Never Apologize for Swearing When They Kill Someone
On fascist psychology, the demand for deference, and why you should tell them to go fuck themselves
ICE shot a woman dead in Minneapolis. Mayor Jacob Frey said ICE should leave the city and used the word “fuck” while doing it.
Now the right wants him to apologize for swearing.
Not ICE for the killing. Frey for the swearing.
Asked about his “inflammatory comments,” Frey said: “I dropped an F bomb. They killed somebody. Which one of those is more inflammatory? I’m going with the killing.”
Watch what happens if he apologizes. The story becomes: was the apology adequate? Does Frey understand why his language was inappropriate? Should a mayor use profanity even in moments of stress?
The killing disappears. The swearing becomes the scandal.
Watch what happens if he refuses. They call him unprofessional, inflammatory, unfit for office. They say he’s exploiting tragedy. They question his temperament.
The killing still disappears.
Either way, ICE killing a woman stops being the subject. Frey’s language becomes the subject. Mission accomplished.
Call it the Apology Trap: commit the crime, demand an apology for the reaction, make the reaction the story.
Trump partied with Jeffrey Epstein for years. Flew with him. Socialized with him. The FBI files show they knew Epstein was trafficking children in 1996. Trump’s name is throughout the released documents.
He’s never been asked to explain that relationship. Never been pressed on what he knew or when. Never been required to account for years of proximity to someone running a child sex trafficking operation that the FBI had documented.
I don’t know what Trump knew about Epstein’s crimes. I don’t know when he knew it. I don’t know the nature of their friendship beyond what’s documented.
Nobody does. Because nobody’s ever made him explain it.
Whatever the precise documentary trail is, the point is simpler: proximity plus silence plus impunity—while everyone else is tone-policed—is the pattern.
But Frey has to apologize for saying “fuck” when a federal agent killed someone.
Trump waged war from Mar-a-Lago. Killed 80+ people in Venezuela. Maduro’s government is still running the country.
No Congressional authorization. No declaration of war. Article I says Congress has war powers. Trump ignored that. Did it anyway.
No apology. No explanation. No pretense that the Constitution applies.
But critics who call it unconstitutional have to apologize for “inflammatory rhetoric.”
Laura Loomer said, “I don’t care about dead communists,” the same week ICE killed someone. She said, “Why do we have to pretend like all life is equal? It’s not.”
No one demanded she apologize. No one called that inflammatory. No consequences.
But Frey says “fuck” about an actual killing, and suddenly we need to have a conversation about appropriate language for public officials.
Pete Hegseth used his position as Secretary of Defense for what Representative Don Bacon called “seditious personal use of official power.” Bacon said it. Out loud. Called it seditious.
Hegseth didn’t apologize. No one demanded he resign. No accountability.
But when a military officer makes a video accurately describing unconstitutional executive actions, the right demands a court-martial.
Marco Rubio coordinated the Venezuela operation. He’s Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. He told lawmakers Venezuela needs to “make a deal before they run out of oil.”
We killed 80+ people, failed to topple Maduro, and now Rubio says they need to negotiate over oil.
That’s extortion. Using military force to demand economic concessions. Gangsterism with a State Department seal.
CBS News saluted him. Called him “the ultimate Florida man” and “leader on the world stage.”
But point out he’s coordinating war crimes, and you have to apologize for “extreme language.”
You see what’s happening?
They commit crimes. You notice. They demand you apologize for noticing.
They kill people. You say “fuck.” They demand you apologize for swearing.
They wage an unconstitutional war. You object. They demand you apologize for inflammatory rhetoric.
They have been partying with child sex traffickers for years. You ask questions. They demand you apologize for conspiracy theories.
The Apology Trap, running on repeat.
The asymmetry is the mechanism. The strong do what they want and never explain. The weak follow rules and constantly apologize. That’s how dominance hierarchies work. That’s fascist psychology operational.
Trump never apologizes. Not for Epstein. Not for Venezuela. Not for anything.
Loomer never apologizes. Hegseth never apologizes. Rubio never apologizes.
But Democrats must apologize constantly. For tone. For word choice. For being emotional. For asking questions. For noticing crimes.
Every apology extracted is a submission. Every time you apologize for how you said something while they ignore what they did, you reinforce the hierarchy.
You accept that they set the standards. You concede they have the authority to judge your conduct while remaining above judgment themselves.
When you apologize for tone while they commit crimes, you’ve conceded the frame. You’ve agreed that aesthetic violations matter more than substantive ones. You’ve acknowledged their authority to judge you.
Once you apologize for one thing, you’ll apologize for the next. And the next.
Until you’re perpetually defensive, constantly explaining yourself, forever justifying your existence.
The crimes disappear. The noticing becomes the scandal.
Once you’re defending your tone, you’re not prosecuting their crimes.
Once you’re explaining why you used profanity, you’re not asking why they killed someone.
Once you’re apologizing for being emotional, you’re not demanding accountability for constitutional violations.
Frey understands this. “I dropped an F bomb. They killed somebody. Which one of those is more inflammatory?”
Now they have to defend the killing. They can’t hide behind tone policing. They can’t make this about his language. They have to defend ICE shooting a woman, or shut up.
That’s the only response.
When they demand you apologize for swearing: ICE killed someone, defend that.
When they demand you apologize for being emotional: Trump waged an unconstitutional war, defend that.
When they demand you apologize for extreme language: Rubio’s coordinating oil extortion, defend that.
When they demand you apologize for asking about Epstein: Trump spent years with a child sex trafficker and never explained it, defend that.
Force them to defend substance. Make them own what they’re doing.
When they can’t—when they retreat to attacking your tone because they can’t defend killing people, waging unconstitutional war, coordinating extortion, or refusing to explain Epstein—you’ve exposed them.
Not because you convinced them. You won’t. But because you refused to submit.
Someone will say: Doesn’t tone matter? What about persuading fence-sitters? What about professional restraint?
Sometimes. In specific contexts. This isn’t a defense of profanity; it’s a refusal to let etiquette replace accountability.
If you’re a teacher trying to reach students who don’t share your politics—modulate tone. If you’re a lawyer arguing before a judge, follow courtroom decorum. If you’re genuinely trying to persuade someone uncertain, meet them where they are.
But that’s not what’s happening with Frey.
A federal agent shot a woman in his city. He responded with appropriate moral proportion. The right demanded he apologize—not to facilitate communication, not to improve understanding. To establish submission.
When ICE kills someone, and they demand you apologize for saying “fuck,” they’re not interested in civil discourse. They’re establishing dominance. That’s when you refuse.
The question isn’t “does tone ever matter?” The question is: who’s demanding the apology, why, and what happens if I comply?
If apologizing corrects an error or improves communication, consider it.
If apologizing means submitting to people who kill without consequence while demanding you apologize for noticing, refuse.
This is the game they play. Take notes.
Commit a constitutional violation. Opponents respond with outrage. Demand apologies for the outrage. Debate shifts to tone. Substance disappears. Repeat.
Each cycle the violations get worse. Each cycle, the apology demands get more absurd. Each cycle, more people surrender.
Eventually, you arrive here: ICE shoots a woman, and the debate is about the mayor’s language. Trump has been associated with child sex traffickers for years and never explains it; no one even asks. The president wages an unconstitutional war, and critics apologize for objecting.
Crimes normalized. Outrage criminalized. Hierarchy complete.
If Democrats apologize for Frey’s language, they enable the next killing. Because if the consequence of ICE shooting someone is that critics apologize for their reaction, ICE learns there are no consequences for shooting people.
The hierarchy gets reinforced: ICE can kill, critics can complain, but must apologize. The killing stands. The criticism gets retracted.
This is how frameworks die. A thousand small submissions. A thousand apologies for noticing. A thousand concessions that substance matters less than tone.
Until the powerful are above the law, and saying so becomes the only thing that gets punished.
We’re there.
Trump never explained Epstein. The files are public. His name appears throughout. He spent years proximate to a child sex trafficker whose operation the FBI documented.
And the only people being asked to apologize are those who think that matters.
You can play their game. Apologize for tone. Promise civility. Submit to their judgment. Accept the hierarchy.
Watch them continue committing crimes while you continue apologizing for noticing.
Or you can refuse.
Say: we’re talking about the killing. We’re talking about an unconstitutional war. We’re talking about oil extortion. We’re talking about Epstein. Defend those or shut up. I’m not apologizing for being upset.
Say: I dropped an F bomb, they killed somebody, which one is more inflammatory?
Say: Has Trump explained Epstein? No? Then fuck your demand that I apologize for swearing.
Refuse to submit. Refuse to accept their authority to judge. Refuse to play the game where they commit crimes, and you apologize for noticing.
If you accept that saying “fuck” requires more explanation than killing someone, that being emotional about constitutional violations is worse than committing them, that noticing crimes is more extreme than perpetrating them, you’ve already lost.
You’ve conceded they’re above the law and you’re beneath it. You’ve accepted the hierarchy. You’ve enabled the next crime.
Frey gets it.
Don’t apologize for saying “fuck” when they kill someone. Don’t apologize for being emotional when they wage unconstitutional war. Don’t apologize for extreme language when they commit extreme crimes. Don’t apologize for asking questions when they associate with child sex traffickers and never explain it.
Make them defend the substance.
When governments kill people, “fuck” is an appropriate moral proportion. When presidents wage unconstitutional war, anger isn’t inflammatory—it’s proportional. When officials associate with child sex traffickers for years, asking what they knew isn’t conspiracy—it’s citizenship.
The demand that you soften your language, moderate your tone, apologize for your words—that’s the Apology Trap. That’s how they make crimes disappear by forcing you to defend your reaction.
Force them to defend the killing. Make them explain why ICE should shoot people. Make them justify the unconstitutional war. Make them account for Epstein.
When they can’t—when they attack your tone because they can’t defend their substance—you’ve exposed it.
They have no principles. They have power and demand that you submit to it.
Refuse. Make them answer for the killing.
“I dropped an F bomb. They killed somebody. Which one of those is more inflammatory? I’m going with the killing.”
They killed someone.
And you’re being asked to apologize for noticing.
Appreciate this post. Pointing out how the rhetoric works is the appropriate response. “Nobody debates that she aimed her car at the officer and pressed on the accelerator” from Vance (lightly paraphrasing) and “It’s clear that it’s being coordinated…” from Noem are also rhetorical power moves that try to delegitimize the evidence people saw and set authoritative frames. Restating the reality of video evidence suddenly seems like a defensive appeal.
“Have you said thank you once” was a surprisingly prescient Vanceism for our current regime.