wonderingwanderer

Well yeah, accountability only gets you in trouble. There's no incentive for taking accountability.

There's no "at least you were honest." Even if someone unintentionally makes a genuine mistake, they'll burn for it if it's ever pinned to them. Just fade into the background and don't attract notice to yourself, cause as soon as you accept blame for one thing, people will use you as a scapegoat for everything else that goes wrong.

Don't practice self-awareness, it'll only get you punished. Don't feel remorse for your actions, it'll only get you punished. That's the prevailing and all-pervading messaging these days. Do you want to be the sorry sucker to try to reverse that trend?

The authorities never accept accountability, they just pass the buck to their subordinates. Everyone seems to follow that example, and the buck gets passed down until it can't go any lower and the person at the bottom gets stuck with the hot potato.

This behavior is continuously reinforced by society. Anyone who expects it to be otherwise learns their lesson real quick. Never admit to being anything less than perfect, or else the consequences may follow you for the rest of your life.

Instead you must phrase it as "only a loser would ever ______" or "the democrats really want you to ______"

Oh, cause Palestinians are doing so much better under trump, right? He just gave Israel $3.3 billion for their military...

But anyone saying "Kamala Harris would be much better than trump" is reprehensible?

People making your argument have no sense ofrealpolitik.

That's what your 16 kids are for, duh...

Also, the whole village likely cultivates the same fields, so it's not like it's some private landholding that will fallow if you're not there to tend it. Long live the commons!

It's a break from the tedium of subsistance sharecropping...

Plus, you'd get to carry a sword and no one would bat an eye. I mean how cool is that?

By year 2326 it'll be Johnson's Brewing Co. Co. co.

Sorry, it's just hard to approach these topics from my angle without bracing to be punched in the face...

Nice deflection. I never claimed gender is immutable. You just brought cis/trans distinction into a discussion about man/woman.

So gender isn't obsolete per se

So it's only obsolete if we're talking about cis men? Cause if you meant anything else by that, then why would you even bring it up? Is it obsolete or is it not obsolete?

Don't give me "per se," cause that just leaves you room to carve out exceptions for anyone you don't think is oppressed enough to deserve your sympathy or acknowledgement.

Rapists will always prey on people who are more vulnerable than them. Things like prison rape show that a person's genitals aren't always a factor. Mtf trans people also get raped.

Rape is an evil, vile, despicable thing to do to another person. That's a bit of a red herring though, because my question was about how this topic reflects on gender roles. Cause it seems like the same people who want to say "gender roles are archaic and should be done away with" are in favor of sending a man into a situation where a woman might be in danger. But wouldn't that make it a gender role?

By the way, cis men get raped too. Using mtf as an example to show that a person's genitals aren't always a factor is akin to saying "Only women get raped." Especially when combined with your statement that "Ftm would be pretty safe." So what's your agenda, to claim the world is ultimately safe for men?

So are you saying men should do the dangerous stuff, fulfilling the gender role of "protector"? Because most feminists would be allergic to a statement like that. And yet here they are, saying "The world's too dangerous for women, so they need to send men to do the dangerous stuff."

My only point one way or the other is that it displays a glaring inconsistency that needs to be examined. There's no need to insert the cis/trans distinction into the mix; if gender roles are obsolete, then it doesn't matter; and if they're not then the only difference it makes is in how men or women perform their gender, and whether they're cis or trans wouldn't change that.

It seems like you're the one fundamentally misunderstanding the organizational structure of state and local governance.

The mayor appoints the police chief. Walz has political power and influence over the mayor of Minneapolis.

No he doesn't. There is no direct chain of authority from the governor to the mayor. The mayor is elected by the people of Minneapolis, and directly answerable to the people of Minneapolis. The governor is elected by the people of Minnesota and is directly answerable to the people of Minnesota. They often work together on mutual goals that require cooperation, but neither one is accountable to the other.

Walz doesn't even appoint the MSP police chief; that position is chosen from within the ranks via promotion. The closest thing he could do is appoint a new DPS commissioner, which wouldn't have much effect.

The "rules" I'm referring to are about breaking this established order that I'm referring to. Breaking those rules means actually pressuring (or in some cases removing) people in their positions that refuse to defend the citizens of the state. Breaking the rules means using the state power to defend citizens against the federal invasion.

Those wouldn't be breaking any rules, but this isn't about rules. It's not about being "against the rules," it's about feasibility: what's possible and what's not possible. Here's what the mayor of Minneapolis said:

Why are we put in this position? We’re put in this position because we have approximately 600 police officers in Minneapolis, far fewer that are able to work at any given time. And there are approximately 3,000 ICE agents in the area.

For the record, MSP has about the same number of troopers as MPD, and they're primarily tasked with traffic enforcement.

And if your idea is to recruit more people to the police force who will fight ICE, how do you plan to convince a bunch of leftists to become cops?

Lastly, it's not like the leadership is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they're following the legal process to seek an injunction:

Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration Jan. 12, calling the surge of federal law enforcement into the state "unlawful violent conduct" and "excessive force."

The lawsuit seeks a court order to halt the immigration crackdown. So far no temporary measures have been ordered, and the lawsuit is pending.

It's all they can do right now. Sure, it's a constitutional crisis, but violent means of resistance aren't called for until all other options have been exhausted. That means secession isn't on the table unless midterms are either canceled or ignored.

Mobilizing the national guard against federal agents would amount to open rebellion. No matter how corrupt and unqualified the federal administration and DPS/ICE troops are, it exposes the leadership of the state, the guard, and all its troops to legal penalties up to and including treason which can be punishable by death. And we all know how republicans are frothing at the bit to execute people. So unless you're confident that your state guard can win against the feds, that move is unadvisable. And since it would bring in full military mobilization, it would be a detrimental escalation. Not beneficial to the people of Minnesota or Minneapolis.

The governor and the mayor know these things. They know more than you do, so stop calling them cowards for not doing enough. Nothing they can do is enough, and anything they can do would be akin to thrashing while caught in quicksand.

Free lube

What "rules" did I say he can't break?

What "rules" can he break that would help the situation in any way.