top 90 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 273 points 2 months ago (35 children)

"As I lifted the gun to show her I suddenly heard a loud bang," Kris allegedly said. "I did not understand what had happened. Lucy immediately fell."

Bullshit. This means he took a loaded gun, failed to clear it, put the barrel in the direction of a person, and pulled the trigger. Guns don't just "go off". All while having admitted to relapsing on alcohol. I count four mistakes there, where any one of them not having been made would have prevented this incident.

It's almost like you'd have to intend to make that series of mistakes.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Lets break it down... (mostly for the non-americans who aren't used to guns)

    • Gun was loaded. You shouldn't be storing a loaded weapon. So he either loaded it there or is an irresponsible gun owner.
    • Gun was pointed at a person. Never point a gun (loaded or not) at anything you don't intend to shoot.
    • His finger was on the trigger. No trigger discipline at all. Index finger should be planted on the frame while doing literally ANYTHING other than meaning to pull the trigger.

    This is the basics... Anyone who's taken any gun safety course would know, any responsible gun owner would know and religiously follow...

    1. Treat every gun like it's loaded
    2. Keep your finger off the trigger
    3. Don't point at anything you don't plan to shoot
    4. Be aware of what's behind your target
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You forgot keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire, but yeah the thing about weapons safety rules is you have to fail all of them in order to shoot someone. He had intent in my mind.

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

    A lot of modern handguns guns don't have safeties, to the point I often don't even see that included as a rule anymore.

    But yeah, even if there wasn't intent, the recklessness is enough to get him on manslaughter at the very least.

    You have to violate multiple basic safety rules for this to even be possible

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

    If I remember from reading about this when it happened, he's also the only witness. The only other person that could confirm this was an accident is fucking dead. So they just believe him? The fuck?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago* (27 children)

    So, fun fact: Alexander Hamilton may have killed himself.

    He supplied the dueling pistols for the duel with Burr, and a few things about them.

    • He had them custom made with a larger, more deadly bore.

    • He had modified the trigger to require a much lighter pull than most pistols would have required.

    • The musical (of incredibly dubious historical value) even makes note of this, he was seen fiddling with the trigger prior to the duel, and selected his pistol first.

    Accounts on Hamilton firing in to the air differ, but what is consistent are accounts of Burr seeming pretty shocked when his gun went off. Accounts also pretty universally indicate that he tried to rush to Hamilton after he'd been shot to lend aid before being escorted away.

    Anyway, that's not at all meant to refute your claim. Guns generally don't just "go off".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Incredibly dubious historical battle

    Are you implying that the nation was not formed on the back of a rap battle my good sir?

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

    Firstmost, curse your lady and the Americas you claim.
    Westside on our steeds, come equipped with game.
    Ye claim to be a player, but I rode your wife.
    We disdain the English, Royalty fucked for life.

    Credit: The Right Honorable Tupac Shakur, Earl of the West

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Yeah the only guns I know of that can just "go off" either have a hair trigger that's worn or are of exceptionally shit build quality like say the Ross Rifle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    If you take the worst gun, modify it to have the lightest trigger possible, if you don't have it just sitting around with a round in the chamber it won't just "go off". It's wild that the simplest safety precaution save a lot of lives but nope these people need their dick extensions to always be ready to go.

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

    Oh I was just making note that there are ways for a gun to to fire by itself for one reason or another when loaded. Regardless making sure the gun is cleared is a pretty damned good way of ensuring it doesn't do that. Or alternatively leave a Ross Rifle behind for the Germans when you leave a trench so it's their problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Or they are a Sig Sauer P320...... Which is of good quality but poor design.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Wasn't one of the theories that it had tolerance stacking issues and part wear that made it worse?

    I'd count that as poor quality

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

    I hadn't heard that one. The theory I've heard most was that they recycled a previous trigger from a different pistol but left out a drop safety mechanism when they changed it to a stricker instead of a hammer system.

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

    iirc that was the cause of the original drop safety issues and the more recent uncommanded discharges are still unknown

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

    Yeah, the last time I checked there were a couple different running theories. I hadn't heard there were more issues separate from the drop fires. But, I was never a fan of sig in the first place. So I haven't been following it too closely. From what I remember it just seemed like the gun was a Frankensteined together money grab.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    Guns generally don’t just “go off”.

    They can and do. There's chapter and verse on gun safety - handling, cleaning, storage - to deal with the risk of accidental discharge.

    If you treat a gun like a toy (and this guy's testimony certainly sounds like he did), it's very possible to fire it by accident.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Right, they have to be mishandled, uncleaned, and not properly stored, so like they said, guns generally don't just "go off".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Some guns are just built like shit.

    Laws have been passed to shield gun manufacturers from liability for faulty products.

    Still, this case sounded like premeditated murder more than anything else. And that Texas grand jury, and prosecutor, were fine with it because the daughter hated Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    they have to be mishandled, uncleaned, and not properly stored

    I don't see any evidence to suggest the guy was maintaining any of his kit properly.

    guns generally don’t just “go off”

    They can and do when mishandled, which is why gun safety exists to begin with.

    "Don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot" is Rule 1 for a reason. And if he was playing with the gun like a toy, it's very easy to believe he fumbled it. The stories of children setting off guns by playing with them are more numerous than you can count.

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

    Not sure what the downvoters are thinking. I was reading through this whole argument about whether or not guns can just "go off" and kept thinking a) obviously there are cases where people fire a gun they are handling unintentionally, whether because they are idiots or the gun malfunctioned. But b) it doesn't make a difference in whether he was negligent because he already was when he pointed it at her in the first place. That's all that should have been needed to get a negligent manslaughter charge to stick, accidental discharge or not, it hit her because he was pointing the gun at her.

    Though I don't buy it was accidental at all, given the circumstances. Heated argument about Trump just before she's supposed to leave but first he needs to show her his gun that just happens to accidentally fire while he was pointing it at her?

    Jury nullification goes both ways and that grand jury just condoned the murder of someone who opposed Trump.

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

    Its mostly semantics. Dude is saying guns don't just go off because of X, Y, and Z. And people are pointing out that X, Y, and Z are the result of negligence.

    People neglecting gun safety is the cause. The gun goes off because of the negligence.

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

    I interpreted their comments as saying the guy was negligent on multiple levels. Like saying he probably was neglecting maintenance to the point where the gun can randomly fire doesn't sound like a defense of the guy to me but more like the gun going off could have occurred because he triggered it himself directly or because he didn't keep it in a condition to prevent it from being triggered indirectly.

    Though that last paragraph is the most important part IMO, because regardless of how the gun went off, if he had been following gun safety rules, it should have just resulted in an embarrassing hole in his floor, not the death of the person he was "showing the gun to".

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

    No the fuck they don't.

    The only scenario where a gun just "goes off" would be if it were sitting somewhere untouched and and went off. If someone is holding it then they are solely responsible for what happens with it.

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

    The only scenario where a gun just “goes off” would be if it were sitting somewhere untouched

    That's not what we're talking about at all.

    People drop guns. People do stupid shit with guns, like using the butt as a hammer. People try to show off with pistol twirls and quick-draws. People just handle them wrong - tossing them, sitting on them, holstering them incorrectly, fiddling with them nervously.

    Plaxico Burress very famously shot himself in the thigh, because he decided to keep a Glock tucked into the waste band of his pants. Nothing about the story suggests it was intentional.

    they are solely responsible for what happens with it.

    That's got nothing to do with whether it was accidental.

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

    These are talking about fundamentally different things than guns just going off, people generally use that term to talk about stuff like the p320, not people being idiots and causing negligent discharges.

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

    people generally use that term to talk about stuff like the p320, not people being idiots and causing negligent discharges.

    I'll point you back to Burress, whose case was regularly and repeatedly described as such. Nobody was accusing Burress of shooting himself in the leg on purpose, much less as some kind of political act.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    That's not the gun just going off, it went off because the trigger was pulled due to not being in a holster.

    Anyways, we're just arguing the semantics of uncommanded discharges vs accidental discharges

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 341 points 2 months ago (41 children)

    Literally sharia law honor killings.

    We have lost texas

  • source
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 128 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    They don't see sharia law as evil or unjust, they see it as competition to their own authoritarianism. Right idea, wrong religion (barely lol)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 72 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    "Unlawfully killed"

    "Shot dead"

    "Possible manslaughter"

    It's MURDER.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    How much did you actually read about the case?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    The killer claims it accidentally went off.

    Even so, this is the kind of thing you need a proper trial to determine culpability. “He said it was an accident” after they had gotten in a heated argument and he lead her away to the gun room. His testimony absolutely not be taken for truth. And even if it was an accident theres definitely a case there for reckless endangerment/manslaughter. So I think the outrage at this news is justified

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    You can't just load and chamber and fire a gun by fucking accident. Oh whoops the slide pulled back by accident, and I accidentally had my finger on the trigger, then I accidentally pulled all the way past the resistance of the firing pin. Nope. You murdered her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Very bold assumption that this isn't the type of guy to keep several loaded and chambered guns lying around ready to fire. Almost certainly is

    Accidentally picking up, pointing and firing however seems less than believable

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

    Accidentally picking up, pointing and firing however seems less than believable

    He didn't accidentally pick it up. He said so himself (according to the BBC article linked in the OP).

    He was drinking, and it's a Glock.

    Glocks have a "passive" safety. There's no manual safety, just this little extra thing in the trigger, which does not require an extra step to fire.

    Photo showing a Glock trigger safety (source)

    Negligent discharge is much easier with guns like these, in my opinion (because apparently there's significant debate on this, somehow).

    A drunk guy accidentally pointing a gun is plausible (I've had it happen to me before, probably more than once). Add the negligence of a drunken idiot and possible shitty trigger discipline, and I could easily imagine a negligent discharge here.

    There's also the possibility that it wasn't even his finger that pulled the trigger. He could have snagged the trigger on something, being a fumbling idiot. Some people have accidentally shot themselves when trying to holster guns like these. This condition is commonly known as "Glock leg".


    Still, regardless of intent, the gun was pointed at his daughter, the trigger was pulled, and she's dead — a sum of his own decisions, accident or not. It is WILD that he gets to walk free.

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

    Yes I'm familiar with firearms.

    You do not accidental raise a gun, point it at someone, and pull the trigger. Total bullshit to say otherwise.

    Also get out of there with that trigger nonsense. It takes a conscious amount of force to pull back a trigger. They're designed that way to prevent accidents. They don't go off because someone has their finger on it ( which is intent to fire anyway)

    He may have been very drunk and in an altered state. He probably did something his sober self never would. But he still chose to do it.

    The only thing you said that's even plausible is it could have snagged on something. Which of course he still chose to do a lot of illegal actions leading up to that

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

    You do not accidental raise a gun,

    Correct. AFAIK, he did not claim that lifting the gun was an accident.

    point it at someone

    Any experienced RSO (range safety officer) would easily disagree.

    and pull the trigger.

    Yet somehow, triggers get accidentally pulled sometimes 🤷🏻‍♂️. There's a term for this: Negligent discharge (not to be confused with accidental discharge).

    Also get out of there with that trigger nonsense. It takes a conscious amount of force to pull back a trigger.

    "A trigger"? You mean in general? Like as a universal rule that applies to all triggers? That's not how it works. There's a very wide range of trigger pull weights, travel lengths, etc.

    IIRC, most Glocks have a trigger pull weight of around 5.5 lbs (depending on model). It's not nothing, but it's definitely not a lot. Negligent discharges can and do happen.

    Anyway, sounds like we pretty much agree on the rest.

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

    Wait up, he accidentally had the safety off and accidentally pointed it in direction of his own daughter. They do say for an accident lots of things have to line up perfectly.

    So I can see why the jury saw that his daughter accidentally having the opposite political views to her dad was immaterial to their judgment.

    Dude still has to process completely pushed away grief though, so he’s got to be fun to be around for the rest of his life.

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

    You assume he didn't leave his weapons loaded. And that he hadn't modified them with a hair trigger, etc.

    This is the type of person that has an entire gun room, not just a safe or two, an entire room dedicated to guns.

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

    Enough to know he pointed a loaded gun at his daughter with the safety off and pulled the trigger, incidentally just after having an argument with her about trump; and that the maga fascist jury of peers in bumfuck texas decided to acquit him without a trial because "it was an accident" is apparently a reasonable explanation to them...

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Literally a drunk and completely incompetent gun owner. He should be punished and made an example of. Your statement makes this sound completely intentional. The court appears to believe the claim that her death was accidental. I don't doubt that he had no intentions of killing his daughter.

    This should be a textbook example for gun licensing and requirements of safe storage. This man's negligence cost him his daughter and the court decided this was enough. I don't think the court went far enough and I think this should be the basis for further legislation, but let's not turn this case into a bogeyman about honor killings.

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

    He wasn’t indicted. The Texas jury didn’t care about the murder enough to punish him whatsoever, that’s the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Worth noting that indictments are laughably easy to get, because there is no defense lawyer. An indictment isn’t a conviction, it’s just the prosecution going “yeah we probably have enough evidence to bother with a trial.” The old joke is that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich for murder if the prosecutor wants them to. The prosecutor has full control over what evidence the grand jury sees, and the rules around evidence are a LOT more relaxed than they are in court. The prosecutor could basically scribble out a “yeah I did it lol” note on a napkin and present it to the grand jury as evidence. It wouldn’t stand up in court, but it doesn’t need to if the prosecutor just wants the indictment.

    The grand jury is just an arm of the prosecutor, and is used as a political tool whenever a trial would be politically inconvenient. Because the district attorney is typically elected, which means they need to pander for votes. So if it would be politically inconvenient to prosecute someone, they can simply refuse to bring any evidence to the grand jury. Because (again) they have full control over what evidence the grand jury sees.

    For example, let’s say a cop murders someone in the street. It’s on video. The public is out for blood. But the prosecutor has to work with the police to do their job, and the police union is threatening to stop collecting any evidence at crime scenes if they prosecute this cop. Prosecutor is between a rock and a hard place, because they’d be torching future trials just to appease the public. So instead, they simply don’t bring any evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury is a faceless shadowy organization that can’t defend itself. It’s the perfect scapegoat. So when the grand jury refuses to indict (because they weren’t presented with any evidence) the district attorney can jump in front of the news cameras and go “I tried to prosecute them, but that big mean grand jury refused to indict. But remember, I did my best! Vote for me!” Cops are happy because the prosecutor didn’t indict, the public is placated because the prosecutor “tried” to indict them, and the cogs of the legal system keep grinding away as intended.

    So with all of that being said… If he wasn’t indicted, it’s because the prosecutor didn’t want to bring it to trial.

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

    Thank you for sharing this information.

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

    Hey, always glad to see the MECFS guy in the wild. My wife is suffering from major chronic fatigue, (it’s seriously life-altering), so I wanted to let you know that your posts don’t go unnoticed.

    And yeah, the whole “jury vs grand jury” and “indicted vs convicted” thing is a pet peeve of mine. Because authorities prey on the public’s lack of knowledge about the legal process, to shift blame away from themselves. Once you know the difference (and understand the relationship between a prosecutor and the grand jury) you’ll consistently see news stories of prosecutors hiding behind grand juries to shift blame away from themselves. But it’s always framed by the news as “the prosecutor brought the case to the grand jury, who refused to indict” because the news is complicit in keeping the cogs grinding.

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

    That's a problem, yes. That's the main reason why this man wasn't given any sort of punishment in this specific case.

    This isn't the first time someone has shot a family member without the intent to kill, and it won't be the last. Something needs to be done about it at a fundamental level. I realize that isn't going to happen, especially in Texas. But that doesn't change the fact that we need common sense gun laws in this country. This is a fucking travesty and a miscarriage of justice. It's doing nothing to deal with this specific scenario nor the larger problem that too many idiots have too much access to deadly weapons.

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

    The court appears to believe the claim that her death was accidental. I don’t doubt that he had no intentions of killing his daughter.

    If you don't have inside knowledge on the case, "not having doubt" on either intentions or no intentions is an incredibly moronic take.

    Also, the job of a court of law is to establish innocence or guilt (and the degree thereof). This grand jury failing to indict is that grand jury refusing to do its duty to the people. While Germany is also going to shits, I am kinda glad that for now, our country is civilised enough to not have juries. Although we have the next worst thing, which is laypeople judges, for some cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -29 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    Ya when people say Dems have a chance of winning Texas. Call that person a moron and go on with your day

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Like nearly all the US, the cities are heavily blue and the rural parts are heavily red. The only difference between blue states and red states is which side of the halfway line it’s tipped towards. And nearly every state is close to the halfway mark—including Texas.

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

    Texas has more dem voters than some states have people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    We have loads of left-leaning people who are eligible to vote. If more of them would actually vote, we'd get somewhere. Fortunately, the primary turnout numbers this year look good. More Democratic voters than Republican in the Senate race, and pretty close to even for the Governor. Compare to 2024 when over 2/3 of primary ballots cast were Republican. Polling looks better than 2018 with Beto v Cruz.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    And yet not once have they even been close to winning

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago*

    The only difference between blue states and red states is which side of the halfway line it’s tipped towards.

    not for any longer. trump has won the right to throw out any mail-in ballot he wants.

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

    If we had 100% voting population Republicans would never win again anywhere, especially in texas. That is why Republicans are so eager to disenfranchise voters. They're trying to take away voting rights of women by making voters who change their name ineligible. They love the apathetic idiots who never vote.

    Right now trump seems to have killed mail in voting for this year. Unless something changes the new usps system is sure to disenfranchise millions.

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

    It’s a perfect storm for Dems this year in Texas. They have a good candidate for that state - a likable, charismatic young man who talks about his Christian faith a lot. The Republicans are fielding a particularly bad candidate - a corrupt attorney general who was nearly impeached by his own party for fraud, whose wife recently divorced him for cheating, and who narrowly won a closely contested primary. Beto came within 2.5 points of Cruz in 2018, and Cruz was/is popular in Texas, and Republicans in general weren’t as reviled back then. It’s still no better than a coin flip, but Talarico could win this year.

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

    Political scientists estimate there are about 8 million consistently-Democratic voters in Texas and 6 million consistently-Republican voters. Out of a population of 30 million where everyone else flip flops and/or doesn't vote.

    The only reason the Republicans ever win in Texas is due to voter suppression/gerrymandering.

    This is consistent with national estimates that there are roughly 1.5x as many Democrats as Republicans in the USA.

    The only reason the Republicans ever win anywhere is due to voter suppression/gerrymandering.

  • source
  • parent
  • As I say, the love they have for even their own children is entirely conditional. They will make you the enemy and kill you at a moment's notice. If you have MAGA in your family, kick them out of what they can come to. Ostracization from family and society is the only nice thing we can do against them.

  • source
  • [–] 108 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I think about this girl all the time. Her own father shot her over Trump. Trump. I just can't wrap my head around it. Or around the jury deciding to just let him go. There's corruption there somewhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Back during his first term there was a story on the Risk podcast where an Asian guy told the story of going home after some time away at college and visiting the family that adopted him when he was a baby; and how, when he said he didn't support Trump, that family almost beat him to death right there in the living room. It was one of the most heartbreaking stories I've ever heard in my entire life. I think about that shit a lot.

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

    I'm not sure how we're supposed to ever move forward sharing a country with these people. Regardless of who is in charge after Trump. It's untenable. These people cannot accept the basics of our shared reality. Talking like fundamental shit.

    I never understood, until recently, why re-education camps have existed at various points. Now I get it.

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

    Grand juries exist to make sure the norms of law enforcement and prosecution don't stray too far from the common populace.

    It's why the guy who threw the sandwich at the CPB guy about a year ago did not end up with a felony.

    However, it cuts both ways. I don't know if I believe TX is really about to flip purple because shit like this is common. Ask the protesters sentanced to life as terrorists for moving a box or leaving an ICE protest early.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I'll never understand the appeal and hold Trump has on the minds of weak men who worship him. This man killed his own daughter is insane.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Human psychology and propaganda. It works on smart people too.

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

    People keep saying that, but 1) having a degree is not a sign of someone’s general intelligence, not even close, and 2) it absolutely has a greater effect the dumber you are.

    Intelligence is curiosity and being able to have a greater degree of nuance in your thinking. It’s being self-aware, and about being able to understand transferable properties. A LOT of people, regardless of education, struggle deeply with those concepts.

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

    Decades of lies and crumbling control over their material lives and social status.

    Imagine you were abused by most of your adults in your life. They would hit you, demean you, restrict what you ate, who you could love, what you could say, and also expect that you must, at risk of your own life, become "a man" too. You must work your life away to achieve something great, you must provide for your family, you must create a legacy or you actually deserved that abuse you suffered from. Now every year you get poorer no matter how much you work. You see your family less day after day as they get sucked into a life of constant work. You can't be sad though that's unmanly. It can't be someone who is "succesfuls" fault because you are "the man" the master of the universe, just like the rich and powerful or else you are a loser that deserves abuse and ridicule.

    So you watch the news, your civic duty, and they tell you that people out there want to make you less then nothing. They want to strip being man of prestige (and with that do you really have anything). They want to strip hard work of its value (and if everyone just got what they needed what was those decades of abuse for?)! But you know you wouldnt just be nothing then, youd be less then that. You would be a loser, a life spent as a joke, and worthless.

    Trump, like you, is a strong successful man. You and him can fight together to stop the woke feminazis from destroying your family. Stop the immigrants from invading your home and making you poor and insignificant. He's not perfect sure, but he's fighting for you, the only part of you that matters, the only part you know you still have left.

    Even better your new allies give you something else, a miracle tonic for the parts of you you ignore and ache. Enemies and the constant reassurance that everything, and I mean everything is their fault. You, like a man ought to, can fight a tangible threat and be a warrior. You just have to tell your self "they are lying to manipulating everyone else". When your wife threatens your leadership role as the man? Thats the enemies' lies. When HR threaten your lively hood? The enemy. When you children avoid you? The enemy.

    You don't have to reccon with anything. You're not abuse. They're soft. Your parents were harder on you, and look at you. Not just a man. A warrior. Willing to sacrifice everything, for not just your family, or country, but for civilization maybe even part of holy war on the side of supreme good!

    It's thought terminating. Decades of lies and abuse to justify decades of being and commiting abuse. Yes they need therapy. They need to have a space to actually learn to see themselves as humans worthy of love and a part of a great web of connections with people that both can love them and they themselves deserve love as well. They also need real tangible material improvement. You might be able to therapy people out of status demands like big house, boat, big truck, and those are huge costs on the average American household, but so is healthcare, food, and training to stay employable (which we call education in the states).

    Sorry for the rant.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    44 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    8 comments in c/gestapo_usa@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post