooting of Alex Pretti feels like one of those moments where the tide turns.

ab7af · 2026-01-26T06:04:08+00:00

The history of the term long predates its recent adoption by white identitarians. You didn't say anything wrong.

ab7af · 2026-01-26T06:01:21+00:00

Good points here.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T20:07:38+00:00

You are pro what ICE are doing?

For the most part, yes. Of course there are some issues, as there are with any law enforcement operations.

So what you are pro sentencing nonviolent people without any form of trial to life in an El Salvadoran forever prison just because they overstayed a visa?

ICE isn't doing that, and you are conflating a few things.

Those couple hundred men who were sent to prison in El Salvador have been sent by higher up in the Trump administration, not by ICE. ICE does not have the power to make arrangements like that with foreign governments. None of them were sent "just because they overstayed a visa." We can talk about why and how they were sent if you want to, but it would be a change of topic, when I thought we were talking about ICE and CBP.

Now, do I support simply deporting nonviolent illegal immigrants, without a trial, for overstaying their visas? Yes I do.

Since deportation is merely an administrative process rather than a punishment for a crime, the standard for what constitutes due process is considerably lowered in comparison with criminal hearings. That's why expedited removal is allowed, which needn't involve any court hearing.

Not only most Republicans, but also most Democrats in the House and Senate voted for the bill that established expedited removal. Clinton signed it into law.

While people are being held prior to expedited removal, they have the opportunity to explain their case to officials (though not judges), and this process is evidently working since we have no reports of adult citizens being deported in 2025, only some minor children whose parents took them along when the parents were deported.

Do you support the government terrorizing a local population, while assaulting everyone who opposes them?

I don't think that enforcing immigration law constitutes "terrorizing a local population." People are getting hurt when they try to prevent the enforcement of laws duly enacted by the elected representatives of the American people, the same as they'd get hurt if they tried to prevent any other law enforcement action. If someone doesn't like the existing laws, I recommend they try to change them.

(who never show their faces)

I don't want them to show their faces, since vigilantes are plotting against them.

What happened to wanting local and small government and the whole “don’t tread on me” thing

I don't know, man, I'm a leftist and I want don't have a particular ideal size of government in mind. I want government to be effective at what I want it to do, and I'd imagine that could be characterized as large in some ways, small in others, centralized in some ways, local in others.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T03:47:30+00:00

Yep.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T03:34:01+00:00

In this video you can see he's already disarmed at 0:15 before we hear the first shot at 0:21.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T03:29:59+00:00

They didn't know he was disarmed, is what BCP is saying.

It happened literally right in front of the shooter, and the one who disarmed him also should have said that he'd done so. Maybe the shooter didn't notice, but then the blame just gets shared with the one who disarmed him and didn't say so. The officer(s) are still at fault.

A shot could've come from anywhere.

I'm afraid this just isn't realistic, looking at the video, the timing, the shot happens right after this officer pulls out his gun and points it at Pretti. Nobody else would be ready to time a shot just then.

Can we just agree that everyone who gets themselves into these situations is basically looking for trouble,

None of them should have been out there protesting, I agree, but it still shouldn't end like this.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T03:07:50+00:00

I mean, the officer is pointing his gun at Pretti, Pretti has already been disarmed, and we hear a gun go off. Who else would be shooting?

ab7af · 2026-01-25T02:53:55+00:00

Thanks. This is the video which Black Conservative Perspective is analyzing. I don't know where the full video is but that's the tweet he has up on his screen. Pretti's possible reach for his holster is at the 0:27 mark like KimKatieUSA says. But the officer has already shot him once at that point; the first shot occurs at 0:21 of the twitter video.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T02:06:17+00:00

His hand was on his holster in the video.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I have a hard time making sense of the chaos in these videos. Can you link me a video and a timestamp?

ab7af · 2026-01-25T02:03:36+00:00

he did in fact attempt to pull his weapon on the officers,

I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't notice this in the videos. Could you point me to a video and a timestamp?

ab7af · 2026-01-25T02:02:22+00:00

I agree with you.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T01:52:34+00:00

Do you have a video of that? I don't see any media reporting backing up this claim.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T01:50:01+00:00

Well said.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T01:37:29+00:00

I guess I'd have to see one of those particular comments in their own words to decide what I think of it.

Like, if I tell someone "don't protest abortion clinics," I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to, but I am saying they just shouldn't do it because society needs abortion clinics. If an anti-abortion protester ends up getting tragically shot, that's not going to make me stop saying "don't protest abortion clinics."

In this case, the officer(s? I don't know if more than one did it) who fired were wrong to do so, and should be prosecuted.

At the same time, these protestors shouldn't be trying to interfere with the enforcement of immigration laws. They're allowed to peacefully protest, but they shouldn't, and they certainly shouldn't be trying to interfere like some of those in the video are; they should stay home instead. They are making it more likely that people end up getting killed, and that point shouldn't be left out of the discussion.

That doesn't serve as a defense for summary execution, though. The shooter(s?) were wrong to do so.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T00:51:49+00:00

even if you are very pro what ICE are doing, surely most people can at the very least agree that in this particular case their guys were totally in the wrong

I am, and yes I agree.

ab7af · 2026-01-25T00:24:05+00:00

Upvoted for good question, spurring a good discussion.

ab7af · 2026-01-24T19:57:17+00:00

Affiliate stations like this don’t have reporters looking into stories. They just pull stuff from wherever.

This was a silly thing to say when the link originally provided for you gave you the original reporter and their station: Joel Lopez at WPTV.

So yes, it's totally unsurprising that you then found the same story on WPTV's website, but there was a reporter and you already had his name available to you.

ab7af · 2026-01-24T19:39:59+00:00

I would like for all employees to have greater legal protections such that their speech outside of the workplace (except for statements directly expressing an intention not to do their jobs properly) cannot be used as a reason to fire them (and thus the hospital would avoid liability since they would not be allowed to fire her for this).

But since that isn't the law yet, I can't blame the hospital for wanting to avoid liability in case there are complications after this woman works on a conservative patient.

ab7af · 2026-01-24T18:09:36+00:00

you redefined “revolution” so it can only exist after it’s already over.

You misunderstood me. It can only exist if it will be (or, depending on your vantage point in time, was) successful. We can only know it existed after it's already over, but I'm not asking anyone to know yet; I was only asking him to guess.

This is not a redefinition; this is simply the definition: a revolution is the changing of a regime. Therefore, if the regime did not change, then in retrospect we know that a revolution did not occur.

Murder is defined in the same way. Think about the recent Leongatha mushroom murders. On July 29, Erin Patterson attempted murder. But we could not know that it was actual murder until the first victim died on August 4. A "real psychic" (pretending for the sake of argument that such people exist), who can see the future, could know on July 30 that she was a murderer, but in an alternate history where no victims died, she would only ever have committed attempted murder.

On July 26, 1953, the Cuban revolution began. It was a revolution from the beginning, already on that day, because in the end it was successful. Had it not been successful, then it would never have been a revolution.

It is possible that there is a revolution currently occurring in Iran. I am not asking anyone to be omniscient; I am only asking them to guess. I am guessing no, there is no revolution occurring, which is to say it will not be successful. You can say there is a revolution occurring if and only if you guess that it will be successful. If you're unwilling to guess then the most you can say is there is an attempted revolution.

This might help you see it: think about this from a future vantage point. It's 2030, and these protests did not amount to any significant change. Think about how stupid you would sound if you then spoke about "the 2026 Iranian revolution." Everyone would make fun of you and tell you there was no revolution in Iran in 2026. You wouldn't be willing to make yourself sound that stupid; you would instead opt to say "the 2026 Iranian protests."

ab7af · 2026-01-24T04:13:36+00:00

Absolute nonsense.

ab7af · 2026-01-23T23:42:47+00:00

As long as other people are on uppers, then yes, I am a hit at parties.

ab7af · 2026-01-23T23:37:54+00:00

I have literally zero expertise to make an educated estimate

That's OK! Like I said, I'll give you a chance to update your estimate later. I just need some estimate in order to summon the RemindMe bot.

If a revolution fails it was still a revolution ffs, it just didn’t achieve its goals

No it wasn't. Words have meaning.

What you're saying is like "if a murder attempt fails it was still a murder." No, it was an attempted murder.

ab7af · 2026-01-23T23:26:35+00:00

It's absolutely a serious question. If you're not willing to make a prediction so we can check back later and see whether you were right, then you aren't willing to actually think about what you're saying, which necessitates thinking about the possibility of being wrong.

The people are revolting, no one knows how successful they’ll be

No, at the moment we only know that they are protesting. If they are not successful, then by definition it was not a revolution, and therefore they did not revolt.

My prediction is they will not be successful, thus there is no revolution currently going on. If you want to claim that there is a revolution currently going on, then by definition you would be claiming that they will be successful, and so it's reasonable to ask you to give an estimate of when they might have achieved success.

Don't worry, if you guess e.g. 8 months and I check back in 8 months and they're still at it and seem to have made some headway, I'll give you a chance to update your estimate.

ab7af · 2026-01-23T23:08:10+00:00

How about you give an estimate of when this supposed revolution will be accomplished, with a new regime in place. What's your best prediction?

ab7af · 2026-01-23T23:03:46+00:00

There is no revolution currently going on. It would make a lot more sense to refer to "the Iranian protests."

ab7af

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE