Used to be that people went to fast food because it was good, fast, and cheap.
These guys running the show have managed to reverse all three of those points. Now fast food is shit, slow, and expensive. It’s honestly amazing that people put up with it as long as they did.
Please don’t call things you don’t like terrorism. Calls to boycott Target are not terrorism in the same way that calls to divest from Israeli companies are also not terrorism.
I don’t want to live in the V For Vendetta universe where anything the people in power don’t like is considered terrorism. I’m sure you don’t either.
And before you attack my character and call me a sympathizer - no. I’m gay. These ppl are stupid for getting mad about pride. But it’s not fucking terrorism.
Terrorism is an appropriate word here. Threats of violence to achieve political goals. They threatened employees with violence because the store chose to offer those items. I’m not really sure how much more clear cut it can get. Terrorism isn’t just killing people.
terrorism /tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm/ noun
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.
The practice of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
You sound exactly like the people on /pol/ explaining how Palestine protestors and BLM protestors are terrorists. Same talking points as the average trumper.
Target received a lot of fucking death threats for pride last year - there have definitely been awful people in the pro-Palestine protests that have threatened personal violence but those people are rare and called out by other protesters.
The Target protests were predicated on violence - the Gaza protests are predicated on peace and only threaten economic damage. One of these things is terrorism and one isn’t.
If a cop takes one in the dome that is one thing. The problem is that conservatives like to gun down innocent people who did not make an effort to take on a ‘dangerous’ job.
The terrorism and terrorist labels are already selectively applied by people in power in a way that means little more than “people we don’t like”. Take for example how the west don’t consider organizations like the IDF terrorists, but do consider Hamas to be terrorists, despite their activities being widely protected under international law. Or consider how Yemen’s government has had the label applied and removed based on concessions given to the US.
I agree that those labels are flippantly defined but Hamas (while having a political wing) definitely has a terrorist wing. Palestinians deserve defending but Hamas isn’t worth your breath.
I’m not trying to imply a moral judgement here over whether or not Hamas is good or not. All I’m claiming is that as an indigenous group resisting foreign occupation, Hamas’ activities, including armed resistance, are protected under international law. And that the west considers them terrorists despite this shows that not violating international law itself isn’t grounds to be considered a terrorist or not. The point is the distinction is purely whether the west likes them or not.
Bro, Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 by force of arms aimed at fellow Palestinians. It’s not just the west either, Hamas was born out of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries including Eygpt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Putting aside everything that’s happened since October of last year, Hamas is made up of some really shitty, evil people. Their founding principles aren’t just freedom from Israel, the destruction of Israel, or even the killing of all Israelis. One of their missions, since the organization was founded in the 1980s, is to kill all Jews worldwide. Surely we can agree on that not being an organization worth our support.
I can support Palestines without supporting Hamas just like I can support Jews without supporting the Israeli state.
True. We can be honest about what this is too. Target isn’t supporting LGBTQ+ rights with this. They’re exploiting the community. If they really wanted to support, they’d donate the profits to HRC.
I think you are getting down voted because most here hate liberals more than they hate rightwingers, and your response was about as liberal as it gets.
Oh right. Forgot about that conservative trope. Don’t mind your leader is literally convicted for rape and is on trial for influencing election outcome by paying hush money for cheating on his 3rd wife with multiple women.
Let’s focus on imaginary Biden hair sniffing. P in GOP stands for projection after all.
The humorlessnes isn’t helping our side. Nor is trying to sweep Biden’s flaws under the rug. Of course Trump is 19,000x worse. Which is why the reflexive defensiveness is not needed.
Oh they have far more to lose their shit over when it comes to Dr. Rigby:
Rigby was a founding member of the American Astronomical Society Committee for Sexual-Orientation and Gender Minorities in Astronomy.[12] In 2015 she co-organised Inclusive Astronomy, a worldwide initiative to celebrate inclusivity and equity in astronomy.[13][14]
And:
Rigby came out as lesbian in 2000.[2] When she joined the University of Arizona as a graduate student, it was still against state law to be gay.[2]
… and over the fact that article mentions the universe being billions of years old, which we know to be false because some old book says so, supposedly, not that any of them have read that book. Ban all Webb data, keep that stuff out of our libraries and schools!
Regardless of the method of execution, imagine knowing the exact date and time of your death and knowing nothing you could do would stop it. That is torture, plain and simple. It should be in violation of the eighth amendment.
Consider Japan, who does it differently. Death row inmates in Japan are not told their execution dates, as they had issues with people committing suicide before they could be executed. So now they only find out with just a few hours of notice when they're going to be executed. You could be sitting in your cell, ten years into your sentence, enjoying an otherwise ordinary, quiet day in prison, only to be told that it's time to die, whether you're ready for it or not, the equipment and staff are already prepared and there's no time left to argue your case.
Honestly, I don't know which one is "better". They're both cruel in their own ways.
It’s been ruled that a punishment needs to be BOTH cruel AND unusual, to qualify as a violation. One or the other is fine, as long as it’s not both. Scalping someone for petty theft would be okay as long as most-everyone convicted got scalped.
In this specific case, I wouldn’t call it usual and it certainly is cruel.
I would also argue that, since it is not applied evenly in any way and that only a minority of people get the death penalty, even though some people who don’t get it have committed worse crimes, it is always unusual. Usual is prison for some length of time, possibly life.
I would also add that SCOTUS found it both cruel and unusual at one point.
But also, apparently all of the available methods of execution barely work at all because of gross incompetence of the people who create the systems. That’s the more important issue, here, imo. The state clearly isn’t capable of serving a death sentence, nor do I expect they ever will be, so they shouldn’t even have the right.
I’m a consequentialist with aversion to suffering, so I think there are some very rare cases where it would be warranted if reform were considered truly impossible or would cause more suffering than it is worth, such as older or insane accused with very solid evidence convictions by a jury of peers.
Hard choices exist in this world, people sometimes have to choose what they can protect.
I’m really not understanding your argument. What does this ‘suffering’ have to be worth? And if an elderly or mentally ill person suffers in prison, that sounds like we should make prison a less horrible place, not euthanize people we feel deserve it.
I’m operating in the very real world assumptions that the restrictions of freedom of a large class of people will never so easily be made “a less horrible place.” This is far moreso true for chronic mental illness care. I don’t have a plan for any of that, and it doesn’t appear as though you do, either, so instead a simple solution is to only give a death sentence under very specific and hard to establish conditions agreed upon by a majority of people.
The plan is caring for mentally ill people with psychiatric supervision, possibly medication and/or therapy, something our prison system doesn’t offer, not killing them. You’re doing the “I shot the dog because he was untrainable and killed chickens” Kristi Noem defense, except for killing people.
Psychiatric Supervision, Medication, and Therapy don’t necessarily eliminate all suffering, and certainly have no guarantee of reform or a cure. Kristi Noem had a perfectly fine young animal capable of training by qualified owners of which many were likely available in her area, she instead chose to kill her dog. This is a great example of how outcomes with excess suffering are always worse and that many people are too mentally incompetent to weigh their options. If her dog were judged by a jury, it would have been acquitted.
A judge and jury of peers adhering to very strict legal definitions and sentencing guidelines written by a democratically elected congress, because after thousands of years that’s the best system we’ve ever developed to reduce harm and promote equality and wellbeing for the majority of people. It’s not one person deciding the fate of another, it’s all of us deciding the fate of individuals for the benefit of us all.
So people who have no actual expert knowledge of mental health or mental health treatment? And you want this congress to be responsible for deciding who lives and who dies?
So you think Doctors should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies? I’m going to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how many doctors are on an average jury bench, but they’re pretty commonly used as character witness testimony.
You seem to imply that I’m defending the actions of the state of Alabama when I’ve only ever been critical of them in this entire discussion.
You’ve made it very clear that you think differently than I do, and you started this conversation by asking me to explain my thoughts which I did very clearly. Perhaps you’re projecting the confusion you feel.
While that may explain a lack of impartiality, it doesn’t justify it. She’s held to the same standard as any other judge. All the more reason Smith should file a motion for recusal.
Just because something is supposed to happen does not mean that it will. By all rights Trump should have been kicked out of office and be sitting in jail right now but he isnt. Just like Nixon and a whole cadre of others that slithered away without facing any real consequences.
Just because things that should have happened and didn’t, doesn’t mean this time it won’t. This judge may face repercussions. It may not be any that impact the trump case though
Id love to be wrong here but Trump has been impeached twice (which did jack shit because the republicans in the senate would have had to help convict him) and the only real consequences for what hes done were in civil trials and even that was monetary. They didnt even make him pay the bail bond he was initially “required” to pay. He’s been threatened with consequences for contempt of court over a dozen times now.
Unfortunately the best predictor of the future is the past and the past hasnt laid a hand on him.
Has anyone in a position of authority ever faced consequences for this? Because in Cannon’s case, you’d have to prove that she didn’t have a legitimate reason to do what she did and that it rose to the level of an ethics violation deserving of punishment. Which we can infer given the obvious conflict of interest but if that was enough to punish her it would have probably happened by now. And the standard for evidence required to punish a judge like that is reasonably high.
the only real consequences for what hes done were in civil trials and even that was monetary.
Civil trial consequences are always only monetary - you can’t go to prison for a civil case. That’s part of why civil cases get away with having a much lower standard of evidence - essentially the plaintiff wins a civil case if it’s even slightly more likely than not but a prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
They didnt even make him pay the bail bond he was initially “required” to pay.
The purpose of that sort of bond is to prevent you from using funds you should use to pay damages on lawyers to fight the case further, not to prevent you from being able to fight it at all. By the point the bond was reduced the court had their eyes in his accounts and knew exactly what he could afford and could make some rough estimates based on the shakier parts of the assigned damages where damages might end up on appeal (it’s pretty common for damages to be reduced on appeal). I’d be willing to bet that the reduced bond was either close to what Trump could actually get without selling slow-to-liquidate assets (aka real estate) or close to where the court thinks damages might end up. You’ll notice he started hawking Bibles almost immediately afterward, likely because he needs more liquid funding in the short term.
He’s been threatened with consequences for contempt of court over a dozen times now.
I believe he’s been fined for it several times now, but the fine is set by law and is an amount that’s a pittance to Trump. Jailing him is an option but complicated since most jails don’t have remotely the capacity or security of a real prison and you’ve still got to figure out how to work his Secret Service detail into the picture. And also the protests from his cult if/when that happens.
Civil trial consequences are always only monetary - you can’t go to prison for a civil case. That’s part of why civil cases get away with having a much lower standard of evidence
Which is exactly why I mentioned it. He has never faced consequences from criminal charges, only civil court.
You’ll notice he started hawking Bibles almost immediately afterward, likely because he needs more liquid funding in the short term.
He would have done that regardless of whether he “needed” funds or not. Like most obscenely rich people, there is no such thing as “enough” wealth.
I believe he’s been fined for it several times now, but the fine is set by law and is an amount that’s a pittance to Trump.
Which doesn’t really contradict my point that he effectively hasn’t faced any real consequences.
you’ve still got to figure out how to work his Secret Service detail into the picture.
He’s a criminal. He shouldn’t be afforded the same security detail as his predecessors that weren’t. We don’t “have to” do anything. It was just decided as a society that this man, and others like him, should be given privileges that others don’t have.
And also the protests from his cult if/when that happens.
This should never ever ever factor into what his punishment is. A functioning society needs a justice system that doesn’t cave to mobs.
Which is exactly why I mentioned it. He has never faced consequences from criminal charges, only civil court.
You don’t face consequences from criminal charges until you are convicted, which hasn’t happened yet. Or someone is trying to make an example of you ala Kevin Mitnick.
He would have done that regardless of whether he “needed” funds or not. Like most obscenely rich people, there is no such thing as “enough” wealth.
I mean yeah, he’s absurdly rich and greedy but I don’t think he would have gone the route of Bible salesman like that if he wasn’t pinched for funds. Or he would have back when he posed for that photo of him holding the Bible upside down. It’s not a coincidence that the Bible sale started less than 48 hours from the bond being reduced.
Which doesn’t really contradict my point that he effectively hasn’t faced any real consequences.
He hasn’t been convicted of a crime yet. Until he is, he’s not going to prison. That’s pretty fundamental to how the criminal justice system works. He’s got damages levied against him that he’s going to challenge and probably have reduced some (that’s how it often goes), and had to put up $175M as a bond that will immediately go towards said damages after his appeal.
He’s a criminal. He shouldn’t be afforded the same security detail as his predecessors that weren’t. We don’t “have to” do anything. It was just decided as a society that this man, and others like him, should be given privileges that others don’t have.
You’d have to legally revoke his security detail, and even then you probably don’t want to - as a former President he’s a valuable asset because of what he might know despite his seemingly poor retention. As well as the sway he has over his cult. You ideally want to imprison him separate from all other prisoners with his security detail living on site if possible. I’ve said before the easiest way to make that happen is to convert the SHU at a medium-large prison into a sort of “Presidential suite” to house Trump and his security detail. No one else enters or leaves the unit, anything going in or out goes through both prison security and SS security.
It’s a side bonus that it prevents inmates from being thrown in solitary at the same time. And a proper prison is easier to defend from “protesters” than most jails are, and which prison he is sent to should take the possibility of an attack by right wing nutters into consideration.
This should never ever ever factor into what his punishment is. A functioning society needs a justice system that doesn’t cave to mobs.
It does, but only because you have to plan around it happening. Most jails aren’t really set up to deal with that sort of thing, and contempt sends you to jail, not prison. So you have to figure out how to do that without causing a bunch of innocent people to be injured or killed as a consequence. Ideally before you put him in the jail. And where to send the people you’d normally jail there, because he’s going to take up excessive space for the same security-related reasons he will in prison.
but complicated since most jails don’t have remotely the capacity or security of a real prison and you’ve still got to figure out how to work his Secret Service detail into the picture. And also the protests from his cult if/when that happens.
Which are all things the judge acknowledged in his statement ashen he handed down the most recent contempt ruling.
Like it or not, there’s a lot more considerations to this than simply “lock him up”.
That standard, on a normal day, is “Hey Judge? Do whatever the fuck you want long as it’s legal.” on a bad day that legality isn’t even a question.
One of the bad things about the US is how you can get a 5 year sentence from Judge A and a court order to do community service from Judge B, both trying you for the same thing.
He has not, but while her actions have been unconventional, she’s toed the line a bit when challenged. I’m hoping that removing the case from the calendar entirely is what pushes Smith to act.
I don’t think anyone was surprised that this was coming, more or less regardless of which judge it was. The original court date was a week and three business days from now, it’s entirely possible Trump will literally still be on trial for the hush money case when the trial date for the documents case was set.
I’ll be more upset if a hearing to set a new date for the documents trial isn’t scheduled shortly after the hush money trial concludes.
Same. Both of these companies have done acquisitions over the years, all promising better prices and more jobs when the end result is poorer quality products at the same or higher price and less jobs overall.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg sentenced Easterday to 30 months in prison as well as 500 hours of community service, along with $2,000 in restitution.
Isreal Easterday, 23, was arrested in Florida in December 2022 and was found guilty in October on several counts, including felony charges of civil disorder and assaulting officers.
No more gun ownership for him, nor voting rights (in most states). He’s removed himself from the most important parts of political discourse.
Something else I’m interested in seeing in the future is the sentence of a second conviction for some of these folks in the future when they inevitably decide to try some kind of insurrection again. What does sentencing look like for a two time insurrectionist?
No, but they aren’t looking at history for a pattern that matches current events. They are looking for current events to match to the historical pattern they already chose, which is Hitler’s rise to power.
Sure it does. That future traffic stop where they would have gotten away with a misdemeanor speeding ticket now turns into a felony firearms charge in itself.
I suppose it could be describe as: their footprint for anonymity has drastically shrunk now. Any infraction under the law will be examined in microscopic detail not just by federal officials but even local law enforcement. Any consequence is now magnified 10 fold.
It’s sounds good, but in practice we’ve seen that law enforcement, especially local ones, don’t enforce gun restrictions, if they even know about them.
The recent mass shooter in Maine could have easily been yellow flagged and had his guns removed, but police didn’t. And now the one deemed responsible for ignoring the warnings it’s running for a sheriff leadership position there.
And how many of the insurrectionists were actual current and former local law enforcement officers?
Sure, but 2.5 years is very real time. Some people might be willing to risk doing similar crimes if they think they'll only get a couple of months, but if they think they might get a couple of years that's a very different thing and it might deter many of them
It is definitely not inconceivable. It is exceptionally conceivable. It is predictable as you said. If you outlaw proper maternal care, proper maternal care will not be given.
As a friend of mine always says, the cruelty is the point.
“We completely believe in the two-state solution and a state for the Palestinian people. We believe the best and the most sustainable way to do that is through direct negotiations between the parties,” the White House national security spokesperson, John Kirby, told reporters on board Air Force One on Thursday.
I like how the US is holding this up so they can desperately try to convince Bibi of something he’s already refused to accept, after having spent 6 MONTHS failing to get them to stop killing children.
We should invade Israel, set up a demilitarized zone between Gaza like North Korea.
Not only would it help Palestinian civilians, it’s pretty much an auto election W for Biden. Get the left to appreciate actively stopping genocide and the right would have to begrudgingly accept Biden is big and powerful when Trump didn’t have the balls.
This is such a sensible idea we can almost guarantee that it will not happen. Not even invade, just send a “security force” to prevent violence in both directions. Then he could even frame it as “protecting Israel” as well as protecting Gaza.
Of course the problem is that Israel has already fucked up Gaza beyond recognition and rebuilding will take time and money
No, the GOP knows that in order to sustain their own laziness, they need a hard-working, desperate class of poor people, and anything that elevates them might mean that they might need to contribute closer to their fair share.
“There are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might therefore be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is only rendered possible by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.”
Yeah, no good lazy immigrants that just want to steal our jobs and also never do any work and just steal our welfare money somehow and also… just, like, steal? I think? They’re bad.
People are joining federated Reddit alternatives because of the sorry state Reddit is in, so most users here are ex-Redditors (myself included, but I quit Reddit a long time before Lemmy launched). Anyone familiar with Reddit knows that the userbase is politically diverse, and that there are plenty of unhinged shitheads.
Lemmy’s core developers are openly Communist, and run lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml. I may not be on the same page politically with them but I’m not dropping my support for the platform over it. If anything, I like the idea of Communism as a philosophy for running an Internet community moreso than I would for governing a nation. Though there are plenty of people who consider Communist ideas of any kind to be a dealbreaker and join Kbin and Mbin instances as a result.
Anti-communists do tend to trend towards reactionary politics, so you end up seeing that kind of thing a lot more from non-Lemmy instances. Similarly to how conservative-leaning users choose Pleroma et al over Mastodon, since antifascism is a core philosophy of Mastodon’s mission (being a German nonprofit and all).
Though the far-left users on Lemmy do also tend to adopt a reactionary anti-Biden stance, but definitely not for the same reasons.
I’d also like to thank @jeffw for posting news from a really well rounded combination of sources. I’d also like to plug !ImproveTheNews, the articles are a synthesis of other articles from various biased sources, with the slant of each source described and a brief summation of the narrative they are pushing. It’s a really interesting and informative way to do non-biased news imo.
I’m confused, didn’t OJ love his wife until her tragic murder by parties unknown? He swore to dedicate the rest of his life finding her killer. Surely he wants to share his estate with her family.
Unless of course he’s a cold-blooded murderer and killed her…
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.