• jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      105
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, the justice department has been really lax with this stuff. AFAIK that’s not protected speech, and if you start jailing the first ones it’ll stop. Stirring up hate towards someone to the point they get death threats has become a normalised part of the discourse on the right now.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        1 month ago

        Even a statement of “authorities are working on tracking these people down to charge them” would scare a lot of these people off.

        • andallthat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 month ago
          • they said they are coming to get us, Ilya
          • let’s hope they do, Piotr… I’m so tired of this! What do we have today, by the way? Insults, death threats or stupid memes?
      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        A.G. Garland is a conservative. Trusting a conservative to act in good faith as A.G. was a huge error in judgement by this administration. That error has come very close to costing us our democracy.

        A conservative should absolutely never be granted any position of authority. A conservative does not have a moral compass and can only act to benefit themselves or their in-group.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Definitely agree. Democrats have been afflicted with centrist West Wing brain where they’ll give the reigns of the justice department, FBI, CIA and military to Republicans because they hope that’ll make Republicans respect them more or something? It’s just a constant barrage of own goals. Even the guy that was supposed to investigate Trump was a Republican that had been a member of his golf course.

    • MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Law enforcement pretty much always sides with Trump supporters on this stuff so I wouldn’t hold your breath. If this woman died, most cops would probably laugh.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Law enforcement pretty much always sides with Trump supporters

        There’s over 450 January 6 idiots sitting in jail who used to believe that is true.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Blue maga was made up by maga as an attempt at a pejorative and to downplay their own insanity.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I thought “Blue MAGA” was a fictitious organization used only by authoritarians cosplaying as lefties. MAGAs wouldn’t use it because the implication is that “Red” MAGAs are also brainwashed clowns in a cult (which is true, but they don’t like that fact).

        When MAGAs are pretending that the terrorism their team commits is someone else’s fault I think they blame antifas or the FBI.

    • BossDj
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sounds like terrorism. Maybe Muslim terrorists?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I woke up to a response from someone who asked me why I had to make “everything” about racism.

    This is why.

    • Davin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      Pointing out racism is not you making everything about racism, it’s there being a lot of racist shit.

  • notsure@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    this is not meant ironically, i’m so tired, boss. this shit needs to stop. as human beings can we collectively hate something other than ourselves? like maybe we can start hating methane with the same furvor…/i wish it were snark

  • Maven (famous)@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 month ago

    Like… I hate to say this… But no shit… We all knew this was going to happen as soon as the interview was planned in the first place

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yet those journalists were brave enough to do the right thing and try to get honest answers out of that orange weirdo.

    • bender223@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hey fellas, is it weird to send death threats to a news station for not asking trump softball questions and kissing his butt? 🤔

    • cynthorpe@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 month ago

      Water isn’t wet. Wetness is a property that occurs when a liquid adheres to a solid surface due to cohesive and adhesive forces. Water molecules exhibit hydrogen bonding, creating a network, but they themselves aren’t ‘wet’ until they interact with another material.

      • thefartographer
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Counterpoint: water is wet because it is the wet.

        A powerful example of such a scenario is this quote from the philosopher, Batman:
        “I am vengeance! I am the night! I.am.BATMAN!”

        What this proves is shut up, water is wet. 😡

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Rain is wet, it is not adhered to a solid surface. The middle of the ocean is wet even if there’s no solid surface near by.

        • ABCDE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Isn’t it only wet after it touches you? You can anticipate it’s wet, but the state would exist after contact.

          • Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Aren’t the molecules touching other molecules wet if it involves touch?

            An individual h2o molecule can’t be wet, but if two of them are touching, they are both wet.

            • ABCDE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Wet to the touch, not to each other. It changes the property of something else to make it wet.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                A wall can be wet, it doesn’t require a person to touch the wall before it can be called wet. So the sense of touch is not required for something to be wet.

                It changes the property of something else to make it wet.

                If the wall was dry and I add water to it I have changed this property, if the wall is already wet and I add water to it I have changed nothing. Therefore if I add water to something and do not change its properties then it was already wet in the first place.
                If adding water to water does not change its properties then the water was already wet in the first place.

                • ABCDE@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  As I said, it changes the property of something else, a person does not need to be involved.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

            I thought we were talking about science, not philosophy.
            How do we know the properties of black holes, distract stars, and the early universe if we’re not in them?

      • Maven (famous)@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I am of the opinion that a single molecule of water is not wet but since water makes other things wet… A molecule of water would make the surrounding molecules of water wet. Therefore pretty much any example you can give of water is wet unless you mean just a single molecule of water separated from anything else.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        So you’re telling me that water makes things wet. That makes it wet as a verb, so flatter us in fact wet all the time

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 month ago

    Imagine if Trump said that this is not acceptable… But guess who keeps his mouth shut instead.

  • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Lmao of course she did, what else can you expect talking to the dopey leader of a cult of FUCKING WEIRDOS.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ever since the pan. Everything was already terrible, but then the hinges broke. The crazy really took over. And this is where we are. Fucking stochastic terrorism with heaps of actual terrorism. They just don’t have any boundaries anymore. Or sense of decency. Or shame. Fuck the right.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      There was a time when the conservatives would have just actually lynched her. That’s what they refer to as “the good ol’ days”.

    • suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      But but you have to understand they’re just worried because the elites have abandoned them!! /s

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    They’re in favor of a free press, except if that press isn’t in support of their political agenda. Then all of a sudden that free press isn’t supposed to be so free.

    If the freedom you want has a required political position, it’s not freedom that you want.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Just like how they only use “free speech” to defend the indefensible things they say. Because they can’t actually justify the things they say, so they fall back to “well you technically can’t stop me from saying it.” The “free speech” defense is just about the lowest bar you could find, and if you’re using it you should seriously examine why you’re saying the things you are. Because if you’ve fallen into the “free speech” defense, it means you have no other defense.

      • hwW37@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        this is a little odd because it comes off as you attacking free speech a little

        • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s definitely not that. They are just pointing out that the right to free speech prevents the government from impeding someone’s ability to say something, it doesn’t (despite implications made by a lot of people who cry out that their right to free speech is being impeded) force others to listen to or agree with that thing being said. If anything, the people that abuse the name of free speech by implying that it means people need to agree with them, or need to amplify their message, are attacking free speech by mudding the water around what it means and making it harder for good faith entities to invoke that right