dust4str.bsky.social
I don't care about your opinion of my opinions.
678 posts
152 followers
58 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The funniest part is pretending like this is a logistics problem, not a consequence of decades of bipartisan abuse.
comment in response to
post
It’s not a resource issue. It’s a cause issue. The raids are the emergency. The people are the alarm.”
comment in response to
post
If you have the resources to ‘handle the unrest,’ maybe use them to stop instigating it. You’re not managing a crisis, you’re fueling one.
comment in response to
post
It’s like watching a kid repeatedly poke a hornet’s nest, then brag about having enough bug spray to handle the situation. The government never asks why people are rioting, they just gear up for the response. They’ve got every tool in the toolbox for escalation, but none for de-escalation.
comment in response to
post
Occupation optics isn’t an advanced military strategy, it’s Tuesday in Anytown, USA. The doctrine trickled down, not up. No need to wonder, they teach it at the community college police academy right after taser safety and before ‘How to Lose Public Trust in 10 Days.’”
comment in response to
post
You still believe there’s a line between “foreign policy” and “domestic control” as if the military and police operate on totally different doctrines. Like, no, sweetheart, Fallujah was the training ground for what they’re running in Chicago, L.A., and small-town Iowa now.
comment in response to
post
“Occupation optics” isn’t an academic concept for elite cadets, it’s standard operating procedure for SWAT. It’s in police training manuals, DHS grants, and every piece of surplus military gear sent to podunk sheriffs with a God complex.
comment in response to
post
They didn’t stop it because they didn’t want to. That’s not weakness, it’s consent dressed up as opposition.
comment in response to
post
It’s wild how close people get to realizing it’s not incompetence, it’s collusion. You’re NOT watching failure to act. You’re watching two actors playing their parts.”
comment in response to
post
This is the post you almost made:
“I thought one side of the UniParty would push back against the fascism I see taking hold, but they didn’t. Because they’re part of it.”
comment in response to
post
You're standing right at the edge of the cliff, staring into the abyss, and instead of acknowledging the whole damn landscape is rigged, you cling to the hope that your party is just asleep at the wheel instead of complicit.
comment in response to
post
as if the Democrats are just inept, not collaborators. That’s the disconnect: people keep thinking their side would do something if only they weren’t so weak, busy, or polite. When in reality, they didn’t do something because they’re not supposed to.
comment in response to
post
You are a solid 2 with out the make up and filters.
comment in response to
post
You can’t sincerely talk about curbing violence without confronting how deeply embedded it is in both our culture and our empire. To many in the world, the U.S. is not a beacon of peace, it's the arms dealer in the back alley of every international crisis.
comment in response to
post
Mass shootings are labeled as a public health crisis.
But state-sanctioned drone strikes, coups, proxy wars, and weapons sales are just "foreign policy."
comment in response to
post
A U.S. representative condemning “gun violence” without acknowledging the global context is like a mob boss railing against street crime. The United States has spent decades exporting violence, destabilizing regions, and propping up arms industries that feed conflicts around the world.
comment in response to
post
What they called “liberation” abroad was just practice.
What we saw as “spreading freedom” was really stress-testing control systems.
No, we won’t learn the lesson. Not until it’s too late.
Because we’re still too busy asking rhetorical questions instead of taking historical ones seriously.
comment in response to
post
Authoritarian tactics get normalized on foreign soil before becoming domestic policy.
The public, lulled by distractions or false dichotomies, surrenders freedom piece by piece, usually thinking it’s for their safety.
comment in response to
post
When people ask, “Will we learn the lesson?” it’s like they’re hoping this time will be different, as if historical precedent hasn’t already answered with a resounding no, and not just no, but hell no. The patterns are textbook: Empires export violence, then bring the methods home.
comment in response to
post
I asked, “Which theft are we talking about?”
You responded, “Don’t ask that. Just stay in the part of the story that supports my point.” 🙄🥱
comment in response to
post
I didn’t miss context. I challenged the framing of the post by refusing to play in the narrow moral sandbox you set up. And that’s exactly why you're reacting defensively because once you open up the full context, your righteous simplicity doesn’t hold up.
comment in response to
post
I'm using deep context (historical cycles of conquest).You're using selective context (treaty-era injustice forward).
And instead of addressing my valid question, you slapped on the label “whataboutism” to try and shut it down a classic deflection move
comment in response to
post
Then you doubles down:
“I corrected you. Use context.”
But I did use context, more than you are willing to engage with. That’s what upset you.
comment in response to
post
I'm exposing the simplification of the “stolen land” narrative by asking for consistency.
“Rather than go down a rabbit hole of whataboutism… focus on the Constitution…”
Translation:
“I don’t want to talk about history before Europeans. Let’s skip to the parts that make my point stronger.”
comment in response to
post
My question: “Which land theft are we talking about, the European one, or the one the tribes committed against whoever was here before them?” This doesn’t deny anything. It adds historical context: I'm pointing out that the land was already taken by tribes who came before.
comment in response to
post
I didn’t miss any context, you just didn’t like the direction i took the conversation. This is framed as a moral indictment of European settlers, implying a clean victim-oppressor dynamic:
Natives = innocent victims of land theft
Europeans = illegitimate invaders
comment in response to
post
But no one wants to do that. Because it levels the moral playing field, and then suddenly, no one gets to feel like the chosen voice of justice anymore.
So yeah youmissed my point. Or more likely, you chose to miss it because admitting it means giving up rhetorical ground.
comment in response to
post
You ignored the core point:
If your moral outrage is based on the idea of unjust land theft, then be consistent and admit that your ancestors might’ve done the same damn thing to the people who were here before them.
comment in response to
post
Iam not minimizing the damage done by the U.S. I AM pointing out that land theft and conquest were already the norm here long before the Founders ever dreamed of treaties. So appealing to the Constitution as some kind of moral baseline just shifts the frame forward again to a point that’s convenient
comment in response to
post
"Forget who stole what when just focus on broken treaties."
That’s like saying:
“Let’s not talk about the burglary, let’s only talk about how the police didn’t file the report properly afterward.”
comment in response to
post
That wasn’t whataboutism it was contextualism. I am challenging the selective memory and the idea that there's a clean moral line separating one conquest from another. But instead of engaging that uncomfortable truth, you pivoted into Constitution-speak like it’s some kind of sacred override key
comment in response to
post
completely dodged what you were actually pointing out, and fell right into the trap of deflecting with moral high-ground theater.
I asked a straightforward historical question:
“Which land theft are we talking about European or tribal?”
comment in response to
post
Then when i responded by calling out the misandry and the tactic behind it, you turn it around and act like I'm the one making it about gender. That’s gaslighting, plain and simple.You're playing both sides: Weaponize gender bias to shut men down.
Act innocent or confused when called out for it.🙄🥱
comment in response to
post
This isn’t just a misunderstanding. It’s a power move. It keeps men from being able to speak about systemic issues without being cast as fragile, angry, or irrational. And when I lay it all out clearly, suddenly you're just “talking about something else.
comment in response to
post
You injected gender into the conversation with the initial “small dick boys larping as ‘real men’” jab, which is textbook MISANDRY. That’s a gendered insult aimed to humiliate men and undermine any critique by reducing it to insecurity or inadequacy.
comment in response to
post
It’s a rhetorical trick:
1. Reframe systemic critique as personal grievance.
2. Call the other side “judgmental.”
3. Shift the conversation to tone and misunderstanding.
It makes me look irrational, you look neutral, and the whole system I WAS talking about? Completely ignored.
comment in response to
post
I wasn't talking about personal feelings or making sweeping judgments,i was calling out how discourse itself gets manipulated to shut men down when they highlight systemic imbalance. You responded like i was overreacting or misjudging you rather than addressing the system i pointed at
comment in response to
post
Yeah, that “you guys are something” comment is classic deflection, pretending like everyone’s just misunderstanding each other while sidestepping the structural critique entirely.
comment in response to
post
This is exactly what Foucault warned about. The tactics America honed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewheremilitary optics, black-ops aesthetics, fear-based control have now come home.
It’s not just overreach. It’s imperial chickens coming home to roost.
comment in response to
post
The goal isn't just enforcement it's public conditioning. You flood the streets with force so often that people stop questioning why it’s there. And ironically, when people do raise cost concerns, it's often the same folks who cheer for military budgets ten times bigger than what's “needed.”
comment in response to
post
When the mission is intimidation, cost isn’t a factor it’s a feature.
It’s meant to be excessive. None of that is about efficiency or fiscal responsibility. It’s about making a spectacle, showing off power, and normalizing the militarization of domestic enforcement.
comment in response to
post
That phrase “necromantic inertia” is dead-on. It’s the horror of being trapped inside a machine that should’ve died decades ago, but instead gets rebooted every election cycle with new branding and slightly adjusted controls.