this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
178 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3956 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There’s a little wine shop in downtown Ballston Spa, New York with rainbow-colored bottles lining the shop’s front window. The village is small, about 5,000 people, and attracts tourists from all around the world.

Last summer, the owner of the wine shop, Jes Rich, noticed a group of masked men in the street. “As soon as I saw them I ran out the door,” said Rich, who is openly queer and sees her shop as a safe and welcoming space for other queer people.

The men in the street were wearing black and yellow face coverings and T-shirts identifying themselves as members of the Proud Boys, a violent, far-right extremist group. A yellow truck drove alongside the group, blasting the provocative country song “Try That in a Small Town.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I don't disagree with a lot of that, but that doesn't make it right to murder people just because you felt threatened by them. This isn't a kill or be killed society, there are alternative means to deal with threatening. If those means are insufficient for you, then you should want to create better ones long before you want the state to start sanctioning vigilante executions without any form of trial. You also seem to have missed this part of my comment

minority groups, however much more justified they are in feeling threatened, have historically not been nor will they ever be the ones doing them.

That's just the nature of being part of a minority. It's a lot more difficult to organize a mob, and even if you manage to do it you're just going to be met with a bigger mob on the other side cause you decided to go and kick the hornet's nest of bigotry.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Edited - reworded

doesn’t make it right to murder people just because you felt threatened by them

Totally depends on the threat. If the threat is real and mortal, I'd say it sure does give one the right to defend themselves in a way that eliminates the threat. On the other hand, a vague feeling of being threatened does not give one the right to harm others. If it's not your life or something critical to your life being threatened a lesser response is probably more appropriate. I'm not saying shoot someone for stealing your Amazon package. Like every other situation, there is nuance.

Also, your quotation is not from me.

[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Also, your quotation is not from me.

lma fuckin o. No. No, its not. It's from me. Two comments ago. In reference to lynch mobs.

Now I KNOW you don't read my comments very thoroughly.

And no, when you usurp due process and leave it to individuals to decide when a crime worthy of execution has been committed against them, you are inherently throwing any and all nuance out the window. Nuance in these situations is quite literally the reason we have due process in the first place. Punishment in general, but especially the punishment of death, is just not something that any one person or private group should be allowed to enact at their sole discretion.