On this planet, we have a concept called ‘humor,’ which involves exaggeration and absurdity for the purpose of getting a laugh. I hope this comes to your own world someday.
you may have INTENDED to imply only that, but you did imply both unfortunately. I agree with you on the cyber truck part, but I deal with a lot of slightly more rural folks and the big fear RN with electric vehicles is somehow battery fires. which is crazy since they don’t happen anywhere near as often as gas vehicles. so I’m just trying to say we should be careful to avoid that particular cliche (the battery fire part) since it misleads people
And the dumb part is that the taxes in Texas are on par with California, just done through different categories. So, you pay the same for significantly worse government services and significantly fewer rights.
I am kinda calling BS on this, as I got divorced in Arkansas and there was never a question about my ex wife being pregnant nor was it ever mentioned by any attorney or judge. Maybe it’s only used when there is a clear sign of pregnancy or when the husband wants to control the wife who may have filed for divorce. This could be a new law as I got divorced over 10 years ago.
Oh!? A law that wasn’t in effect when you went through the same life situation wasn’t in effect when you went through it, so it’s BS?
Was Henry Ford’s Model T car, the printing press, and the fact that it used to be legal to own people also BS because those things weren’t at the store last time you went?
It is not a case of whatever the fuck it is you want to think it maybe it. It is exactly the evil those who kinda call BS have sown, and the thresher is reaping its way to you eventually too.
“I’m calling bs on this” WTF??? Are you misogynistic, ignorant, just stupid, or all the above? Your reasoning is that you didn’t hear about it personally 10 years ago when it might have been relevant to you?
When my personal experiences go against what a news article claims, I start to think critically about the source. I’m not disclaiming or debating anything about Missouri law, but by throwing in that comment about Arkansas seems like they are being a bit sensational to get a wider audience reaction. I would not doubt for a second if this law exists in either of those states, but it’s most likely enforced by choice.
I think we should stop pitting states against each other in a race to the bottom and see this for what it is: working class people having their rights taken away by the wealthy elite. The more we are divided the easier it is to do this type of thing. The politicians are doing this, not the people. And they have set up and continued to prop up a system that under educated voters, while also underpaying them and blaming it on anyone else they can do everyone is mad at everyone. We need to stop blaming each other and band together and force them to fix it.
Thank you. Being a Texas resident, I’m not especially happy when I hear stuff like “all Texans are delusional”, a lot of us simply don’t have a choice in the matter of where we live. Some of us are trying to make this a better place to be, but it takes time and we’re constantly blocked by rich assholes clinging to power like their lives depend on it (and they probably do at this point). Class consciousness is lifting up the less fortunate, don’t put us down for laws and policies we had no say in creating.
I was literally thinking about this case when turning around in someone’s driveway this week. Great precedent for conservatives who believe minorities are around every corner trying to take their homes.
Using those figures, the murder rate of U.S. citizens in Mexico was around 0.26 per 100,000 visitors, significantly lower than the rate in the United States.
Tourists choose the safest areas of the country to visit, and they don’t stay very long, so yeah that makes sense. You’re not really escaping gun violence in the USA if you only leave the country for a few days, though.
While shooting someone for turning around in your driveway is absolutely ridiculous, I’d also say turning around in some rando’s driveway to be on the rude side.
I also have a downslope driveway that ices up in the winter, and have had someone hit my car and take off doing it, so yeah I’d rather they didn’t. I also respect people’s private property.
Things might be different in the US, but here in NZ the first meter or two off the road is usually road reserve, which is council property. That’s where footpaths/sidewalks, street trees, and utilities are run.
The bit of your driveway that is actually yours doesn’t start until about where your front fence is, if you have one.
Nope - absolutely the same here. There’s typically a stretch of property facing the street and potentially in an adjacent alley where the homeowner is responsible for basic maintenance (mowing the grass) but it’s used for utility access and may be taken off they decide to widen the roads. I’m sure exceptions exist, but less commonly.
Hell, one of the houses I looked at when I moved had an easement about farmers taking cows across the yard (probably leftover from the 1700s, but still).
Arguably your driveway, front walk, and front step/porch is s there expressly for other people to use. Sure, wandering around the front yard of someone you don’t know is rude/disrespectful, as is hitting their car, but you’re providing a well defined way for anyone to approach your house, so really can’t object to them using it
That’s about the most asinine way you possibly could have ended that sentence. You almost had my sympathy for why you feel the way you do until said that.
To an extent I agree to respect people’s property, but I think community takes precedent here. People shouldn’t fear for their lives if they need to turn around. If you’re that fearful of people you need to live somewhere without roads
Teachers are decently paid in some places, like where I live, but, yeah, definitely not in a conservative place. Don’t want to attract any highly educated people and have to keep the ones who do it for the love of teaching so destitute that they don’t have the energy to put into fighting the political crap.
Netanyahu can get fucked. Like full stop. I have zero problem with any Jewish people who aren’t engaged in genocide. Love you guys. But those that are can get fucked from top to bottom. And he is.
Especially weighed against the capabilities of the person being inconvenienced or overwhelmed. If they have a hard enough time taking care of themselves, adding another person could be a death sentence for both.
Oh I’m sorry. Taking care of someone for the rest of their lives, not being able to, not having the means to and all the while suffering for it is something you think is a walk in the fucking park?
I think the key word here is “suffer”. Americans worship suffering. It gives them a hard on. So when someone wants to end the suffering, that’s an insult. Typical ugly American mentality, devoid of any understanding for human nature and full of piss and vinegar. Also, it’s unrealistic and kind of naive, because I bet this happens more often than you think - but it’s hard to actually figure out. Why? Let me count the ways.
You have a judicial system committing mass judicial murder on a weekly basis “because you can’t afford the fight the case”, a for profit health sector that would pull plugs in concert if an insurance company told them to, doctors and surgeons dodging malpractice suits on a cross-state basis like it’s a sport and you’re probably happy knowing he’ll be sent to a for profit prison system that makes profits in the billions, where he’ll become a slave for the state to “pay back his debt to society”.
But sure, means and needs were not the issue. He should have pulled himself up by his bootstraps and gotten that 4th job.
“Evil” is a social construct for people in the dark ages, because it holds as much merit as believing in fairies.
Again, you are really in denial of human nature, and as such don’t know that the conditions I mentioned set the stage for this kind of thing to happen.
Do you know that you can be corrupted, that you can commit murder, if the conditions are right?
That’s not really a thing in most of the US. Best you can generally get is a “Do Not Resuscitate” order which is used in the event you die on your own and tells them not to do CPR or use an AED or anything else to revive you.
This man’s wife specifically asked him not to, because he also tried to kill her last year. I was expecting to have more sympathy for the man, but then I read the story. His kid brought him in to confess, which is an unbelievable position to put your kid in.
I do understand putting someone out of their misery, and I’m not unempathetic towards the grinding horror that is capitalism, but this is an awful thing for other reasons as well.
My wife and I have discussed a few. For her, anything that’s terminal or results in such a significant decrease in quality of life that continued living is some degree of torture more than 50% of the time.
My criteria are mostly the same, with added conditions for dementia, which seems to run in the family.
Bro… I just listed the reasons… like if you don’t want to understand human nature, human psychology, sociology or why systemic issues are apart of creating the conditions that would allow this to happen, then that’s your dumbass problem.
Like seriously. Read a fucking book - and not the Abrahamic ones. Those rot your brain.
No, I wasn’t referring to her. FFS. Like I understand why you would say that, because him considering his own suffering is just too selfish to be taken into consideration when asking why he did it, and us considering it as a part of his decision making process or that laws and systemic issues line this shit up like bowling pins? Noo! That’s not allowed when considering motive… he’s just EVIL which is a scientific term and influenced by SATAN because he DIDNT VOTE REPUBLICAN and probably LIVED AMONGST IMMIGRANTS /s
Like seriously, Americans are fucking stupid sometimes.
Nah, usually the “wants to end the suffering” is referring to a suffering person dying or being killed, especially when an extremely sick person died in the event being described. Sometimes it’s used to reference just drugging yourself up beyond safe limits to remove chronic pain, generally also a very sick person. It’s pretty much never used to refer to killing someone else to free yourself from debilitating financial obligations. This isn’t an American thing, this is a poor word choice thing.
He is evil. He may have been suffering as well due to the evil system we live in and wouldn’t be in a humane system, but he could have just walked away or declared bankruptcy or divorced her or killed himself. All of those things are still harmful to her, but they’re better than being murdered. Whatever his hurts were, she didn’t deserve that. A bad circumstance doesn’t mean you can murder an innocent person you vowed to love and support and not be a bad person.
Having lived in America for all my life, what I can say is that most Americans are way more reasonable, kind, logical, and empathetic than you. But that’s really faint praise. You probably hate Americans so much because you see yourself in them so much.
This isn’t limited to Americans or the US. The reason you are describing this in such tone is American exceptionalism, though, because I can just feel the indignation at this happening in the country you subconsciously expect to be exceptional.
We’ll ignore the fact that America pays as much per capita towards Medicare and MedicAid as Canada pays for its admittedly flawed universal healthcare and instead focus on the question. You think it’s better to spend more than the next 5(I think) countries on the military but also disagree with raising taxes even an iota to improve Healthcare coverage?
I’m seriously ill. Nowhere near as ill as his wife was, but ill enough to not be working and to have gone to the Mayo Clinic. I’m fully aware of what a huge, overwhelming burden I’ve been to my family in terms of both finances and emotional toll.
Do I condone what this person did? Absolutely not. But dealing with a seriously ill person is a hell of a lot more than an inconvenience. I do everything I can to make my wife and daughter’s lives as easy as possible despite my issues, but I can only do so much. There have been a lot of very difficult moments for all of us.
Per your linked article there was a 79% chance that they would stay married. Divorce is more likely when the wife gets sick then the husband but I wouldn’t have define her chances of being alone the way you did.
Aw, man. I didn’t wanna feel this way first thing in the morning.
Some years ago, I was in this weird social circle, owing to my partner at the time.
She was longtime friends with a guy who has his own interesting story, but the relevant part here is that he’s heavily involved in college-aged veteran’s lives. (Mentoring, life guidance, helping people transition back.)
During a get-together put on by him, my partner and I met this young couple. They were basically the model of a young, “trad”, Christian couple. Ben had Boy Scout/youth pastor vibes about him, and Sarah was super funny, kind and never seemed to forget personal details. Both were great to talk to, with broad knowledge and experience. He was a bit more Christian oriented, and a bit more conservative, but was earnest and it wasn’t really a thing that came up unless others pressed.
They seemed incredibly happy together, and about a year later, he proposed. A few months later they married. Less than a month after that they were out celebrating Sarah’s pregnancy, a giant SUV ran a stop sign while speeding, and Sarah was so injured she wound up in a coma, but still pregnant, until after their child was born.
She stayed in a coma for a few months after the birth, coming out of it permanently different. They didn’t really go out to events anymore. She was mostly in a wheelchair and didn’t talk. I kept up via social media until I stopped seeing posts from him. He mostly had posted about the challenges of raising their kid alone while also taking care of her, with an occasional news story about the accident/fallout from it.
About 6 months after I’d last seen something, I sought out his socials for an update, to find he’d scrubbed it of Sarah. He’d made new posts the algorithm didn’t show me - his and Sarah’s kid, with a new woman. Sarah’s socials had one update, posted by her mother. She now lived with her mom, and was okay. They were just taking things day by day. That was 7ish years ago?
I guess I don’t condemn someone in their early 20’s for bailing, I suppose, but that situation makes me sad because of how terrible it is for all parties.
But the differences are slight. Maybe won’t go as far down the oppression of women rabbit hole, but not for lack of trying. Merely because, I hope, our society is to far past that for them to drag us back that far.
We aren’t speaking Arabian. It’s like “naan bread”, sure, naan means bread but not in this language and we’ve lots of other breads…If you just say Rye a Canadian will hand you a glass of whisky not a loaf of bread.
That’s still a bad example. We don’t say that “I drive a XYZ car” since car is implied and we can just say “I drive a XYZ”
Check with any XYZ standing for a manufacturer like Toyota, Tesla or a model like Corolla, 911, etc.
If there’s enough understanding of the concept, no need for clarification. Everyone knows naan is a bread. Unless you are asking a question in Japanese, just drop the bread (and law for Sharia)
Pretty much. They keep digging and talking to the few primitive groups left.
Some animals that are smart and social have funeral rites. Crows and elephants. Been known to visit locations where the dead were, leave items for their poor dead friend. A dead human and a living human are basically the same except something seems missing. We know now it is the arrangement but to our ancestors it was some component. Well if something is missing it must be out there somewhere.
Funeral sites are built. People go there and look at the little stone. Maybe the thing that is missing is in the stone. Leave items and gradually question why they are doing it. It must be transactional. Offerings develop. I give this cup of wine and you help me with my crops this year. Ancestor worship is still common around the world and why should it not be? Your parents always looked after you and you are still helping them.
The ancestor worship grew. Some ancestors were more important than others. Great warlords are still revered for centuries. Eventually morphing into a small god who protects the tribe. The small god is better than the small god of the other tribe. There must be a god greater than them all.
Sure, it isn’t like a human loses mass when they die. The difference between a dead human and a living one is how everything is hooked together. A rough analogy: take apart a Lego set, the bricks are still there but the structure is totally different.
However, to a person without this knowledge it looks like there was something taken away. Breath/soul is how Mediterranean cultures traditionally viewed it.
Forcing people to worship an indifferent God under threat of eternal damnation sounds authoritarian too. Which flavor would you prefer for your sky daddy?
If they were Catholic than they can be presumed to accept and understand Catholic teaching that God does not directly interfere with the world or it is a violation of Free Will.
Serious question for anyone who believes political violence is never ok: at what point on the timeline do you think it was ok to respond to Hitler with violence?
1923 Beer Hall Putsch? SA violence in the early 30s? The Nazi party being sworn into power in 1933? Reischstag Fire? Night of the Long Knives?
Trump already has the support of a bought and paid for corrupt court, and we’ve already had Jan 6th. He’s promised to be dictator on day 1.
It never the answer to advocate for it in a non-political venue where you’re part of a group that can associated with your comment without their consent. He torpedoed their careers as a band.
I hate Trump, but I don’t want him to be made a martyr and I’d be pissed off if I was Jack Black and this guy fucked up our public performances without my knowing about it first.
I really doubt he torpedoed their careers. The joke was no worse than lots of jokes Trump has made, such as about Nancy Pelosi’s husband. If the partnership ends, it’s because of Jack Black, not because of people clamoring for them to stop touring.
Repeating from another comment: It won’t be safe for them to perform in public, at least in the short term. They had to cancel this tour because the dude goaded literally crazy mother fuckers with guns. This isn’t like when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush. This painted a target on their backs.
Targets on their back while touring Australia, which has gun control? There are trump supporters and right wing nutjobs here but its a different political and legal atmosphere than america.
He did this as he feared being canceled IMHO, more than fear for safety. If it was safety, they would say that. Likely there was already the start of a relationship breakdown. Or jack feared more for his movie career as he is likely lined on both sides of the political spectrum.
Turns out someone was recently shot in Perth. Looks like it is possible, even with WA’s new gun laws.
Furthermore unless the world done shrank on me, a “world tour” I would surmise isn’t just exclusive to Aus and then they live there and never leave. Chances are at some point that tour (or y’know, going home) would bring them back to the states.
Its possible to be hit by a meteorite. We were talking risk, not possibility. At least I was. The chance of being shot for anyone in Australia is extremely low. The chance of being shot is high in America, relative to most other countries and all other developed countries. Its not even close.
Tbf, the odds of getting shot in America are still pretty low too, it’s about 12k/350mil/yr, whatever the math is on that. It is possible though however unlikely, so maybe that answers your “targets on their back while touring aus blah blah gun control” question. Evidentially, it is indeed possible to be shotbin Australia.
Low, in absolute terms. Relatively, its incredibly high.
Like 40 times higher. As I mentioned, it is possible they could be hit by a meteor, but even more unlikely. By your logic, the realaroce risk is nor important, so we could just as easily say that’s the reason for the cancelation.
Nobody said it was impossible to get shot in Australia. It just doesn’t make sense in context to be a reason to cancel shows in Australia.
Well the main difference is I don’t think it’s possible for meteors to target famous people for political reasons, where it is entirely possible for humans of any nationality to do so, and since there are guns and people do get shot in aus, the chance is greater than 0%, and seemingly this was enough for JB.
Frankly if you know it’s possible why feign incredulity?
Did he though? I can’t imagine KG’s sentiment is an unusual one except among the MAGA cult and milquetoast centrists, and even then only the cultists could probably maintain a sustained boycott (although even then I don’t think things have been going too poorly for Bud Light lately).
I’m not sure I buy the trump as martyr either. No one has quite been able to replicate his “charm” among the faithful, so with him gone are centrists going to be more swayed? I’m not convinced.
It won’t be safe for them to perform in public, at least in the short term. They had to cancel this tour because the dude goaded literally crazy mother fuckers with guns. This isn’t like when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush. This painted a target on their backs.
He said out loud what most progressives think and they’re known to be progressives so I don’t think their crowd cares, if anything they’ll get more famous
I would not be ok with anyone I work with painting a target on my back. The rightwingers in the USA are lunatics. See Pelosi’s husband getting attacked with a hammer. No matter what I might think, I am not ok with anyone putting me at risk of violence without my say.
“Most progressives” do not think it works be OK to assassinate a political opponent, but that flippant “joke” makes it sound like a normal and reasonable position.
I think most progressives would be dishonest if they said they didn’t have a moment where they hoped Trump has died when they learned that he got shot.
You’re correct of course, when the news broke my initial reaction was “this would be fucking great”, but it didn’t take long to realise that it wouldn’t have the desired effect.
You been off lemmy recently or something? Most clearly do support it. Every thread here there’s one or two pacifists decrying violence with downvotes and justification for murder in replies. Most people on lemmy are progressive, and I’d be willing to bet this isn’t the only progressive hangout that has been having the same experience.
I don’t really follow you. Yes Lemmy is a progressive hangout. Opinions here are not indicative of the larger population, nor even the larger population of progressives.
Basing an opinion of what “most” progressives want based on Lemmy comments is absolutely absurd.
Regardless, I guess I’m one of those few pacifists who don’t think violence is the best course of action. Trump needs to be slaughtered in the election and then go to jail.
It doesn’t take much insight to understand that Trump being assassinated would be the start of a dark period in history, not the end.
Tbf, by this logic, we can never say “most X Y” without having the actual data to back it up, and neither of us do, so stalemate I guess. All either of us have is empirical.
I’m not arguing with your pacifism, I’m just arguing with the premise that most progressives aren’t literally saying “dammit why’d he miss” right now.
When is it okay if it’s against whichever politicians you like?
I don’t understand why people tend to forget that opinions vary. There literally cannot be a moment where everyone agrees someone can only be stopped by violence. Don’t worry though, sadly like 95% of Lemmy has been proud of this bloodlust the past few days. Your opinion is popular.
Who gives a shit what a fascist considers themselves to be? I’m not trying to talk fascists out of being fascists. Talking has never defeated conservative fascism.
Yeah, mine applies to any topic, yours applies to ones where your agenda is preserved and unquestioned.
Not a surprise with your username that you’re super into violence when it’s wielded against your enemies. I’m sure you clutch pearls every single time it goes the other way.
Clearly there are politicians that people like. Watch:
Fuck Joe Biden, he sucks and all politicians are scum including AOC and Bernie.
Context of important. For many of us “like” of politicians is relative.
Joe Biden fucking sucks and is way too close to death to be making decisions that he’ll never have to see the consequences of. But, he’s a hell of a lot better than a fascist and the fake leftist Putin stooges that are trying to help get said fascist elected. He’s also done a lot more for the working class than most US presidents in the last 50 years.
AOC is a politician who is a woman of color with working-class roots. Compared to other politicians, I like her. However, I’ve been less fond of her voting record on things like the rail strike, which feels like a betrayal. Could be just having to choose battles and “play politics” but, I have no way of knowing as I don’t have personal contact or rapport with her. So, overall, neutral, relative to other politicians, like.
Bernie is a politician who has been on the right side of history for a lot of social issues. I don’t really agree with him in everything, like gun control but, that could well be a strategic thing. Again, overall, neutral leaning positive, relative to other politicians, like.
See? There’s one. Relative or not, you like her enough to say you like her. I’m counting it.
I’m just saying, we can’t really sit here and pretend nobody likes any politicians. Hell two hole (as in ass, pun intended) instances here simp for Stalin so hard it makes their пизда wet. Sure he’s dead but an autocrat is a politican nonetheless.
I’m with you, I actively hate all politicians. In fact you have better stuff to say about them than I would, but we aren’t everyone. Some people clearly love politicians.
In fact you have better stuff to say about them than I would
That’s partly from my near-pathological optimism that I developed as a coping strategy for untreated ADHD and depression. I involuntarily see a silver lining in most things.
Some people clearly love politicians.
… Yeah. That’s a weird one to me. I suspect it is a neurodivergent thing but it’s up there with celebrity worship and other parasocial relationships. I can rationalize my way through it but I don’t “get it”.
That’s partly from my near-pathological optimism that I developed as a coping strategy for untreated ADHD and depression. I involuntarily see a silver lining in most things.
Hold the fuck on did I write this and forget?! Lmao dude same, though I am also full of hatred for authority, so on this one it clashes haha.
I suspect it is a neurodivergent thing
Do you mean the politician lovers, us, or both? Lol in any case you may be right, I don’t get it either but I do see them around.
Do you mean the politician lovers, us, or both? Lol in any case you may be right, I don’t get it either but I do see them around.
I was thinking myself (and likely yourself). I am diagnosed ADHD and have a sibling diagnosed with autism, which means that I’m also most likely on the spectrum. My “not getting it” also seems in line with perceptions of social hierarchies that are common in autistic people. It’s also why I’m ideologically an anarchist - rigid social hierarchies are fundamentally contrary to a just society.
I happen to agree with Mr. Adams here, but again I must refute the idea that nobody likes politicians.
Hell trump has a fucking cult, they clearly like him and he is a politician, ipso facto some people like some politicians. They exist, it is an undisputable fact frankly.
Oh, across the broader population you’re absolutely correct. In that initial comment, I was referring to the users here on lemmy. Sorry, “we” can be rather ambiguous.
That’s the thing. Violence should never be the answer. The problem is that the worst of us count on other people not fighting. So, when it’s actually time for violence, it’s too late.
Yup, exactly this. DARVO is the standard abusers’ playbook, and it also applies to oppression.
D is Deny/Downplay. “No, oppression doesn’t happen. And if it does, it’s not as bad as you’re making it out to be.”
A is Attack. When they can’t deny it anymore, they’ll go on the offensive. Try to redirect the focus back to the victim. “Well what about…”
RVO is Reverse Victim and Offender. When outright attacking the victim doesn’t work, they move on to playing the victim. Make the real victim look bad, to garner sympathy. Pretend to be the helpless one in the situation, and say that the victim is attacking you for no reason.
When the oppressed fight back, the oppressors will act offended and use it to further victimize the oppressed.
Please read Federalist 46. Madison explicitly argues that the right to bear arms is reserved for several purposes, one of which is to prevent the encroachment of the federal gov’t on states and local polities. Madison specifically indicates a tension between militias and federal gov’t forces.
2A, in the minds of the Founders, was to repel any monarch or tyrant, to explicitly include any agent of the federal gov’t.
Personally, no. But, I’m a “no-first-strikes” pacifist. Violence harms the victim, the perpetrator, and those who witness it directly or indirectly. It can also cause great harm to efforts to affect political and social change.
However, I think that history does show that it has an important role, supposing its adherents follow strict ethical constraints and do not attempt to install themselves as bosses (something that is not terribly common in history). For non-violence to be truly effective, it needs to be clear and plausible that violence is the alternative. The Labor Movement had the likes of The Molly Maguires. The suffragettes had the likes of the WSPU. And the non-violent anvil of Dr. King had the hammer of Malcom X.
What you’ve done is proposong a solution without clearly defining the problem. That makes your question sound appealing, it makes it sound rhetorical, but actually is meaningless without context.
Supposed the shooter had succeeded in his objective. One might imagine that Joe would win in November, maybe. But four years from now there would be a different candidate with just as bad views on those same issues, and the institutional problems that allowed Trump to gain power would still be in place.
Is gambling on 4 years of possible peace worth legitimatizing the policy of executing people whose political views you don’t like? That’s something you have to decide for yourself.
Many fundamental issues facing the country today go back decades. Pick your poison. Stacking the courts is an old strategy. Citizens United happened long ago. Redistricting and gerrymandering have been happening for decades if not centuries. All of those things matter, none of them were caused by Trump, and none of them would be fixed if Trump were gone. The systemic weaknesses can only be fixed by implementing systemic solutions, whatever those might be.
I don’t think I need a complete solution to be of the opinion that Hitler needed to be met with violence at some point. Of course we can’t know that Trump will be the same, but is there a possibility that his election in November leads to at least decades of Christofascist laws being enacted, if not a civil war? Perhaps by the time it becomes obvious that we’ve reached that point it’ll be too late.
Maybe Joe’s win this year will only put off the inevitable. But maybe it’ll lead to someone the next election with enough guts to give SCOTUS what they want and show them what a president with immunity can do, and the 6 who voted for making the president a king will end up in a black site until their more suitable replacements can be installed. At which point hopefully the corrupt ruling can be overturned by justices who aren’t being bribed. I don’t know shit about the law but I trust that if someone like Kagen says political assassinations are now legal, that’s further into fascism territory than I want our country to be.
You ask if gambling on 4 years of peace before something worse happens is worth it. I’d ask if gambling on a Trump election in November is something the US will survive. I guess we’ll see, because there’s no way in hell Biden’s doing anything illegal-- oh sorry, I meant any of the now legal things that Trump won’t hesitate to do when he’s “dictator day one”.
I sure hope we find out. I sure hope all of the candidates live well past election day. I hope that we have massive voter turnout and Trump is destroyed in a landslide election. Metaphorically. I don’t want him to get crushed with real rocks in a real landslide. Let him lose the election, retire from politics, get locked up for a while for his crimes, and live out the sad remainder of his life until he dies of old age. Given his general health now, it probably won’t be too long anyway.
I get a lot of downvotes whenever I ask this and very rarely responded to, but if violence is the solution, why have you not started the violence, or at least started gathering people together?
I no longer live in the US, plus I’m fat, lazy, and have no idea how to organize people or start a revolution. If it were up to me I’d lose the war to fascists. But that doesn’t change the fact that someone should probably do something about fascists. And if violence isn’t the answer and you’re someone who’s similarly worried about fascism, why haven’t you gotten around to a getting started on a non-violent way to solve the problem?
I’m simply of the opinion that at some point along the way, talking nicely to Hitler wasn’t going to change anything. I’m just wondering where along that point in time people think that was.
It’s not really a question directed at you personally, sorry. It’s one I ask all the time when people start crying about how the glorious revolution should start or the guillotines should come out.
I would think that if Trump was going to remove his own term limits so he could be President for Life and then start murdering his political rivals, it would have been in his first term when he had the House, Senate, and Supreme Court locked down. As it stands, he’s only going to be in power for another four years, worst-case scenario. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that (which is a big part of why he isn’t President for Life). I’m not going to sit here and say when it’s okay to start killing politicians, other than that we aren’t there yet.
I’d like to ask you a question as well: if Trump died, what do you think would have happened? Do you think that 100% of the gun-toting pro-Trump militias throughout the country would have laid down their arms and admitted defeat? Do you think that the political faction that is, on average, more likely to own and use guns than the left, would have said “well that sucks I guess”? Do you think that Democrats across the country would be safe? Or do you think it would be a Shot Heard Cross the Coasts that would have started a free-for-all of political violence that the country hasn’t seen in decades - perhaps centuries?
While I do think that the right of the people to govern themselves has certain implications I won’t get into here, it also means we have legislative options on the table. You have freedom of speech, which is why we can ask questions like yours and mine. We have the right to assemble, form parties, and elect officials. Let’s use those rights while the government hasn’t decided to destroy them yet; and if they ever do, let’s take the discussion to a more anonymous forum like on Tor or I2P.
Do you think that 100% of the gun-toting pro-Trump militias throughout the country would have laid down their arms and admitted defeat? Do you think that the political faction that is, on average, more likely to own and use guns than the left, would have said “well that sucks I guess”? Do you think that Democrats across the country would be safe? Or do you think it would be a Shot Heard Cross the Coasts that would have started a free-for-all of political violence that the country hasn’t seen in decades - perhaps centuries?
I don’t think either of those scenarios would happen. Maybe a civil war’s coming, but we’re not there yet. Or at least not quite yet.
As it stands, he’s only going to be in power for another four years, worst-case scenario.
I think worst case scenario outside literal king trump is project 2025 ensures enough gerrymandering and partisan hackery gets put in place such that dems never again see house and senate majorities or the presidency in our lifetimes, and then the freedoms that are the will of the vast majority like Roe continue to fall. Gay marriage will be next, guaranteed.
I’m not going to sit here and say when it’s okay to start killing politicians, other than that we aren’t there yet.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but like I mentioned in another comment, with a bribed SCOTUS giving the legal power to execute political rivals to the president (according to Kagen anyway), by the time the first dem pols are up against the wall it might already be too late. Which is why I asked where someone should’ve stepped in with Hitler-- I don’t know history well enough to draw enough parallels to make an educated guess, but things look a little bleak the way it’s going.
Political violence cuts both ways. I don’t think anyone thinks what happens to politicians go against the cartels in Mexico is good or healthy system. For democracy to work we can’t have people constantly fear for their lives. Sure Trump is a terrible human being but I don’t want my candidates living with the same fear. So our only choice is to condem it. Also when bad acting becomes the norm bad actors will thrive. If political assassinations becomes the norm do you think morally justified “good guys” assassin going after Hitlers are going to win/out pace organized crime like what we see in Mexico?
At the end of the day ends don’t justify the means. Violence breeds Violence. In this modern age if we want to create a peaceful society we have to do it peacefully. Violence might be an appealing means to an end and while we might have the moral high ground but they use the same logic to justify their violence.
Choosing to travel through time to kill a historical figure is easy because we know exactly what will happen if nothing is changed.
Killing a modern day figure is different because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. We can guess, but that’s it.
For example, at what point would it have been appropriate to assassinate Smedley Butler? 92 years ago today, it might have seemed like he was poised to become a dictator.
Yeah, good point. He was actually much more aligned with the goals of his assassin, Gavrilo Princip, than Princip knew. Princip thought he was doing something that would help the Bosnian / Serb cause, but instead he killed someone who might have given the Bosnians / Serbs more autonomy.
The thing is, I’m sure that there are cases where political killing actually makes things better. Obviously, it often makes things worse. But, it must be true that sometimes it makes things better. The problem is, that there’s no alternative history you can consult to prove it. You can just speculate about what might have happened if that person had not been killed.
For a random example, take Carlos Castillo Armas. He was put in power in Guatemala thanks to a CIA-backed coup. The US was involved partially because the democratically elected president was thought to be under the influence of Russia. But, more importantly, he was doing things that were hurting the bottom line of American fruit companies. When he took power, he started doing dictator things: rounding up and killing opposition, shooting protesters, revoking civil liberties, etc.
Then, 3 years after he took power, he was assassinated by a bodyguard.
What happened after that was probably not good for Guatemala. There were 36 years of civil war, and a lot of unrest. On the other hand what if Armas had been able to consolidate power? Would decades of dictatorship have been better or worse?
Also, killing an established, truly evil dictator almost never results in a happy democracy. But, that’s probably because the dictator has destroyed all checks and balances, wrecked every institution that a working society needs, and eliminated anybody who might be a threat. So, if a dictator is killed, the result is often chaos, or another dictator taking over. But, if you eliminate someone who might have become a dictator, who’s to say that they really would have become one?
Predicting the future is hard, predicting the past is easy.
Ever since this incident when U.S. politicians collectively argued that political violence was not okay, I have thought ‘I wonder how Fred Hampton would feel about these folks denouncing political violence?’ -I admit I don’t know the answer to this question, but when I consider the specific people going around vocally denouncing political violence, I’m not so convinced that those same people don’t protest too much.
Yes. He said both what I wrote and wanting revenge, saying he will be a dictator for one day, day one. This video has both clips, if you want to skip to 8:17 for the revenge and judgment day after that: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNzzOwiebvM
Undoing the amount of damage they caused takes time. Biden inherited a spiraling economy, hundreds of thousands of people sick and dying, and a coup attempt that nearly got a bunch of people killed.
Not to mention all the idiotic shit the prior president had done while in office, such as austerity cuts that fucked social programs, legal systems, and low and middle income Americans.
It will take 12-16 years of unified democrat rule to fix corruption, regulatory capture, anti-trust for monopolies, universal healthcare, infrastructure investments that don’t get slashed by idiotic presidents, etc.
Four years of chemotherapy isn’t nearly enough when we have policy tumors and R&D funding cut abscesses from fucking idiots like Regan, Bush, and Trump.
If we are going to keep the death penalty around federally, an enemy of the state such as Trump is the perfect use. Maybe if we could ever get shit done, we’d ban the death penalty after it from all the people who wouldn’t want such to happen, are usually those voting to keep the death penalty.
Healthcare!?! Who needs healthcare when Congress is giving us our god given freedom of domestic surveillance capitalism, which is the freedomist freedom that ever freedomed, you filthy communist!
So anyway, I started violating civil liberties… PEW PEW
You’ll take your overpriced medicine from your out of network pharmacy and you’ll like it. At the fake markup price. And good luck getting that ultrasound, they’re going to code the billing wrong so instead of it being $40 it’s $1000. That’s freedom talking.
SWOB President Tom Sunderman expressed concern in a statement:
“Doing this for 28 years, what we have worried about is a boys team losing to a girls team (especially in the year end tourney), they may get frustrated and retaliate against a girl.” "Then we have liability issues.” Prez, a social media user on X (Formerly Twitter), didn’t buy it.
“What he meant to say was they can’t have their boys being emasculated by a better girls team… it would be a blow to their developing manhood to get beat by girls.”
This whole thread is a lowest common denominator extravaganza, I’m actually shocked at the lack of critical thinking. People read a headline and get riled up without asking questions, and if you do, you’re a homophobic racist antihuman piece of shit. What a fucking echo chamber. Was lemmy acquired by Tumblr without telling anyone? Reddit has higher standards than this.
It’s funny how 12 people downvoted me, and 15 people “genuinely didn’t understand”. So, did you downvote first, then realized that you didn’t even get it? That’s how the right wing thinks and acts.
It’s funny how 12 people downvoted me, and 15 people “genuinely didn’t understand”. So, did you downvote first, then realized that you didn’t even get it?
Downvotes are for poor quality posts that don’t contribute to the discussion. If people “genuinely didn’t understand” your post they should downvote it, because you did not explain yourself well enough to contribute to the discussion.
Once again, girls are somehow responsible for boys’ inability to behave
That’s really not what i am getting from this article at all.
made the call because they believed that 11 to 12-year-old girls and boys competing against each other on the court could pose a liability risk leading to violence, even though the girls team had been winning 7-1 all season without incident.
they may get frustrated and retaliate against a girl.” "Then we have liability issues.”
McGraw said the girls were never in any real danger during the games, aside from the occasional side-eye.
“They got giggles, they got laughs, and people talked about them… you know, the looks.”
[emphasis added]
Where “once again” is the boys inability to behave? All i see is adults wanting to dodge POTENTIAL liability.
Beyond that there is the question about their participation in the league itself. Here there are as i see it two sides:
They participated through deception (listing as mail AND apparently fielding a male team in the first game)
Or one can be on the side that the system is broken and they should have been allowed to participate in the first place.
Again something that adults decide. Not sure if we have enough information to judge this properly.
Not sure why i spend much time on this nonesense, especially since i find this to be a pretty poor article (as is any that just randomly quotes social media users to make its point).
Whoawhaowhao you can’t use political words yet. Everyone knows only once you have all “thoughts and prayers” lined up and fill 2.2 football fields, divided by 2 minus 15 eagles worth of words, can you then even mention politics.
At 8 football fields you can bring up 2A. But what would the world be like if we started changing “amendments”. We’d have to make the word amendment a synonym of change or something, that would be crazy.
450+ million guns, you’re not stopping gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime, by banning guns from lawful citizens. Dudes like this are already barred. Why don’t you ask, why out system let him out.
Ok, man from perfect country. How would you personally solve this problem of gun violence? Would you form a posse and roundup all of the crazed lunatics out there who would dare to try and protect their families with a firearm? Would you raid the houses of anyone who may or may not have owned a gun in the past and search under the floorboards?
Seriously I want to know. How would you help all of these mentally ill people who seem to think that guns are toys, or just deeply want to harm other people?
You don’t need me to tell you that. You wouldn’t believe me anyway. There are plenty of professionals who have studied and acquired factual data of how other “perfect countries” do it and the differences. From the differences the solutions become very clear.
It’s about restricting access, not banning. There’s no one size fits all solution because nothing is perfect so you pick your poison. Find a country where this doesn’t happen every day (so any developed country), look a the way they do things and pick the one you prefer to support - they all have upsides and downsides. What you have isn’t working though.
Every country that has basically an effective ban, also has safety nets for the people, doesn’t have a gang problem like we do, and focuses on education and not locking everyone up. They also never had 450+ million firearms in civilian hands. So please share with the class how you think you could pull it off without having all those safety nets in place.
I’m fine with adding in the safety nets, they’ll do 100xs more than any regulation you put in place will do. I’m not ok giving over a monopoly on force to people like the current Republicans. Why any of you think that’s a good idea is just insane.
Wtf are you going to do here, go out shooting them or some bullshit? You really think you have any chance against the feds regardless of what side you swing for? That sounds pretty crazy to me. So let’s get real and understand your guns are for recreation not safety against tyranny.
Because the only way for shit like this to not happen in your world of gun regulation, requires a total ban.
And a total ban gives whoever is in charge of the government a monopoly on force.
People like you will call Republicans nazis and fascist…then want to remove any force multiplier from civs and then pray they don’t get elected. You’re naive at best and ignorant at worse.
The only way to stop severely mentally ill people from obtaining guns is a total ban? Are you absolutely sure about that? There’s no regulation out that that would mitigate the problem?
Because criminals don’t follow the law… because they’re fucking criminals…you cannot be this dumb… murder still happens you know? And a ton of laws are in place to make it illegal.
That’s an exaggeration. The US has a better safety net than a lot of countries with much less gun death and violence. Education could better for a rich country, but is not bad. I am all for locking fewer people up, but that’s not the reason there’s gun violence.
This is always the argument against improving anything in the US. “We’re too special!” It’s just not true. Background checks, wait times, permit requirements, concealed carry restrictions, domestic violence restrictions, etc. These have all been empirically shown to reduce gun deaths in the US.
Maybe put those safety nets in place? Offer buy-backs on firearms, or a grace period to turn in unregistered firearms with no questions? Crack down on fraudulent “theft” and loss reports? Modernize the firearms database? Create incentives for law enforcement to execute red-flag laws? Require a higher level of training and responsibility to own a firearm?
Literally doing the bare minimum and just effectively enforcing the laws on the books would make a huge improvement, but we can’t even do that because republicans like to whip up the base with the idea that their right to own an AR-15 is going to stop the liburl gubment from takin awah mah rites!
How about we just get rid of "private sale" exceptions to background checks in states like Tennessee to slow the tide of guns flowing into the black market?
In Tennessee, one has to buy liquor from the government, but can buy a gun (including semi-auto rifles) from a random person in a parking lot. No questions asked.
I know a person who actually obtained a handgun this way. In a parking lot of a bar on Florida, from a seller who was in his lunch break as an electrician... I'll let those details sink in for anyone safety oriented.
O noooo, a bar parking lot…the humanity…did this someone you know go on to become a serial killer? Or do you still know them and they’re a normal person.
I might buy this argument if other countries also had the same problem. But the fact is that stricter gun laws do work, and the U.S. is very unique in having this issue thanks to our insistence on the 2nd ammendment being infallible.
No it hasn’t, no one in the history of the world has had this many firearms in civilian hands. Even when Australia took the firearms, only 60% turned in their 1mil total firearms in civ hands.
Australia never had a firearm problem to begin with. This is pants on head stupid take. If you have 100 deaths from firearms a year and removing access to the already small amount in civ hands and gun deaths drop to 50… everyone now says firearms removed from people dropped by 50% when it was already so low it was a rounding error to begin with.
No, we just had the largest massacre of private citizens by a single shooter in recorded history, (still hasn’t been beaten despite how often Americans try, they must really hate us being better than them at something involving guns), and numerous others before it, and none after it. But tell me again how you know nothing about Australia, it’s history, or gun control.
You also did not have high violence involving firearms prior to port author. They also were already trending down prior to the 97 ban and forced confiscation.
Suicides, just like the USA, make up the majority of your firearm deaths. You’re homicides via firearms are a joke per year, our gangs alone do that in a month in a single city.
But yes, I’m the one who knows nothing about Australia and it’s gun history…lol sounds like you need to study your own history before nosing into ours.
You use “gang violence” as a substitute for what word? Youre talking about an “urban” problem then? Cowards speak in dogwhistles. C’mon, you know you wanna.
gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime
Source?
The most recent stats I could find for gang-related deaths (gun or not) was 2012, when there were 2,363 reported out of a national total of 12,765 homicides.
That is known gang violence, where police %100 know it’s gang related. If they do not know the source, they label it as unknown. The estimate is around 80-85% are gang and drug related violence. This isn’t some unknown thing.
That’s stupid. If it were illegal to carry guns around, far fewer crooks would carry guns. They’d be harder to get and they’d have to balance the risk of being caught with a gun.
Lol what??? It’s already illegal for criminals to carry. That’s why they do it, they’re criminals. We now have more states with CC than ever before, and we actually have lower crime now than we did back in the 70/80s when CC wasn’t allowed.
No I absolutely do know what I’m talking about, but the lot of you all don’t have a clue. You sit in your white privilege ivory towers and think only the police should have a monopoly on force…and at the same time wanting to defund them as well. You make no sense.
But if teachers were paid well, more talented people might decide to become teachers, and then children would receive better educations and possibly start to question why our society is structured the way it is. Much better to solve the problem at its root and keep everyone ignorant.
Or the war between the states. Doesn’t really matter, honestly. Anyone who uses an alternate name for it pretty much tells you that their sympathies lie with the confederacy.
That’s not really a consideration to the state governments deciding on how and why to keep teachers pay low. A version of that is at play in circulum design, but not really in pay.
It’s mostly a mix of:
Hatred of public schools
Their kids go to private, or well funded public districts
Poor resource management within state budget
Desire to weaken public education system overall, to advance vouchers, charters, etc.
Power. Getting off on their raw exercise or power.
The people who designed the system decades ago might have had the more nuanced, if still evil, approach that you outlined, but not now. The current crop are a lot stupider and their conception of cause and effect is a simplistic version of 1-1=0.
It’s not a problem with onlyfans in particular but teaching is difficult and critically important work. It’s a problem that teachers are not paid enough and have to look for side hustles (of any sort).
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.