When he testified, Colie recalled how Cook and his friend approached him from behind and put the phone about 6 inches away from his face. He described feeling confused by the phrase Cook was playing. Colie told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.”
What was the phrase? That’s kinda important. “Have a nice day” and “I’m going to skullfuck you” are not equally threatening.
It was Google translate reading out “Hey dipshit, stop thinking about my twinkle" in English then again in Spanish. It’s mostly harmless and just confusing, but Cook following after Colie’s definitely what forced the situation to escalate, as he held the phone uncomfortably close to Colie’s ear.
People keep saying that’s phrase is harmless. To me that sounds like the type of confused and stupid thing Maga people would yell while committing a hate crime. That combined with two people not taking no for an answer while advancing on you? It sounds like a threat.
When I was living in Virginia I was in a pretty rural area so my view of Virginia might be colored. I found it to be a really red state ( at leadt the part I wan in, not sure about the part this took place in) and yelling at someone there for thinking about your twinkle sounds like a prelude to bigoted violence to me.
I agree. this is exactly the kind of behavior I got before getting the shit beaten out of me in school in the 80s/90s for not covering up my sexuality well enough (bi), nearly lost a thumb in one incident, nearly lost consciousness from being choked in another.
Took me 20 years to work out my trauma and internalized homophobia — and still can’t watch TV shows that feature high school bullying.
This would trigger me (no pun intended) pretty hard.
100% this whole thing screams hate crime, and on top of that delivery drivers are statistically one of the more dangerous jobs out there (delivery drivers are much more likely to be shot than cops).
Cook testified in court Wednesday, saying he was playing a Google Translate prank on Colie where he would play "goofy woods." Colie's defense lawyer later said Cook was playing the phrase "hey dipsh**, stop thinking about my sparkle."
Colie said despite backing away, yelling “stop” several times, threatening to call police and pushing the phone back, Cook refused to answer him and kept moving forward.
“In my mind, I registered that he was a threat to me, and he was going to harm me,” Colie told the jury. “I saw his left hand down in his left pocket. I didn’t know if he was concealing a weapon. For the sake of my safety, I took out the gun from my right pocket and I shot him in the stomach. At that time, I was fearful that my life was in danger.”
Thanks for the links. If what he says is true, it seems like Colie handled himself responsibly, and didn’t use the situation as an excuse for excessive force. There are cops who could learn from his example.
The Big Cat Public Safety Act was enacted last December and bans the importation, sale and possession of prohibited wildlife species, such as tigers, jaguars and leopards. Jaguars are also listed as an endangered and are therefore protected under the 50-year-old Endangered Species Act.
Exactly. I never understood how everyone got on board with hating her so quickly and easily. She runs the wildlife rescue and had been fighting for a law like this for years. But everyone just believed the clown car of tiger king people when they would talk shit about her. Of course they hated her. She was trying to stop them from abusing animals for profit.
Yup. IDK if she’s a “good person”, but I do know she spearheaded the legislation that basically put herself out of business. I’ve been to her rescue several times and it’s legitimately about what’s best for the cats there.
I think the key here is the fact there were 2 people who approached Colie. That substantially shifts the power balance. Its one thing when its 1 on 1 alone and the other person isn’t directly harming you yet, but acting threatening.
When you add a second person who is also engaging in your personal space though, the balance shifts and I think thats what completely justifies a preventative self defence, because when it comes to 2 on 1 you’re margin of safety thins dramatically.
To be specific:
If a single person is threatening you, then abruptly shifts to try and attack you, you have a fairly decent window of safety. You can turn and flee, you can push them away, etc etc. You’re ability to defend yourself after attacked is still quite reasonable.
If two people are threatening though, those options shrink down a lot. The second person can block off your escape, they can both grab you, etc. Once any of that happens you’re ability to defend yourself after attacked is very very unlikely.
So when its 2 on 1, you are a lot more justified to just shoot the person before they actually attack you, because you likely won’t get the chance to shoot them anyways after they attack.
In other words, if Cook hadn’t brought a friend along I think the outcome would have been very very different.
Which radically shifted the balance in his favor when in court. Virginia is a "duty to retreat" state and having the other guy behind him meant he was surrounded.
You’re both wrong about how the duties arise and come up in court as elements of the charge.
The duty on someone privileged to self defend is to use reasonable force, no more than is warranted by the seriousness of the threat and its imminence. Unless the state has a stand your ground statute, evidence showing the defendant could have backed away or otherwise retreated gets admitted and the jury gets instructed that a threat is not considered imminent the facts prove the defendant could have retreated. It’s an implied duty.
In this case, the threat was obviously imminent. The question is whether it was sufficient to justify self defense by lethal force. I think not.
A risk of mere bodily harm is insufficient to warrant countervailing deadly force. There are no facts the defendant can point to, in my opinion, to show his life was in danger.
He testifies that he subjectively felt his life was in danger. I don’t think it was objectively reasonable. I think the facts give rise only to an inference that he was in for a beating.
I think also a big part of why Colie was found not-guilty is that he disengaged, said 3 times “stop” including attempting to swipe away Cook, and only then did he take violent action to end the perceived threat. He fired a single round low into Cook, and then immediately retreated from the scene.
The argument at hand isn’t whether or not he was acting in self defence, but whether he used proportional force to justify it as such, and the jury found that it was proportional, likely due to the factors you described.
I think you are more on the clinical bullshit side.
First of all murder requires intend, planning, using the victims helplessness or particular cruelity.
Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn’t have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.
Now whether it was appropriate as self defense, or whether people should be rolling around with guns in public in general can be up for debate. But clearly getting robbed and murdered is much more common in the US than in most developed countries, so the driver had more reason to fear for his life if two dudes just jump him. If he had probable reason to fear for his life then using the firearm seems to be an appropriate tool of self defense. And i say that as someone who is against people just casually running around with guns like it is normal in many US states.
Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn’t have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.
If he didn’t want to kill him, he wouldn’t have pulled out a gun and fucking shot him.
It is impossible to live life without feeling fear, if you carry a gun, you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off like a fucking nutjob.
Again you claim that he wanted to kill him, when his actions proved otherwise. That he accepted the death of the guy as a possibility of his actions is not the same as directly wanting to kill him. But thena gain he made it reasonably believable that he feard for his life in that moment, so calculating every possible outcome was not on his brains agenda.
Do you think that such legal prose runs through the minds of people in the heat of the moment? You really expect people to look at things in such a clinical manner when they’re under immediate perceived threat? You think too much of humans and too little of people.
Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact that the victim was assaulted is all that matters, as it legally justifies the self-defense. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with it.
You don’t even understand what’s being discussed. If that’s not a problem for you that’s fine but it’s a problem for everyone else when you waste their time with irrelevant points.
On a post about a man defending himself with legally justified force, I’m pretty sure that I’m not the one with a problem for pointing that out. And I know that it’s not my problem that you don’t like that fact.
At least I know better than to speak for everyone else.
So how should he have responded to 2 dudes shoving a phone in his face and harassing him repeatedly even after backing away from them and being told to stop several times ?
Have you ever been assaulted by someone? It doesn’t take any time at all for the situation to go from what they were doing to violence. At which point he would have been screwed. He gave them ample opportunity to fuck off. 20 seconds of someone getting in your face and being aggressive feels a hell of a lot longer than 20 seconds sitting on your ass arguing with people on the internet.
Yes, yes it can. In this situation, we have one normal guy just trying to live his life in peace. We have one nutjob harassing him for the lulz and giggles from like minded nutjobs. Finally, there’s a second nutjob defending his behavior right here on this very forum.
You’re being disingenuous. It’s not a normal situation, therefore there is no normal response.
The question you ought to be asking is what makes it normal to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?
to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?
They asked you a very clear question, what about this makes it normal or ok to shoot someone?
Being confused and paranoid is not justifiable reason to shoot someone.
Honestly, you guys are acting like a fucking old person with a gun is allowed to shoot every trans person they see because it’s confusing and scary and they’re not sure how to respond.
There you go again, building straw men. There’s a significant difference between being assaulted by two large men versus having a boy standing behind a door on a porch.
If you can’t see that, you need professional help. If you’re trying to troll, you’re doing a shitty job of it.
The victim clearly communicated his desire for the interaction to end. Several times.
The victim attempted to flee the situation. Several times.
The victim attempted physical resistance.
After all this, he still had two physically imposing people forcing confrontation on him. He clearly did not just the bare minimum but in fact pretty much did everything that anyone ever asks a self-defense shooting defender to do before resorting to a gun.
Even in this thread, all these people who can’t stand the thought of this poor guy being not guilty can’t really come up with any further reasonable thing they’d have expected this guy to do. He was out of options to peacefully end the situation.
The other big thing that so many armchair quarterbacks here don’t seem to account for is just how fast and how unpredictable dangerous encounters happen. The fact that there were two attackers, and that they were both bigger than the victim and both within 10 feet of him meant that if they decided at any moment to escalate their assault to violence, by the time the victim realized that’s what was about to happen (if he even did realize it before it began) it was already too late. They’d be able to close the distance and physically restrain him before he’d have time to draw, aim, and fire.
Sure, we all know now that this idiot was just an idiot and not a violent threat, but the victim didn’t have that benefit of hindsight, and in the situation, he knew he was being targeted and that if he waited for violence to happen to him, it’d be too late. Too many here want to pick it all apart and think it over for a few hours, then say what the victim should have done with his mere seconds to figure it out.
If anything, he showed incredible restraint. He repeatedly attempted to deescalate, to no avail, and even when making the decision to use his gun in self defense, he immediately stopped once the immediate threat was addressed, and then shifted back to a less lethal form of deescalation: retreat.
Being realistic, if the moron attacker is already well enough to attend the trial, that’s even pretty low damage. He’s lucky for that shot placement (intentional or not).
Imagine the comments here if, instead of being a gun carrier, the guy was some kind of martial arts dude and instead of shooting him, he punched him in the face or something and when he went down, he hit his head and died. Nobody would be demonizing the guy then, even though he fucking killed a guy. That people are doing it now shows that they’re just so anti-gun that details and logic don’t matter.
Imagine the comments here if, instead of being a gun carrier, the guy was some kind of martial arts dude and instead of shooting him, he punched him in the face or something and when he went down, he hit his head and died. Nobody would be demonizing the guy then, even though he fucking killed a guy. That people are doing it now shows that they’re just so anti-gun that details and logic don’t matter.
Because 9/10 times you punch a guy they don’t die, 9/10 times you shoot a guy in the chest they do.
Jesus christ, try thinking with your brain before you unload a wall of bullshit defending dumb as fuck gun culture. The entire rest of the world lives their lives without being strapped all day and immediately resorting to deadly force like paranoid wack jobs.
It is not normal to behave aggressively towards someone, get within range to hit them, and then repeatedly close in when the other person tries to backs away. It is not normal for cis people and it is not normal for trans people.
When someone does those things, it generally signals they intend to start a fight.
I’m curious to know if more people agree with your view that shooting someone doesn’t seem like a proportional response based on what we know, ot if the YouTubers deserves it.
Emotional it’s a totally proportional response according to what the pranksters did to him. Humiliating people can easily provoke them to act aggressively. Especially people of low status who can’t afford a lawsuit. Every police officer knows that.
But of course a human society should have laws to prevent its members from this kind of situations.
It should be illegal to provoke, assault, harass, disrespect , threaten, or humiliate anybody in the way those pranksters did.
And it should be illegal for any random guy to carry a loaded and unlocked gun around in his pocket.
But because neither is illegal in the United States, the number of gun victims there is more similar to that in war zones.
And obviously none of the Americans in this thread give a shit about the social problematics of the case and rather fight irreconcilably over defending or blaming the shooter.
This is definitionally an ad hominem argument; i.e. you’re attacking people in place of actually attacking the argument.
But to refute your attacks on people’s character, I’m just going to say, you’re from lemmy.ca, so I imagine you’re Canadian. sndmn is also lemmy.ca, so I imagine they’re a Canadian. If you check @ram, the account I’ve been using until I signed up to my current instance, as well as the content I interact with, you’ll see that I’m a Canadian.
As for the idea that maybe I’m some pro-gun PoS, I’m radically anti-gun. I think our gun laws in Canada are much too lax. The fact that pigs walk around with guns means that criminals are more likely to carry guns as well.
Not if I’m to emapthise with the person in the video, instead of making emotional judgements reliant solely on reading articles and a 3rd person video perspective, I can try to understand that people living in the US are painfully aware that those around them are constantly surrounded by guns. I can also try and understand that if you have an easy “fuck off” button that carries big consequences with it, you’ll be quicker to jump to it the moment things get dicey.
I do think he was too quick to pull out the gun, but seeing as he’s a human, I also understand people make hasty decisions that are suboptimal. So if I look at things outside a clinical perspective and consider how I’d react in such a situation, with at least two much larger men playing something weird in my ear, chasing me, and continuing to play it as I try to disengage - them refusing to allow me to disengage, I can very well see why someone who would go for the big fuck-off button.
Maybe I describe it in a clinical way - that’s just what it’s like to be neurodivergent for some people. But the reality is that my perspective is defined by my empathy for the person, despite not being someone who’s had to suffer living in a gun-happy country, and despite being someone who, based on life experience, would likely die before pulling that big fuck off button on someone.
Try empathising with someone for a bit instead of jumping to “guns are the problem.” The only problem with guns is that they were involved at all. Any situation with a gun is more deadly than without, but the reality of the dystopia that is the USA is that situations have guns.
Dude they will never get it because they do not equate these actions with fear and cowardice. They see the man with the gun as the tough guy, not the paranoid weirdo that he is.
Even the sane Americans that back gun control, etc. share this bias. They have grown up round this shit, it’s ingrained.
For context, I’m a liberal gun owner who doesn’t carry all the time.
At first, I felt the shooter was on very thin ice. Your comment completely shifted my view on the situation. I might well have taken the shot myself, given the 2 on 1, and one coming from behind.
And remember kids! This is why we wait for a court of law to bring out the evidence before forming a solid opinion!
Thanks you so much for changing my mind, and doing so in a sane and logical manner.
Follow up question about power difference. What if the defender is say really small or weak. Say a 5 foot 60 year old woman and 1 6canf half feet tall young man. Would she have a fastee right to self defense?
In December 2020, Roberts posted an unusual photo on social media. He wore a tuxedo as he posed with San Francisco Mayor London Breed, and he said they had dined together at the exclusive French Laundry restaurant in the Napa Valley.
Jeff Cretan, a spokesperson for Breed, said such a dinner never happened and that the photo was from a San Francisco Symphony event. Roberts, Cretan said, had approached the mayor at a few different events.
MAGA are scum. I detest our prison system, but I hope they throw away the key.
My theory that a rising number of men end up being Incels is that it’s getting harder and harder for young men to make any experience with women at all.
Online and offline dating became toxic af which leads to frustration. This frustration opens the door for people like Andrew Tate.
The article from OP says the most misogynistic men are ironically the ones which get laid the most. I’d put Andrew Tate into this category.
Why do you suppose dating is worse now? I will disagree any time and place with people who say online dating is awful. The alternative – randomly hitting on people and hoping a million unknowable factors all line up – is far worse.
You are joking right? Online dating is even worse than offline dating.
First of all there are far more men using online dating than women.
Second men like and Text way to many women which leads women’s inboxes to be overfilled.
Most of the few available women only want the top 15% of the men.
Then the dead profiles aka. only their Instagram username tagged in bio.
And there are also those who chat with you for a few days and then try to sell their adult content to you or want you to invest in crypto XY.
I’ve met my gf on a dating platform 5 years ago and the online dating situation was bad then already. I occasionally saw the posts in r/tinder and oh boy has that thing become a shitshow since then.
Idk I’m a married dude nearing 40 who is on dating sites a fair amount (it’s cool so is my wife), and I’m a pretty average guy all-around, and it doesn’t seem like this hellscape you paint it as. I have everything possible stacked against me for online dating, and I consistently get what I’m looking for.
Yeah there are lots of crazies, but that’s because crazy people exist, and you’d run into them in more traditional dating too. Check out any romcom from the 90s and there’ll likely be a montage of crazies.
Feeld has been really good for me compared to other apps. Im a relatively vanilla fellow but the culture around communication is stronger there and the results have been good. And Ive only been using it for single dating so far.
Hope it rolls out for you soon because it has been a refreshing experience
I am glad that online dating works out for you my friend. Don’t wanna offend you but we are talking about young people. you turning 40 means you are middle aged. The customers of Tate and similar assholes are mostly under 30 years.
So you are a success story yourself for online dating, but because you see the most insane experiences from it getting posted on social media, it’s obviously now irredeemable…? Do you not have any self awareness?
it’s not a “success story”. I’ve experienced ALOT of bad stuff before my gf messaged me. I’ve been on multiple dating platforms and all of them were toxic af. I was deleting my accounts while my gf texted me.
Having bad experiences doesn’t erase the fact that you got a long term girlfriend from using online dating. That is still what happened. Unless you want to break up with your girlfriend right now, denying it’s a success story is denying reality.
Like are you people really old or what? Everyone who can’t stfu about how bad online dating is always confuses me.
I guess i have to go a little more into detail to make you understand. I’ve been using online dating from age 16-20 and made only bad expirences. That’s why I was deleting all of my accounts. my girlfriend was the first woman who messaged me first and I immediately told her that I am deleting my account so we have to stay connected via WhatsApp. is it a success that I found a long term girlfriend? Yes Does it erase the shitload of bad stuff I experienced in the 4 years before her message? no.
It’s a fact that online dating is toxic. Both Bumble and Tinder released statistics which show that women want the top 15% of men. Most men end up with single digit likes, if they even get any. Women’s inboxes on the other hand explode from unsolicited wiener pics or similar unwanted messages.
It isn’t a “fact”. The only fact you seem intent on ignoring is that people suck in general which isn’t a reflection on how tOxIC apps are. You found someone who doesn’t suck but we obviously can’t credit to the existence of an app for that, but we sure can blame all the people sucking on it right? Such a silly hill to die on.
Also I don’t think any dating site has allowed sending pictures for a while, so no dick pics wouldn’t really be an issue.
I’m average looking but still managed to get dozens of dates. Rejection sucks and the apps give you a lot of that but they also, again, demonstrably, give us long term relationships. It’s a FACT. An actual FACT. Subjective experiences are not facts, however us both having girlfriends right now is. Now tell me again how that doesn’t count for literally anything because women usually don’t message us back.
Bro seriously if someone is subjective then it’s you. Someone offered you to provide you with articles regarding online dating and you refused because of your “first hand experience” Everything I said is proofed. We found a long term relationship, but most men end up frustrated.
It’s been my experience that meeting people in person works and online dating just doesn’t. I’m not saying all the female profiles on dating sites are fakes generated by the site to tempt men into subscribing, but I definitely am saying that if they were, my experience wouldn’t have been different.
Just read the articles on Tinder, it’s a sad affair for the not attractive man
When all men you had access to where the village boys you won’t be that picky. Once the whole world can sext you, why settle for the ok dude that looks nice in a suit if you squint enough?
It goes both ways for “not attractive” women as well.
This is purely anecdotal, but all of the “not attractive” men I have known who complain there’s no women online for them are only talking about women who are more attractive than them. The ones who don’t complain have realistic standards and can find matches. It also tends to help they don’t have s shit attitude.
But it’s still a numbers game. More attractive people get more matches, but that doesn’t mean those are quality matches. I guess if all you’re looking for is casual sex it makes a difference.
It goes both ways for “not attractive” women as well
It does not, unless you mean “grotesquely not attractive”? Just read the articles, women are ruthless when rating men, so even “average” men can’t get “average”, or less-than, women (online dating)
most online dating apps want you to engage in casual sex and not find success because then you’ll keep coming back. TInder, Bumble, etc. are first and foremost hookup apps and it’s important to remember that.
the entire concept of an incel did not exist until tinder came about. Read the article and paper. Hookup apps promote the type of promiscuous/chad behavior that incels want and fail to achieve … thus causing their frustration
On the one hand, I strongly agree with you. But when I think about it, she was teaching high school kids who would 100% get access to her videos. That just doesn’t seem like a healthy situation for anyone involved. She sounds in the article like she accepts that she needs to do one or the other.
$42,000/year for a full time teacher is the real story here. That’s outrageous.
There are sites that scrape and republish OF and the like. Less likely if they aren’t doing public streams, but if someone puts up a bounty, it will likely show up.
But mostly this is just the ongoing “porn is the greatest threat to society” bullshit that tate-esque incels love spewing these days.
I agree. She can’t continue teaching high school or probably even middle school boys once this comes out. She’d probably be fine teaching elementary age kids. There’d be a lot more dads attending parent-teacher conferences so it might even be a positive thing.
Why not? We need to stop treating sex workers like they are subhuman. The fact that parents aren’t monitoring their childrens internet behavior isn’t a reason to limit another person’s career prospects if they chose to monetize their bodies past or present.
As long as the teacher in question isn’t advertising her pornographic career or material to her students then why can’t she continue to teach and earn money on the side as long as she’s not bringing it into the classroom?
On the surface I agree but these are teenagers. What do you think the chances are of one of them subbing to her account and requesting her to make custom videos for them 😂 I would say pretty damn high. Hell it’s still probably going to happen but at least the kids won’t be sitting in class while watching videos of their teacher getting fucked.
It is unclear if OnlyFans actually accepts debit cards. Some verbiage says yes but people don’t realize they have a credit card instead of a debit. Others say no but there is no difference between a cc/dc. I assume there is a regional discrepancy there since I know europe loves debit cards. I also suspect it has more to do with the backend (? visa, mastercard, the other ones) than anything else since there is a constant war against sex workers in that regard.
At least in the US, the vast majority (I want to say “all” but) bank accounts and debit/credit cards require a parent to co-sign if you aren’t 18. I have no idea how that manfiests as providing credit card info to a website but it does mean the parents have access to the statement and will see the porn charges.
Interesting. It’s been quite a while since I was that age, so I don’t really remember needing a parental co-signer. One more thing, supposedly prepaid visa cards work so there’s always that.
Lol as a teenager who had an attractive teacher for a class, I don’t know if you understand what they’re saying.
Teenagers are kids. Kids are, by their very nature, stupid. If they know said teacher is actively publishing content to an OF, they are absolutely going to find said content. It’s just a whole mess for all parties involved.
Adults should absolutely be able to live their lives, but accept that kids are kids and kids do stupid shit.
In High School, Ms Sell the british lit teacher was the “hot teacher”. She talked about being a cheerleader in college and you can bet there were some of us who rubbed more than a few out imagining her in a cheerleader costume. And there was the really creepy and pathetic kid who cut up his yearbook and taped her face to a printout of a porn star he found online and pretended it was real… which was actually a good “holy shit some people are creepy fucks” realization in high school. It is a REAL learning moment to realize that, as awkward and pathetic as you are for jacking it with hand lotion in the bathroom while imagining your english teacher, you could be a LOT creepier.
So what? End of the day, she was the english teacher and (unlike one of the social studies teachers…) was not going to fuck students. End of story. Horny kids gonna be horny. But learning to interact with people is part of growing up.
Also, if the kid who taped her face to a printout was creepy, imagine the horror that is the deepfake present.
As for getting access to the content: If she were doing live chaturbate shows I would have more concerns. But this was a private OF account and it sounds like people never realized she was doing it until she did a collab with someone with a wider audience. And checking a few of the porn sites: The only uploads are specifically under her legal name with none under her OF name alone and are likely a result of this scandal. I would still have worn a mask if I were her and her husband but… whatever.
Also, getting back to Ms Sell: She had a kid junior year. I will always remember Ting frantically running up to a few of us at lunch and saying “Ms Sell is pregnant! That means she had sex!!!” and, before we could say “no shit?”, Phil said “Why?” and we still mock him for that when we get together over a decade later.
So… are teachers also required to not get pregnant for fear of overstimulating the children?
The problem is that he’s rich enough to have bought an entire social network to express himself and has the ability to influence a lot of very important situations.
The chancellor’s party is center-left in the typical European social democrat way, he himself is more of a moderate. But the current coalition polls at around 40%, so calling Germany very left-leaning is a very optimistic statement.
According to current polls, more than 20% are willing to vote for an openly xenophobic, extreme right party of nazi-sympathizers, science deniers and reactionaries. They want to deny basic rights of queers and people with disabilities and call for ceasing to support Ukraine and dropping Russian sanctions. The currently strongest polling party, the center-right CDU, had for a long time been fundamentally opposed to working with the far right, but are now getting more cosy with them, seemingly testing the waters on local and state levels.
So yeah, unless that somehow sounds like a good direction for Germany to move in, “left-leaning” would unfortunately be an optimistic misjudgement of the current state of affairs.
2/3rd of those 20% are protest votes, and a full 10% want the party banned. Things are a wee bit more complicated than a single number which is basically asking whether Ossis are severely pissed.
Its making things better in the “are people merely pissed idiots or are they actual Nazis” sense. It also means that Wagenknecht can siphon off a gigantic amount of those votes with her new Nazbol thing.
Protest votes is not “lesser evil” but “the party/parties I like fucked up and I want to scare them straight”. Yes it’s misguided, yes it’s idiotic, but it would be wrong to dismiss those people as Nazis – they can be brought back quite easily. Also those are polls it would remain to be seen how many actually follow through.
no, not currently. I worded that wrong. They’re gonna be the second strongest party according to polls and general vibe of the country rn. The fascists are coming back, and they’re coming back strong. Attacks against jewish and queer people have risen rapidly. Fuck, even i’ve been the victim of a fascist attack.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.