top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 142 points 1 year ago (13 children)

As a resident of Washington state, I really wish these articles would include D.C. when they refer to the country's capital. This time, they are referring to D.C.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah I went bug eyed there for a sec as a fellow resident

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "for a sec"

    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    • Martin Niemöller, Holocaust survivor

    Are you only willing to act once they are at your doorstep?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 88 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Fuck the mods!

    Violence will be the only correct response if this is done.

    Actively overturning an election bc the other party won, is a call to remove those in charge by any means.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Fuck the mods

    First off, to be clear, I don't agree with this statement, I think it's the wrong stance.

    But after that, I think this is a really an interesting point. [In general I understand a policy of not inciting violence] but if for instance, (purely hypothetically) the country were to fall into civil war (a crazy suggestion I know), wouldn't this policy instantly seem inappropriate?

    I mean, encouraging people to join the war effort would be a matter of course, to quash that sentiment and silence those voices seems unethical.

    As we slip closer to that possible outcome, surely the time for seriously talking about violence would come before the first shot is fired, right? So where do you draw that line? At what point is a statement which incites violence "violating site rules" and at what point is it "legitimate discussion of impending hostilities".

    And I for one, am very interested in how mods feel about this question.

    edit for clarity in brackets

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    He means fuck the mods because they ban and delete comments that even hint at violence or Revolution, which only helps the oppressor. We are never going to get a better deal if every time we talk about getting mad, we get shut up and shut down. It was a huge issue on Reddit and is becoming one here with the mods who just ban everyone who gets mad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Yup. This honestly is my biggest gripe about moderation, because it is more often than not about regulating realtalk, in favor of a negative peace.

    I don't want civil war, because I have to risk my body and bloody my hands. Unfortunately, that choice isn't wholly mine to make, because the Trump Regime insists on destroying people. We need to be able to speak freely and begin cooperating together, so that fewer people die in service of a free democracy. It is for the sake of making things less awful, that we must be able to talk about what must be done.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    wouldn't this policy instantly seem inappropriate?

    Out of context, yes. However, lemmy.world has been banning people for jokes or PERCEIVED call for violence.

    It feels more like a "I'm having a bad day and i'm taking it out on you." On top of that, the incresing amount of fake news sites or uncreditable news outlets is alarming. If the goal was to be reddit 2.0 , Mission accomplish.

    At what point is a statement which incites violence "violating site rules" and at what point is it "legitimate discussion of impending hostilities".

    I feel this should be the point if his threat is carried out. Everything up to this point could be argued in a manner that it is still, no matter how crazy it sounds, in hia scope of power. Removing an elected political adversary due to their political party would mean starting over with a constitution.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 73 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What a coincidence, I suggest Trump goes and fucks himself with the green side of a pineapple

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago

    All just because Cuomo lost to a progressive candidate. Americans, please be fully aware what lengths Trump is willing to take for total control

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    This is dementia ramblings.

    They could have asked him about cheese and I bet he would've talked about doing a tremendous job at making cheese grate again.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    This is dementia ramblings.

    Whether it is or not, are you willing to risk spending the rest of your life in an authoritarian state?

    Trump is a fucking idiot. The people behind him are not. We're already way further down this path than we should be. Every dipshit thing he says needs to be taken extremely seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 42 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    For anyone still unsure, it is time to purchase weapons and start training. I don't care what episode of Real Housewives of Whatever is on this week. It's time to arm up and accept the reality that you may actually need to take up arms against your government if things continue on the track we're on. You don't want to be caught behind the curve on something like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You Americans always skip to shootouts for some reason. You went from "I don't have stamps at home so I am skipping voting this decade" to fantasising about shootouts with police real fucking quick, skipping millions way more useful and way more non-community-destructing ways to resist, as if resistance isn't the point, but dying "glorious" death is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Sure. That 1911 will sure help against that V-22 dumping Marines on your front lawn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Must, absolutely must, arm yourselves. Join local militias, self-defense forces, neighborhood Patrol forces, or whatever you call them in your area. Got to prepare.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Yup.

    If you even dabble in history you know that the best time to purchase firearms and start training was yesterday. The second best time is today.

    This is not alarmist shit. We have crossed some serious thresholds already. Fascism is absolutely here. If enough American citizens make it clear we're ready to use our 2nd amendment right as originally intended, then we can potentially make them fear enough for their safety to limit their fascist actions before things get really dark.

    Because if we don't, then this continues spiraling and a lot of people are going to die and it's going to take a lot longer for things to get back to normal.

    Again, this is not doomsaying. This is real shit. Pick up a history book. We're already well down the path. The Germans didn't think it was getting too serious until it was too late.

    Arm yourselves. Help your friends and family arm themselves. Train with them. Put pressure on your state-level politicians to create a state militia.

    It can, and will, happen here if we don't push back.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    yeah... all the militias in my area are magat infested circlejerks filled with the dough boys or neo-nazis that religiously larp their squeal team six fantasies.

    the only benefit would be the hotwife couples that you could meet but even then the various amounts of VD you would be exposing yourself to would make the endeavor worthless. you'd be safer picking up a prostitute. at least then you wouldn't have to listen to hours of brainless fox news propaganda just for fifteen minutes of mediocre sex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Death to the fascists

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    Waiting any minute until I see Chairman Trump as a decoration.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The apoplectic establishment reaction to Mamdani is not about the evil of affordable housing or solving food deserts. It is suggesting arrest of Netanyahu.

    States and cities are under fire from federal Republicans that either must resort to higher taxes on some people, or significantly increase desperation levels that will increase crime, and validate more the needs for fascist takeovers of cities/states that don't fund anti-desperation programs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    reaction to Mamdani is not about the evil of affordable housing or solving food deserts

    It kind of is that too, its a real slippery slope where if people see someone with some fairly mild goals actually improve the lives of the people they have sworn to represent, other people might ask for it in their states. Cant have the people seeing value in a government representing them, how would u be able to balance that while continuing to let the corporations you really represent keep no lube fucking them to death?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Can someone list which laws he would break if he did this?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • Laws don't apply to him.

    both because he is legally allowed to break the law, and even if anyone tries to sue him to stop, the supreme court will end the knee and alow it.

    there's no rule of law in the US.

    asking what law he broke is 100% irrelevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    He's going to attempt to do it unless somebody fucking stops it.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›