top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 248 points 1 week ago (61 children)

Any standard below imprisonment is unacceptable

  • source
  • hideshow 61 child comments
  • [–] 136 points 1 week ago (28 children)

    The guy is responsible for bombing a school and killing 150 young girls. We execute people for less in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I think it's the boats that will get him. I think they ended up killing several hundred at random. Iran was a war-not-a-war so that may give him some cover as a failure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago*

    I'm not so sure... is the American public even aware of the boat strikes?

    2/3rds of the senate is a big hill to climb, especially when many of the R's that survived are from far right states.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    not if the victims are brown...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    I’ll pass on capital punishment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    He should be "executed" on live TV, but the guns just "shoot" out a flag that's says "prison for life".

    He needs to think he's actually being executed though: he's fine with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It would definitely scar him a lot. I’ve had a gun held to my head before and it really fucks you up for sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    I hope you've been (and are) able to deal with that trauma in a healthy way.

    Come to think of it, I'm not sure I wish that on anyone, no matter who they are.

    He's possibly barely suffered a consequence in his entire life, so probably even the thought of there being any consequences is terrifying (enough) to him.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    I get where you're coming from, but war crimes aren't cool.

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

    Yeah, this is one of those times where the punishment is more to tell others "this is what happens when you do this BS. So don't do this."

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

    Like I said, I get it. If you want to say he should be executed or sent to prison for life, I won't argue with you. But the Geneva conventions don't have a "we need to send a message" clause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Agreed, punishment should fit the crime. We have lately been pardoning people and sending a message that you can get away with things if you know the right people or have celebrity privilege, though. So time to get back to people not getting away with things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Normally I'd agree. But conservative traitors who commit atrocities in public view while celebrating and bragging are my exception.

    These cockroaches need to suffer the same torture they have inflicted upon their victims. If they survive CECOT for a year, then we put them in a fishing boat and take bets on how far they get before exploding.

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

    It’s definitely conflicting. He’s committed so many atrocities and it really makes emotions flare up. I understand where you are coming from but I just don’t want to see humanity further fleeting into barbarism by doing eye for an eye. Plus, death frees him from the shame of having to live with who he is and what he’s done.

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

    100% a distinction that seems lost on a lot of people.

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

    Yeah I honestly don’t think I’d be able to see that if I weren’t pacifist. I do understand their anger but I do wish people could differentiate between what’s based off their anger and what should actually be done once the anger is filtered out and processed by our analytical side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (27 children)

    Televised execution?

    Jk, I never want that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (21 children)

    Gonna be a hot take, bit I'm all for it. Some people deserve that kind of humiliation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    I personally disagree with normalization of such violence. It makes people tolerate it to the point they don't even register it as wrong. Hence why repubs wanted to publicly execute people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    I think it was an attempt to normalise the killing of political opponents. Such violence is already normal and legitimised in America, the land of school-shootings and capital punishment.

    As of 2023, only 2 out of 38 OECD member countries (the United States and Japan) allow capital punishment.

    Such murder needs to remain behind closed doors as to be polite in American society. Please enjoy the following entertainment-products:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    I’d counter that almost no one deserves the trauma of watching someone being killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    Honestly, I disagree. A stance I hold is that voters should have to see the horrors of war. You shouldn't be allowed to elect someone who may send people off to die brutally without knowing what that looks like. By this, I don't mean watching Band of Brothers or something. I mean actual footage of people being injured or dying in modern combat. You're choosing that for other people, so you should have to know what it actually is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    9 year old me (casually scrolling on 4chan) would agree. I still remember accidentally stumbling across my first beheading video. The early (largely unmoderated) internet was like the Wild West.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    What if it could be death by tickling?

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

    I seriously question the idea that death is inherently traumatic. History is littered with public-executions, ceremonial killings and death for entertainment. People are eager to pay for and play GTA 6: a murder- and crime-simulator. People love violence. People are unfazed by death when the victims belong to an out-group--those that are deemed not to be people.

    "Oh that's just an actor. The character died, not the actor."

    "They're not real; it's a video-game."

    "They're jews."

    "He was a pedophile."

    "She's a nazi."

    "He's a murderer; it's comeuppance."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Desensitization is a type of trauma. Many people are, in fact, traumatized by seeing death.

    I have seen people die and I have seen dead bodies and it’s a weight on me for over twenty years. It compounds instead of getting better.

    I’ve seen people have nightmares after scrolling through Facebook and seeing Charlie Kirk die. People that were somewhat okay with him being dead but still traumatized by seeing it.

    No one should see it without consent. I mean really informed consent not just “sure, I’ll watch this.” They have to know all the risks. Even then, I’d still prefer they didn’t.

    I don’t like your argument about earlier public executions. I’m pretty sure none of them were okay.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Being executed isn't humiliating. You wanna humiliate them put them in a public pillory and sell tomatoes and live stream it 24x7.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Proceeds from the tomato sales go towards funding his continued imprisonment

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

    We could cancel all taxes and balance the national budget if they set this up for Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Gonna have to disagree with that one. I'd imagine a public execution where you have people shouting for your death, as your crimes are read out loud for everyone to hear, would, not only, be humiliating, but put the real fear of God in you as you finally realize your actions have caught up with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 83 points 1 week ago (23 children)

    Send this goddamned traitor to the Hague, in the same shackled, blindfolded and gagged getup as all the Guantanamo Bay prisoners he oversaw.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (20 children)

    That will never happen. The US policy is that if any US citizen is forcibly brought before the Hague the US would raid the Hague and reclaim their citizen. The only judicial system the us recognizes is it's own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Then change the goddamned policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Won't happen. Politicians don't want their feet to the flame so it'll stay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Won't happen

    You'd have said the same thing yesterday about a trans woman being elected to the Alabama state house.

    A year ago you'd have said the same thing about a Democrat winning a Texas Senate seat and a progressive Muslim who's unapologetically pro trans and M4A winning one in Michigan.

    Two or three years ago, you'd have laughed in the face of anyone claiming that a huge majority would be against continuing to fund the West's favorite fascist apartheid state, let alone a Democratic Socialist anti-zionist Muslim progressive being the Mayor of New York, the most zionist city outside of said apartheid ethnostate.

    Guess what: sometimes,when your attitude ISN'T automatic defeatism, things CAN change for the better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago

    No I wouldn't. Don't put words in my mouth especially if they're wrong. Aside from that it's a wildly different situation as no one risks prison time.

    No again, I would not have.

    Wrong yet again but fuck it you must know me better than me huh?

    Sometimes your attitude is based solely on assuming someone's position and then acting catty based on that flawed series of assumptions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    Not with that attitude it won't.

    Fatalism is nice and all, and I fall into myself a good deal ...

    ... but if ever there was a moment to believe that it at least might be possible to wrest control of the ship of state from these goddamned corrupt pedophile war mongers, it'd be now.

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

    You can probably get control but you are unlikely to find a politician to actively vote for something that directly sets them up for criminal charges.

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

    How many voted-in politicians regularly commit war crimes?

    Not many, but they have been known to tell other people to, on their behalf.

    Partially agree to it, the ICC, not full ICJ jurisdiction for every member of the US government.

    Everybody in DoD is subject to it, and then define a mechanism where if a DoD official is asked or ordered to do something that could make them liable to be sent to the Hague, theres a mechanism for instantaneous security declassification and emergency presentation to Congress, that also permits the order to be stayed untill voted on by both chambers as a legitimate or illegitimate order, also simultaneously voting on impeaching and removing the offending politician(s).

    Thus, it ain't a politician directly voting to potentially fuck themselves, and it isn't a total ... relinquishing of US sovereign authority.

    Something like that.

    Some kind of mechanism like this would also augment what the War Powers Act tries to do but does not actually do well at all. Starting a war of aggression is a war crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Either we change the policy, or we exterminate the nazis who insist upon it. We need action, not a defeatist attitude toward our own corruption. If it takes violence to fix the conservatism, then violence it is.

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

    One is unlikely, the other more likely but less plausible if that makes sense.

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

    So if you're familiar with the Overton Window, can you guess which way comments like this move it?*

    I'm not saying you mean ill. I've got a little bit of doomer in me too. Been there. But if you lose your capacity for hope and outrage you become an instrument of those that want to keep things shitty for us.

    *Only microscopically, but still. The hopelessness and helplessness add up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Comments like mine don't move it at all boss.

    It's not doomer, its accepting reality. No one said don't try, I said don't hold your breath.

    There's no hopelessness, no helplessness. We don't need the icc to reign in our own country, that's on us to do and dreaming of a solution that's not likely isn't helping anything either.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    Iirc we signed but didn't ratify like a lot of things. That said the icc doesn't care, if you're brought before them they will try you if need be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    It can, the results do not need to matter in the country the person is from because they aren't in that country.

    Yeah, no duh. We already went over this and I'm not sure why you're not aware of that fact or seem to think you're making a point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    They aren't operating in America so they don't need jurisdiction in America! The same way a court in New Zealand doesn't need jurisdiction in Zimbabwe to try someone in hold your horses here.... Fucking New Zealand! The Hague operates in the Netherlands and have jurisdiction in multiple signatory countries and again brace yourself..... the fucking Netherlands you absolute brick skull.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (1 child)

    Yes you can. Go to another country, commit a crime and tell them you don't accept their jurisdiction. See what happens. Hell slap a prime minister and shit in his cereal I'm sure they'll just say Okie dokie feel free to go home.

    You're being an idiot. There are multiple thousands of examples of foreign nationals tried in a county that is not their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 2 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago*

    I'm being an idiot? Point to where I said he was in the country. The goalposts aren't moving just because you're a sore loser.

    Ed: literally the first thing I said while you screamed nuh uh then realized you were wrong and deleted your comments which btw doesn't actually get rid of them.

    Iirc we signed but didn't ratify like a lot of things. That said the icc doesn't care, if you're brought before them they will try you if need be.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 79 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    If I hear one fucking word about putting the past behind me and moving on together as a country, I am starting a fucking riot and burning the DNC office to the ground.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Moving on as a country does include accounting for the past. You can't just ignore it. Germany didn't pretend nothing happened, they changed who they were as a country and made sure it could never happen again.

    If you don't do that, you're not moving on, you're staying where you are and risking a repeat.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›