Lemmy Shitpost
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
view the rest of the comments
Also 50, 70, and 100 year sentences for people who were protesting against ICE in Texas
What are the chances that these people will get pardoned, etc, when(if) normality returns?
Also what's the chances that the judge who handed down these long and unfair sentences will get any repercussions for being so obviously corrupt?
Honestly 50/50
You can't really bounce back from the bullshit that has just ensued immediately, it's also kinda apparent to your average leftist that the democratic party is kind spineless as fuck when it comes to the right, so to have judges IN TEXAS MIND YOU bounce back from their previous decisions? Not gonna be too easy
Given that this is as far left as US politicians get, I'd say unlikely.
"We need those slaves to be working in conditions so abysmal, even our own disposables won't work them!"
Deplorables*
...What's wrong with his position, exactly?
"cracking down on fentanyl"
The War on Drugs is well-documented to be a racist pretext for mass incarceration and violation of 4th Amendment rights, etc., (see The New Jim Crow for example), so Sanders is either a useful idiot or complicit.
I mean, yeah, if you're punishing people for consuming the drugs directly, 100%. However, Trump's focus has been more on preventing fentanyl from entering the country.
Unfortunately, he's still an idiot since the US's own pharmaceutical companies are the primary culprit and he's just using Mexico as a scapegoat, so yeah, you're not wrong lol.
Because people are not ‘illegal’ for crossing an imaginary line on a map.
Where did he call anyone 'illegal'?
Can you not read?
Literally no where in the quote or article linked was anyone called "illegal." He referred to people as undocumented, if that's what you mean? Can you not read?
Does it hurt to be that stupid?
"Illegal immigration" is the act of migrating into a country in violation of that nation's immigration laws. It does not describe people, but an act.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" and no where in the article text, Bernie's words or otherwise, was there purported here to be so. Again, please point to me where anyone (read: a person) was called "illegal."
In summary: you should not accuse others of being unable to read when you clearly cannot do so yourself.
Brother, the people doing the illegal immigration are illegal immigrants. Do you not understand that, lol?
You've either lost the plot or are a troll. Have a nice day.
Yeah I'd run away too. Bye bye!
Can I just ask you a question and maybe get an actual answer? Like, why are you here? We could have had an actual conversation, but you're just trying to get a rise out of me for literally no reason. What's the point?
I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, he literally did use the word illegal, in relation to illegal immigration, which entails illegal immigrants. I'm sorry for being a bit of a dick about it, I'm generally very polite, and I find the anonyminity of the internet makes me quick to anger.
That's my bad, I'm sorry.
No worries. Let's just be chill lol.
I will say, I think you joined an argument to argue something no one was talking about.
athatet@lemmy.zip said
Because people are not ‘illegal’ for crossing an imaginary line on a map.to which I responded,Where did he call anyone ‘illegal’?No one is arguing about using the word illegal, but specifically labelling people as illegal. A person cannot be in and of themselves illegal, but they can illegally migrate. That's the discussion. athatet seems to have mentally lumped me in with a group of ideologies of which I do not belong. I actually agree with athatet here and I was trying to show that we're on the same page on this.
You barged in here on a completely different tangent for no reason swinging in full force derailing that. Maybe you yourself call undocumented immigrants "illegal immigrants," but that's a whole different discussion.
Anyway, hopefully that helps clarify my position and doesn't come off confrontational at all. Thank you for your good faith response, I actually really appreciate it.
Which makes them what? An illegal immigrant, lol.
I'm just trying to clarify that Bernie isn't as left as he seems to the American audience. He's still a democrat, he still is American. I am trying to be good faith here, I admit there is some extrapolation that has to take place here, however, it isn't a stretch.
I did barge in, I've kind of made that my thing here, lol. The name is supposed to be ironic. I use this account to let off steam, like I said, I'm very polite in person!
I hope you have a good weekend, dude!
Lol, I like you. Likewise, cheers mate :)
Cheers!
You removed, or stupid?
I really love what you've contributed to the conversation, "Nonconfrontational".
"You removed, or stupid?" and "Can you not read?" are very informative, thank you for posting.
Guess I shouldn't be too surprised by someone from lemmy.ml, though.
Answer the question, lol.
Unlikely. The US executes people when there's so much new evidence after sentencing pointing toward them not being guilty that the original prosecutors plead for them to not execute. The Dem establishment's complaints against ICE are mostly just procedural; they just argue for things like more transparency for these detention centers, not their abolishment.
The last time that a Democratic president was in office for a federal execution was Lyndon Johnson.
Snarling wolves and smiling foxes.
I hope they stand a good chance for an appeal based on the jury selection fuckery
I don't think a President can pardon a state crime, so you need a blue Texas Governor for starters.
A full pardon? Maybe for some of them, especially the zine guy, but the guy who actually shot the cop, unlikely. No democrat would want the optics of that.
Even the cop shooter should be fully pardoned.
Cop shot first. The guy who shot him did so in community defense.
In fact that cop may have given the shooter's attorneys an argument to revisit Harlow v Fitzgerald, and hand the SCOTUS the full text of §1983. They were given, unknowingly, an illegally edited text in 1982 when Harlow v Fitzgerald established Qualified Immunity, which is illegal according to the full statute as recorded in the 1871 Congressional Record.
Gotta commute that absurd sentence tho
the US is now soviet russia. the whole western world is sad :/
The US has more prisoners than any country to ever exist. You've been worse than the soviet union for basically all of your history in those regards.
Edit: Plus it's baked into your constitution that those prisoners are perfect for slavery. You never stopped using slave labor in the entire 250 year history of America.
At least Soviet Russia wasn't run by a handful of billionaires
it is now.
Yep
Wow this completely flew under my radar wtaf
How is this surprising to you, grandma? America does American thing American-ly.
I mean to give full context, that protest did end with a cop getting shot.
But the sentences are still wildly excessive including 30 years to someone for carrying a box of magazines.
How many years were did shooters of Pretti and Goode receive?
First off, the shooter claims that the cop was about to murder an unarmed protestor.
But more importantly, it was just one person who shot. Collective punishment is literally against the Geneva Convention.
Imagine getting a 50 year prison sentence because you were peacefully protesting at a place where someone else shot a cop. By the same logic, every cop that was present when Alex Pretti was executed should have 50+ year prison sentences.
I know reading comprehension is not great on this site, but I'm in no way shape or form making an argument the protestors were in the wrong. Literally just providing context.
It's cool that you were able to get that snarky remark in, but I was not necessarily disagreeing or arguing with you.
However, reading your comment again, it still comes across as cop apologetics. It's the "the protest did end with a cop being shot". It's a justification. Maybe you didn't intend that, but that's the implication.
Did I comprehend ok?
It's not in any way a justification. In fact the language is deliberately neutral as not to imply the protestors did anything wrong (which they didn't) a protest happened and a cop was shot. Just stating objective fact, because that is a crucial detail the the other commentary left out, which makes their comment sound like they arrested and sentenced these people purely for protesting. (Which they kind of did, and the cop being shot was just their justification, but that's besides the point)