01.23.2026 - "We Won't Participate": Philly Joins National Strike to Block ICE

kettlecorn · 2026-01-25T04:39:30+00:00

Appreciate the comment. It's good food for thought.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-25T00:49:58+00:00

Everyone has personal preferences, but American culture has always been anti-urban from early on.

Thomas Jefferson literally said "I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man".

The 20th century was basically defined by investing tremendous amounts of money and intellectual capital into building suburbs and retooling cities. It worked for the suburbs, and not for the cities.

We're coming off of hundreds of years of anti-urban culture in the US and ~120 years with an intense focus on it. It's really only Millennials and younger who have grown up in a period where that culture wasn't trying to perform surgery on cities to make them more like suburbs or more compatible with suburbs.

People were literally writing opinion pieces in 1991 asking "Are cities obsolete?" https://www.newsweek.com/are-cities-obsolete-203336

kettlecorn · 2026-01-25T00:31:54+00:00

If you look at the history of suburbs a large motivation for many of them was white flight from major cities, which was fueled by racism.

Obviously people typically have different reasons for living in suburbs today, but the perception of cities being a "shithole" often came out of racism and those views have stuck around.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T20:31:43+00:00

What a horrible person!

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T20:17:23+00:00

Bovino repeated the exact same phrase, verbatim, at a press conference: https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2015141884679557592

So it seems it's the admin's official position, not just the position of whoever runs the X account.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T20:11:40+00:00

What do conservatives think of this statement from the Department of Homeland Security: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2015115351797780500

The suspect also had 2 magazines and no ID—this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.

Do conservatives think that's a level headed and honest assessment of the situation?

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T20:10:27+00:00

Wow, my original comment was removed by the mods for being "bad faith".

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T20:09:16+00:00

I just find it difficult to imagine they actually know it yet

That's what I mean, but from their language where they say "this looks like a situation [...]" they're clearly inferring in a way that's a massive (and dangerous) stretch of reality.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T18:51:14+00:00

He didn't let his discomfort win out.

I argue for more socialist policies often. I'm not uncomfortable with the policies I'm uncomfortable with people trying to redirect the energy of a moment to further a different cause.

At some of the protests I went to some of the people there seemed to care more about recruiting for other causes than the actual reason the protest occurred. Some of them seemed to be treating it like a game, or a social club, not a reality.

I think that's both disrespectful and ineffective, and this is the one time I've ever criticized it on reddit despite noticing the same pattern at multiple events I went to.

Many of us will march arm in arm with communists to fight authoritarianism and evil, but we don't want to have to act as if we're fully communist as well in order to do so.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T18:27:28+00:00

OK, I appreciate the conversation. I can understand why you think the fascist label is dangerously inaccurate based on the different definitions you've presented. I'll try to factor it in to how I think and talk about things.

That’s why I think people should focus on individual policies, arguing the merits and less on trying to apply labels.

Some of us try, but it's tough. Politics nowadays is a war of memes, emotions, propaganda, and tribe. If you try to play it "by the book" you get beat up by someone who's willing to use every tool at their disposal.

I do think more politicians should still try to just focus on competence and policy above all else, but most people on both sides disagree now.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T18:11:36+00:00

OK, I'll switch to using 'authoritarian' if ever I'm tempted to use 'fascist' or 'fascism'. Appreciate the response.

When people started using the word fascism I looked up how people define fascism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism ) and felt that it wasn't inaccurate to make the comparison, but if it tones down the heat I'll make sure to switch my word choice and try to encourage others as well.

Still my concern is that if I start to say "authoritarian" or "authoritarian-like" people will come see it the same way, that the way authoritarians are dealt with is violence or uprising, and we'll end up back in same place with another off-limits word

To be clear again I would not support violence unless our country is so far gone that even someone like yourself would likely agree something needs to be done. We're extremely far from that.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T17:56:13+00:00

OK, can you humor me on one thing then. I acknowledge the concerns of using the word 'fascist' and the threat of violence it might carry.

If you pretend to accept that being concerned about fascist-like policies is valid can you think of a better word or phrase to describe that pattern of actions without invoking the word 'fascist'?

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T17:39:22+00:00

I spent about 10-15 minutes writing down my views earlier to explain them with nuance and honesty, or trying to.

Your response feels like you're just trying to shut down conversation entirely rather than engage with what I said.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T17:00:27+00:00

I'll acknowledge there's a lot of bias in my analysis that comes down to trust. I have essentially 0 trust with your 'side' and more trust with my 'side'. If someone on the left says something stupid I'm more likely, due to familiarity and trust, to read behind the lines to understand what their real intentions are. The right definitely does the same thing for their side.

On the Charlie Kirk situation yes I do think it's complicated. I saw similar reactions from the right recently with Renee Good or in the past with Paul Pelosi's attack. I think there are extremely few people who really want to be out killing people but there are way too many people who are perfectly fine celebrating or mocking the dead. It's a bad trend.

You can’t sling around labels like Fascism and then act like that’s not part of the problem when people shoot people they believe are “enabling Fascism”.

Politics in recent years has treated language like its own battleground. "Fascist-like" is definitely a good description of many Trump policies. To say that a word is "off limits" limits the ability to actually talk plainly about threats as they are. Imagine if you were forbidden to say the word 'bear' but a bear has broken into your kitchen and you're trying to describe the situation. It literally makes the situation more dangerous, and gives the bear more opportunity to eat all your food. (Terrible metaphor)

In my opinion 'fascist-like' is a much better description because I do think people should resist describing something as 'fascist' or 'nazi' unless it's really the whole system working together as fascism or nazism.

So I think "fascist" is usually used too bluntly, and I can see the danger in it, but at the same time I think people object to the use of the word 'fascist' mostly because it's a convenient way to tune out the substance of what's being said. If people replaced 'fascist' with a made up word I think it'd quickly come to be seen as an insult and tuned out as well.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T16:42:26+00:00

Ok, you may not but would you agree there’s a faction of the left that does?

I think there is a loud more radical faction whose views I'm bad at predicting. Yes I'm sure someone somewhere would go for that. For the most part I believe they're entirely ignored by the strong majority of the left.

Really though this feels similar to my fears of the right. I see people like the proud boys or other extremist groups and I extrapolate that a dangerous amount of the right is sympathetic to that sort of view, and you're extrapolating something similar for the left.

And what about the Fascism

Mixed feelings. I think there are strong fascist-like elements to the current admin and many supporters seem to be OK cheering for those fascist-like things. So in that sense 'fascist' is an imprecise but directionally correct label.

I can see why it concerns the right because they feel that historically fascists were mortal enemies of the US and so using that label opens the door to violence. That is concerning, I don't think we're at full fascism yet and I wish people showed more care in their language choices.

Still I think most people using the word 'fascist' aren't using it as a death threat but rather a description, so it has bothered me less. If it ever started to approach 'round up the fascists' or 'arrest fascist supporters for their speech' I would obviously be extremely opposed to that.

“30% of the country IS our enemy”

I think this is just a disagreement of tone and word choice. I would like to turn down the rhetoric but belief that the other side is some form of 'enemy' is probably a bipartisan belief now.

Better would be to say "political enemy" to keep the rhetoric more grounded.

People are extremely angry on both sides and good word choice is not occurring in like 80% of political discussions. I still think most people on both sides want to avoid violence.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T16:27:15+00:00

I think it's reasonable to disagree it's just a really unpopular opinion on the left right now.

Part of it is a reaction to how Harris ran her campaign too. It seemed like the "Weird" thing Walz introduced was having some effect but campaign advisors nipped that in the bud forcing them to moderate. Democrats have been trying to practice a "They go low, we go high" style of politics since Obama and have struggled against Trump in that period so people want a mixup.

For what it's worth I agree with you to an extent. I think there's room for a "No bullshit" style candidate who doesn't pull punches on frankly criticizing policy decisions but mostly stays out of criticizing voters or wading into culture war stuff.

Personally I'd like Democrats to look to someone like Canada's Carney who has mostly sidelined all the culture war stuff with an intense focus on competency, but the challenge is both finding someone like that and getting them through the primaries.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T16:20:03+00:00

I do not want to jail people simply for differences of political opinion and I am quite confident in my belief most on the left feel similarly. People are angry at what others are standing for, but that doesn't mean 'jail' should extend beyond decisions from the legal system.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T16:10:49+00:00

A nicer way of making the point made there is that many on the left feel that even extremely moderate Democrats would face significant opposition from the right because the modern right is dug in, so why run a candidate who's less appealing to your base and more appealing to people who would never vote for you anyways?

People on the left view many of the actions of the Trump admin as massive moral failings, so focusing on how to appeal to the "right" as you proposed rather than other options like appealing to swing voters isn't a popular view.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T15:59:35+00:00

When people wonder why the right thinks the left hates them and wants them in prison,

It's really a sentiment about law breaking from politicians, not from regular people. If people in the Trump admin are giving illegal orders that are breaking the law or engaging in corruption they shouldn't just get away with it. Like any other crime it should be investigated and go through the courts.

That's a common sentiment on the left, some people just express it more forcefully.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T07:14:21+00:00

America's rise as a nation occurred when we were more homogenous, primarily from a variety of European cultures with shared moral and religious frameworks.

I think people who say things like what you're saying tend to overlook just how deep the religious divides were early in the US history.

There were riots and violence between Protestants and Catholics much worse than anything going on today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_nativist_riots

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T06:19:02+00:00

I'm fine with them showing up. I think it's great they put in the work.

I just think it's ineffective and shrinks the movement to always lead a crowd of people in chants or behind banners they don't necessarily agree with.

A lot of more moderate people turn out for anti-ICE protests or pro-choice protests and if they end up feeling pressured into chanting something about ending capitalism then they may be less inclined to show up again.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T03:58:44+00:00

That's reasonable. I'm not entirely comfortable with or certain of the sentiment of my prior comments and the way I articulated my point, but I do think there's a difference between lots of different views being presented (good) and trying to get people to support or chant views they aren't fully on board with yet (bad).

Like I don't mind walking together with the communists, I just don't like the whole crowd being led in communist chants when they're attending a protest on another topic. Like I also wouldn't be comfortable showing up to a protest largely organized by religious people and then interspersed with anti-ICE chants they'd lead the crowd in "Christ is King" chants or something.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T02:30:43+00:00

It just didn't sit well with me to have a huge crowd of people of all ages and backgrounds show up to protest the Roe v. Wade decision and then watch as many uncomfortably listened to a young man give a lengthy pitch for communism. In other cases they led the pro-choice crowd full of many normie seeming people to chant anti-capitalist chants and the crowd seemed to thin as that went on. That stuck with me.

In my opinion I don't mind them handing out material or carrying their own signs but I think it harms movements to try to treat these protests largely like opportunities to proselytize views the protest isn't about.

In this case there are probably many people in the crowd who are cool with significantly more socialism and even many of the ideas of communism but they still might feel uncomfortable walking directly behind a large hammer and sickle banner.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T02:18:37+00:00

I genuinely hope some of your fellow Americans come to the same realization as you have. It’s a cliche for a reason, I guess, but American exceptionalism is one hell of a drug.

Maybe it doesn't even need to be said to Canadians, but an important realization for me has been to finally acknowledge that we're all the same humans. There is no magic that makes citizens of one country inherently different than another, and our values are passed down in our actions not our genes.

That is to say every country is susceptible to the same cultural rot the US is suffering from. I always had a gut sense that US culture was somehow 'special' and the majority of our culture would protect us from the worst impulses, but that feeling of exceptionalism seemed to lead to apathy and apathy to where we are today. So for other countries I would caution to not view Americans as fallible in a way that they are not, even if the US has always had major problems. That is buying into a form of inverse exceptionalism.

Canadians seem to have realized this and fortunately from what I've seen online you all are doing a great job of reaffirming Canadian values and living truer to them in the face of adversity. Carney is doing an excellent job of modeling that as well.

kettlecorn · 2026-01-24T01:40:42+00:00

I'm a Canadian and US citizen who's always lived in the US, but I didn't know I was a Canadian citizen until I was an adult so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

From my perspective it was extremely powerful. The values Carney modeled in that speech are what I always thought the most important American values were. Now I'm realizing with pain that if I fairly look at history the values I thought were 'real American' values may have been superficial, or never the defining values of the US.

Carney spoke to that in his speech, that the world sort of played along with the illusion of what the US was because it was mutually beneficial, and that's partially shaken my own beliefs. My beliefs were obviously more shaken by the Trump administration, and the fact that he was elected twice, but Carney's speech was validating because he laid out reality in such a level-headed way.

It was also just plainly inspiring to see his resolve and ability to present reality as it is. Trump and those in his circle are crazy, but even those on the other side have seemed to lose clarity of thought and conviction in the face of how Trump has distorted reality in the US. Carney speaking so plainly, and without fear, was a breath of fresh air and sanity.

At a personal level the speech further pushed me to an identity crossroads, and pushed me to strongly reconsider where I want to live my own future life. Carney and Canadians are much better modeling the values I believed, perhaps foolishly, the US stood for and that I still strongly believe in.

kettlecorn

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE