1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 2 months ago*

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jamie McDonald said after court, "No grievance, political belief or ideological cause can ever justify murder."

Hilariously false, but ok, sure.

What is a soldier?

A state sanctioned, politically and ideologically motivated, often personally aggrieved, murderer.

The only difference is 'well our rule says that's ok because we said so.'

We broadly call them murderers when they kill non-combatants intentionally, but ... not when they kill other soldiers, combatants.

Agreeing to be potentially murdered does not somehow make you not murdered, if you are murdered.

  • source
  • 90 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 197 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    I'VE GOT IT!!!

    He just needs to run for president to keep him out of jail! Worked for the last guy, didn't it?!

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    That's... actually a remarkable idea. Eugene Debs ran for President from prison in 1920, after he was convicted of sedition.

    Do I think Luigi would make a good President? I have no clue, but he certainly couldn't be a worse one than Trump. Magione now has international name recognition, and is rapidly becoming our era's Robin Hood. While I'm not certain he'd win, it would send an incredible message to the healthcare industry, and the billionaire class at large. He has the potential to become the figurehead of a revolutionary movement. It certainly would make the 2028 bingo card spicy, that's for sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 81 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    "You think everyone should have health care, right? So do I. You think corporate greed and political corruption is ruining this country? I agree. I promise to solve those problems, and you've seen my resume. Vote Luigi for President, and we can take the rest of them down together."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 65 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Humanity has reached its peak hypocrisy.

    Killing other humans is bad, unless its done so by withholding life saving treatment.

    Torturing animals to death is illegal. But the vast majority of animals on earth die a slow and painful death within factory farms.

    Turning someone into a slave by keeping them trapped in debt is illegal. But this is precisely what the world bank and the imf is doing to poor countries.

    I could go on and on listing examples.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    holding a plane with a bomb hostage is terrorism. holding the entire planet with nuclear bombs hostage is called 'nuclear deterrence'

    knowingly buying stolen goods is illegal. but knowingly buying goods that were produced trough imperialism and slavery (which is even worse btw) is somehow legal.

    Selling a gun to a would-be murderer is illegal. Selling weapons to a genocidal state on the other hand is perfectly fine.

    putting poison into someones coffee would be murder. But polluting the environment to the point where it can no longer support life is normal.

    The entire system is just designed to look self-regulatory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 107 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    We live in such a twisted world that a guilty plea has the paradoxical effect of making me even less certain he did it

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 36 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Theres definitely something shady going on. Have you seen the camera footage of the shooting? His head literally became transparent midway trough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 119 points 2 months ago (38 children)

    Why do they keep trying to humanize the CEO and claiming that it had a "wife"?

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 80 points 2 months ago (25 children)

    Hitler had a girlfriend. Bin Laden had a wife and many children.

    FAFO

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Mrs Goebbels made a lovely strudel.

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

    Are you the same person whose dad used to say that? I remember someone commenting about it on Lemmy and it has stuck with me. If it is you, thanks, and if not thanks anyway for the reminder that there's always someone willing to carry water and normalize monsters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.

    So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

    And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (14 children)

    Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.

    It's not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Sounds like he had "legitimate beef" with the governments of France and the UK, not goddamn "international Jewry"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    I'm sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect "aryan" ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler's actions can go get FUCKED.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yes. Thank you.

    The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.

    Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    That's fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn't happen in a vacuum.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I'm just pointing out that saying something along the lines of "the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not" is at the very least reductive.

    People don't follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.

    I don't buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would've existed despite circumstances.

    In contrary: It's the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.

    Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.

    None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    That is an insane take

    Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally.

    But he fomented, and implicitly and explicitly assented to the entire process. He delegated the authority to others to engage in the Holocaust freely. He could have removed that authority at any time and did not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, that's exactly why he should be held responsible for it, I'm absolutely not trying to debate that.

    I'm just trying to get people to look past the "great man theory of history" and admit that Hitler didn't happen in a vacuum. You don't get a Holocaust without people around him being willing and able to carry out evil themselves. Which means that saying "Hitler caused the Holocaust" let's a while lot of other evil people off the hook, who all played crucial parts in making it happen.

    I'm hammering that point because it's so relevant again today. Trump might be an evil narcissist piece of shit, but by himself he's relatively harmless/containable (see the relatively smaller damage the Trump 1 regime did vs Trump 2). It's the folks who are just as evil themselves enabling him that are exacerbating the impact this time around. And if we're ever going to see Nuremberg style justice for this presidency, I'd be extremely disappointed if only Trump gets held responsible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    They are conspiring, all of them are 100% responsible. The way you are phrasing it makes it seem like trump is just a puppet, which is not the case. I would also attribute some of the ease to do damage to the exodus of career bureaucrats. Normal people have stepped out of roles that are now filled with sycophants, idiots and criminals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    That wasn't my intent, both men should be considered to have agency and responsibility for their actions. I just don't want history to forget that neither man operates alone, and that there was/is a group of people who are just as evil surrounding them that we should hold just as responsible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Extreme problems can lead to drastic measures, which often does not work out well for humanity. People definitely look for a “hero” to save them without realizing the power collectively lies within themselves for change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Actually Hitler and Eva Braun got married in the bunker right before they killed themselves. Why do I know this?! Fuck

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    It's wrong to dehumanize people, except people who profit off the suffering and death of others. Fuck those people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Don't normalize dehamnization. It's too easy to exploit. These may be bad awful people but they're still people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Humans have been responsible for pretty much every evil ever invented besides the god of the bible genociding virtually the entire planet. The only thing more insulting than dehumanizing someone is not doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    My take is I don't want to normalize it to the point that it gives people less ethical than my perception of myself to dehumanize people for the wrong reason, therefore it's never appropriate. It's not accurate either. These people are human. Calling them something else trivializes them. "A person, just like me, made this decision" is more powerful than handwaving them as subhuman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Someone else already griped this thing at me and I replied to it down there. You're allowed to not want to normalize things. I'm happy to dehumanize people who profit off of human suffering and death.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago

    Well then who the fuck was I getting coffee with that morning?!

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Too many people treat a guilty plea as a literal admission of guilt. In reality, 99% of the time it's just trying to secure a lesser sentence. Which is a catastrophe. If they did it, and you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, they should get the full sentence. If you can't prove it, they shouldn't get any sentence. There shouldn't be any in-between.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Except it sounds like this isn't a plea deal. You're describing a plea deal, where the defendant pleads guilty after reaching a deal with the projection. My understanding is this is just a guilty plea. No deal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It’s not that black and white. The guy that killed my brother had overwhelming evidence against him. 11/12 jurors voted guilty at two trials (22/24 juries total). But both juror pools included one person who would never vote guilty on a fellow native.
    Two hung juries, and my brother is still dead, and his murderer is still without consequence. A plea deal would have done a lot for closure in my family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    If the jury was not able to get a guilty verdict, that sucks, but that is the system working as intended.

    it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.

    A plea deal would have done nothing except condemn a legally innocent person to a reduced prison sentence. The consequence of such actions just means that a bunch of people admit to crimes they didn't commit because they feel backed into a corner.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    Did he though?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Fuck, even Luigi didn't know that his self is innocent.

    How does this help him? Why didn't he go to trial? Did he just want to get started burning the years of his definitely very long sentence?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    The man is still in debilitating pain. Suffering through a long trial with all the pomp and circumstances surrounding it would have just been agony I think. Plus, now they can get the state charges dismissed on double Jeopardy so he doesn't have to deal with that. And by pleading guilty he denies the, now completely right wing owned mass media, the circus they were so hoping to be able to monetize.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    What does he gain from pleading guilty?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Guess without any evidence based on the sparse information available…

    federal plea + motion to dismiss state case on double jeopardy grounds. If successful, keeps his time federal and makes a possible future pardon less complicated?

    I could see pardoning him grabbing a large number of votes based on his popularity?

    Just guessing though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago*

    Exactly. This is what happened to Ross Ulbricht. Aaron Swartz should have done this too. It's gambling though, imagine waiting for a pardon your whole life just to regret not killing yourself early instead of dying of old age. Leftists are less likely to get pardoned unfortunately

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Common thing is that they'll go "guilty plea guarantees leniency, as long as you don't plead innocent first", until now he's been intentionally not saying yes or no whether he did it, in court

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago*

    Nobody cares about that rich woman. This article aims to influence us very badly

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    I don't believe he did it even harder now.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    "AND I'D DO IT AGAIN!"

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Couldn't you find a better fucking news source?

    This shite reads like Thompson was the victim. No, they're the mass murderers. Fuck this disgusting capitalist narrative

    Next time, read a few different sources and post the best one. Not the first corporate trash article you come across

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Many people are talking in where is the advantage.

    Maybe there isn't. Maybe he just doesn't like the farce, and it's tired of all the stupid lies to take personal profit.

    May he thinks: "I did it and I'm just going to say I did it, that's the truth and I'm not going to lie for personal benefits".

    O maybe not. Maybe I'm just projecting my own apathy towards this insincere world in where everyone always lies to get personal gains.

    I already had great respect for the guy, if this was the reason, just not wanting to lie, my respect for him will just go through the roof.

  • source