deleted by creator
IMO this one subverts the format, so it’s all good.
I think this is the only good one
deleted by creator
It’s worse than that. It’s one of the few places that invites fascist participation, shouts down those that object to that participation, and purposefully induces normal people into interacting with fascists and their ideas. We should not allow it here.
All under the pretense that “everyone is welcome”. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that every meme that makes it to the front page is far-right and that 75% of the people flared “left” hold views like “I’m left wing but I think leftists take things too far” and other fascist apologism.
I enjoy the format. Even with obvious bias in memes, they make fun of everyone
By and large they make fun of the left, liberal leaning types.
It’s super-interesting that hexbear does the same; it’s always dunking on the libs, not dunking on the Nazis, etc.
Interesting, huh?
I would love to agree with you. However I don’t think I’ve seen a hexbear post in general for whatever reason. maybe that’s for the best considering the few posts I have seen about degenerating from them
But yes, I can at least agree with you about political compass memes. I stumbled on that subreddit earlier this year while I was still on Reddit.
I was like, oh cool, a place to make fun of everyone on the political spectrum. But the posts only ever seemed to really make fun of anyone on the left. Comments were much worse than the posts, in general
I was on it when it was relatively new to trending. It seemed a bit more even, but like any community that allows Nazis to say Nazi shit, everyone that wasn’t a Nazi got sick of it and left, and now it’s Nazis larping and trying to convert clueless people that walk in.
Apparently this person in the post has never heard of self defense. If killing someone is the only way to escape being raped, no you shouldn’t be charged with murder as rape can fuck your whole entire life just as much as being charged for murder can, just in different ways.
It makes no sense, even by the logic that killing is only justified to preserve life. The part where you die is the part where they kill you afterwards. No one is going to wait until they declare their intent to kill you before fighting back. You take whatever opportunity you have because you might not get another one.
There are people in the world who believe no violence is justified ever, even in self defense, and they attack rape victims along with victims of other serious crimes, the military, etc. because they perceive people like that as threats to their insane ideology. They don’t care about the hypocrisy of defending rapists and their ilk to do it. They care about holding back innocent people so that violence is never viewed in a positive light, and they do it at all costs.
True evil exists in this world and that is one of its many faces.
Also there is no way to tell if you will or will not be murdered right after, so you should very much consider your life to be in danger and act accordingly.
For some reason it feels weird to type it out but, I’d say, through no experience or research done on my part, if you can identify them in any way that risk goes up drastically.
You seen the takes from Authright and AnCaps lately? Trying to get rid of single-party divorces, pro child-marriage, pro ‘enforced monogamy’.
This is true and scary. I would like to see polling to find out how people truly feel about the issue by political faction.
@[email protected]’s presentation is scary – no doubt purposefully so – but all it suggests is that some believe that contracts entered into within the purview of family law should be treated as contracts, and not be some handwavvy thing that cannot be understood or predicted upon until a court makes an arbitrary decision. I expect most see family law as something that has become a complete joke.
You don’t have to enter into contracts. Having someone hold a gun to your back wouldn’t satisfy a court’s determination that you entered into a contract willfully. These are only applicable to people who actually want to be bound by such terms. No different than any other contract situation outside of the purview of family law, such as an agreement made between business partners.
Enforced monogamy? I don’t understand. Is it like making adultery a punishable offense?
They’re trying to go back in time on divorce law. Never dealt with divorce law, but my understanding is almost everywhere it’s considered “no fault” now. But it used to be cheating/having sex outside the marriage would get you royally screwed in the divorce proceedings. That along with single party divorces being attached means both parties have to agree to the divorce. Basically there’s been a lot of movement on trying to make it harder for women to leave…
It’s almost like these horrible people can’t win hearts and minds with their words and actions, so they’re resorting to stacking the deck in their favor to prevent equality.
Domestic gerrymandering, in other words.
Tell me you identify more with a rapist than with their victim without actually saying that.
Spicy nuanced take: the definition of rape has become a spectrum, encompassing violent, overwhelming force to nonviolent deception and everything in between. So the quoted statement can be correct in some scenarios, but wrong in others.
If you’re the victim of a violent assailant, you can and should be able to use any amount of force necessary, up to including deadly force, to escape. But turning up and wasting some dude because he stealthed you last week is unquestionably murder.
Self defense is a legal defense. That means the person claiming that they were acting in self defense is going to be doing that, at trial, in front of a jury. That means they have been charged with murder and the jury has to decide whether the defendant was acting reasonably when they killed them. What that means specifically, depends on jurisdiction.
They could also be guilty of a lesser crime than first degree murder. There are knowing, reckless, and acting under extreme duress versions of homicide in most places. All of which still carry jail time.
Having argued self defense in front of a jury, I think it should always be an option for them so long as it makes some kind of sense for the facts.
It’s not self defense of immediate threat has ended. You can’t take retributive action after the fact and call it self defense.
Okay, I’ll take a shot at this: I assert that you can and that the laws should be updated to account for that fact.
You go ahead a assert that all you want in a courtroom, see how far you get.
If I was in court for killing a rapist, what makes you think I would care about going to jail at that point? The system would still be wrong for doing it regardless.
Did you know that legal does not equal moral, just or true?
So if you successfully flee from danger, and then put yourself back in danger for the explicit purpose of killing someone, that’s okay?
If you successfully build a strawman, will it come alive and sing and dance?
How is what they said a strawman? You said laws should be updated to allow retribution.
Because no one is talking about purposefully putting oneself back in danger. That’s logically impossible because the rapist put you in a situation where you are always in danger, not just from them but the community at large.
Burdening rape victims with the responsibility of avoiding their rapist over something done to them inherently puts their life in danger.
It’s not always possible to avoid the rapist. Most rapists are people you know. What do you do when you have to interact with them at work? At school? At home?
What happens when you run into them at the store?
Because that’s the nightmare those rape apologist bitches are asking for. Entrenching the rights of rapists to act without consequences by shouldering responsibility for the situation on the victim.
Like what all evil people do.
And I will NOT support it. Ever. Rape victims have a unilateral right to kill their rapists and no one with any shred of humanity or decency will deny that. Deny it, and you’re a bad person. Period.
Also in civilized countries, self defense is only valid if you’ve exhausted every possible opportunity to retreat.The idea of “stand your ground” laws in the US is widely to considered to contribute to a violent society rather than deter.
For example in Florida in an instance of road rage a man fired a gun at another vehicle. Since the victim has no obligation to retreat, and even had his own weapon, he simply returned fire. So there’s a shootout in the middle of the street in broad daylight with innocent people around.
That stuff doesn’t happen in safe societies.
Holy fuck, you’re naive. Naive to the point of being a danger to the human beings around you.
Go have a read about self defense laws around the world.
America is the naive one here.
FWIW, self defense is typical a valid claim only when you are in direct and immediate danger, and that danger has to be death or grievous bodily harm. Danger or a potential harm at some nebulous time in the future–or danger at a period in the past–is not generally considered a valid reason for using lethal force. That’s why women that murder their abusers often end up in prison; they typically kill their abuser when their abuser is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, rather than in the moment of being threatened or attacked. (Yes, I think that the law is wrong in that instance, given the dynamics of abusive relationships.)
Consult a lawyer for your state or province, because this shit varies from place to place.
That’s why women that murder their abusers often end up in prison; they typically kill their abuser when their abuser is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, rather than in the moment of being threatened or attacked. (Yes, I think that the law is wrong in that instance, given the dynamics of abusive relationships.)
Just… no. If you have the opportunity to kill someone while they’re defenseless, you have the opportunity to leave.
So you managed to condemn and subjugate both rape and domestic violence victims in one post. I don’t know if I should be horrified or impressed.
Well, that’s the prosecution’s claim, anyways.
But have you ever met someone that escaped from an abusive relationship? It’s just not that easy. Abused people often aren’t allowed to have access to money, transportation, or outside support networks. Shelters have limited space, and you can’t stay there for a year while you try to get on your feet, certainly not if you have kids. You can be homeless, I guess?
No, that’s terrible. Also stealthing is by definition rape in many countries.
You’re talking about forcibly (deception is force) impregnating women against their will, easily one of the most vile things you can do to somebody, as flippantly as you would selling a blender on Ebay. That 100% justifies murder
To insinuate otherwise is insane and immoral.
Also stealthing is by definition rape in many countries
Well… yes? I literally just said it was. And no, you cannot legally kill someone who doesn’t pose an immediate grave threat to you.
Rapists always pose an immediate grave threat to their victims. It’s part and parcel of being raped.
They also always are an immediate and grave threat to the community as they can, will and do rape dozens of people in their lifetime. IIRC the average is about 100 over their lifespan.
So yes, we can morally do so. The law is archaic, outdated, sexist, anti-victim and therefore needs to be ignored or repealed so social and moral progress can continue.
If you’re actually suggesting that someone should be able to go out and exact vigilante justice without consequence, I’m not the one who’s insane and immoral here.
If you’re actually defending rape and rape apologia by appealing to 90’s revenge movie cliches, you clearly are the one who is insane and immoral.
You’re literally the dumb fuck in the meme insinuating that rape victims should tolerate being raped – and the presence of their rapists – simply to make yourself feel better.
You are insinuating rapists should be able to go out and plunder human lives without consequence.
And you are ignoring that murdering rapists (or anyone who tries to seriously harm you) is a natural human right people are born with, and that right transcends the law of any country. It is part of your heritage as a living being on this earth and you need to learn to respect it.
Honestly. 🤦
Jesus christ, you’re really not getting it. I neither said or implied any of those things.
Violent assailant holding you down = rape
Stealthing = rape
Rape can cover everything down to refusing consent to a particular sexual position or activity, despite consenting to everything but. We’re not disagreeing here.
Where you seem to be getting hung up is the idea that the slightest consensual breach somehow justifies homicide, even after the fact.
There exists a concept known as proportionality. A proportional response to being forcibly held against your will is all the violence you can muster. A proportional response to disagreeing with a particular act is pushing away and (assuming they relent afterwards) and leaving. Are you getting this now?
And you are ignoring that murdering rapists (or anyone who tries to seriously harm you) is a natural human right people are born with, and that right transcends the law of any country. It is part of your heritage as a living being on this earth and you need to learn to respect it.
There is no such as a natural human right, and since “murder” is purely a legal concept, your statement is nonsensical.
We are thin skinned apes with less hair who evolved to develop language, technology, and civilization. Rights are privileges established by civilization. The same civilization that decided that, maybe, it’s better to also establish a set of rules so that people can’t just go around raping and killing each other willy nilly.
You sound like you’d rather live in an anarchist hellscape. Good luck with that.
No, you’re not getting it: your position naturally extends to those conclusions because that is where your mindset is rooted in: absolutist nonviolence allows, enables, and requires the most blatant of cruelties because it is by is own nature illogical and self-defeating, and to get around its endless broken logic loops, sacrifices are made, and those sacrifices are victims who can’t fight back.
This is why we reject such nonsense, and why we support a rape victim’s inherent natural right to use violence to protect themselves, especially after the fact when rapists can and do taunt their victims or harm them again or others, and it’s why we live under principles based on natural rights and not on your authoritarian garbage.
Let me guess: you learned about morality from DC comics and not from actually reading or thinking about it, or experiencing any of this (though I am sure you will just lie and say you did in your next response so you can win the argument).
There is no such as a natural human right
🤣🤣🤣
Yep, called it. Authoritarian garbage.
See yourself out that way --> 🗑️
Lmfao, let me tell you from a feminist perspective that there are absolutely men, especially from the right but sadly not exclusively, who wouldn’t flinch at this, let alone wonder what the fuck.
This seems like a post for men to pat themselves on the back and pretend they can agree and sing kumbaya across party lines on this one, but the only thing you’re bonding over is pretending misogyny doesn’t exist (making you actively part perpetuating it).
Yeah, but I imagine they wouldn’t be on board with #repealthe2nd
Huh?
The hashtags on the post include repeal the 2nd. The people who probably agree with the text of the message don’t agree with that sentiment.
I didn’t even notice that hashtag, but unfortunately the point you’re trying to make is bullshit since this kind of misogyny, as I mentioned in my original reply, exists on all sides of politics.
Trying to use the gun part of the tweet to exclude some men from my criticism is just proving my point - the whole image is about trying to feel better that “your” kind of men wouldn’t be like this, but reality says otherwise.
All these excuses is just a roundabout saying “not all men” and saying “not all men” is useless bullshit.
There are people from all walks of life that wouldn’t. Doesn’t mean the decent people from all sides abide by it. This thread alone shows there are at least some who care, and that’s what’s vitally important for rape victims and survivors, not petty political garbage.
This thread alone shows there are at least some who care, and that’s what’s vitally important for rape victims and survivors
as a survivor - shut the fuck up, and don’t dare use rape victims you clearly don’t give a shit about (and who I guarantee never ever want to hear the phrase “not all men” or anything like it) as justification for you to feel better about excluding yourself from the problem you are obviously a part of.
This entire post and replies are nothing but a massive “not all men” circlejerk, entirely focused on making yourselves feel better via rape jokes and misogyny.
Go fuck yourself.
I am a survivor too. I’m not even male. In all likelihood, so are a lot of people upvoting the thread. Do not presume to know anything about me or my motives, especially after I’ve been in here all night shooting down rape apologists while your ass did nothing but complain about the thread’s existence. You do not help us survivors. You only hurt us acting that way.
Acknowledging that there are people from all political stripes that oppose rape apologia is in no way contributing to the slave racket, patriarchy, or rape culture. It certainly isn’t not-all-menning anything because how the fuck do I know what gender everybody is?
Your claim that this post is a not-all-men circlejerk is entirely baseless. You know a lot of rape apologists are women, right? You do know that?
There are actual rape apologists in this thread you could have invested energy arguing with but all you find worthy to complain about is the fact that some alt-right dipshits agree, giving us all common ground for once. Why. Why did I get up in the morning and check the thread? 🤦
like ngl sounds like somebody is defending future him’s right to rape and not fear for his life.
I love how the instant a woman uses a gun they’re suddenly not pro gun anymore.
Gun control and anti death penalty types turned out to be rape apologists. Who knew?
Also pro-"life"rs, but we knew that already.
Anyone who claims to stand for the sanctity of life does the exact opposite apparently.
I’m not sure blue would disagree with that.
🤔 I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey on it
I bet there are many who would argue that only God would be allowed to take lives or something.
People like that are so fucking vile. Like how do they cope with people who have different religions or none? Wouldn’t accepting their viewpoint require governments to adopt their religion since it’s the basis for their argument?
I mean, yeah, that’s what they want.
Why. Why does humanity have to be like this?
Anyone got a mirror? Im getting a 504.
Edit: This shit is why you shouldn’t trust gun grabbers.
deleted by creator
A lot of green box people say they’re against the death penalty until they get mad at someone. I’m actually against it though so I agree with the tweet.
Edit: Not sure if the downvotes are coming from all the red box people ruining this platform who are pro death penalty or the green box people who think I’m against them.
Welp, you’re a terrible person then
Yes only terrible people want to avoid killing people
They are when that person they’re defending is a rapist, yes
So let’s just be clear here. You’re saying that everyone who opposes the death penalty is terrible? How did you come up with that? What reason would you have for killing a rapist? How is there a positive outcome from that?
You’re certainly hot about those strawmen and that’s a particularly dumb way to promote rape apologia. Now go read what I said again. Slowly this time.
What reason would you have for killing a rapist? How is there a positive outcome from that?
Retards like you are why Tylenol was invented. 🤦
I smell projection. Your comments are basically non sequiturs. I’m also not sure you understand how to use Tylenol.
You only smell your own shit you get off on inhaling after drinking the tears of rape victims.
My comments are morally correct and in keeping with the concept of natural rights, and that scares you because it conflicts with your own ideas of social and moral progress. Indeed, all rape victims do, because their circumstances justify the violence you seek to eradicate from the world – while defending rapists who commit that same violence on the regular – because you don’t want to admit to yourself that your fantasies have very real and very negative consequences on the most vulnerable people.
You only care about yourself. That’s why cheap rape apologia like you’re peddling is evil, and no one should listen to it.
If you think saying you shouldn’t murder criminals is apologism for crime then you’re more interested in vengeance than justice. There’s times when self defense would require it but this should not be the default.
If you think a rape victim’s unilateral right to guarantee their safety, liberty and happiness is supporting vengeance over justice, then I’ll take it. No one who respects human rights will respect a paradigm that protects rapists while ignoring the reality of the situation and prioritizing the status quo over human lives.
Imagine being more afraid of vengeance than of mass rape. Jesus Christ, you apologists are depraved.
Do I spy a PCM? I reccommend you post it to the official PCM community on Lemmy: [email protected] .
I recommend we don’t bring that cryptofascist bullshit to the fediverse.
“Huehuehue this Nazi sure did post a funny meme, let’s circlejerk with him! This couldn’t possibly have any negative consequences!”
I don’t see how a post criticizing rape defenders can be “cryptofascist” but go off, I guess.
They are talking about political compass memes, not whatever strawman you are presenting.
See? A great example of how cryptofascists cloak themselves in non-sensual arguments. This dipshit knows I’m talking about PCMs and yet he tries to position me as a rape apologist.
Fuck off, nazi lover.
No, I am legitimately trying to understand your point and why liking a certain kind of memes would make me or anyone else a “cryptofascist”.
Why don’t you try to put together a sensible argument instead of spewing out accusation and calling anyone you don’t agree with a nazi? I am not a nazi, I don’t love nazis and I most definitely don’t condone what they did. Geez, I can’t even believe I have to type this out loud.
You gotta realize that cryptofascist means "This person isn’t a facist, hasn’t said or done anything fascist, but I want to call them fascist anyway.
Okay, then you’re exactly the type of naive, politically uninformed liberal that we have to make sure never interacts with Nazis.
I wouldn’t call myself a naive liberal but I’m definitely closer to that then being a fucking Nazi.
Anyway I still don’t see an argument.
Your inability to detect fascism only becomes my problem at the point of fascists attempting to recruit you. Have a nice day!
Dude… go outside 💀 it’s not that serious
Says the cryptorapist.
Nigga what the fuck is your problem?
I think he’s upset alt-right dipshits could potentially garner quarter from others because it shows that all political factions have a common belief, when the alt-right should be ostracized at all costs.
They forgot about the fucking tankies in the upper left corner.
Also it could just be an issue that upsets them emotionally. Just leave them alone and let them have a moment to breathe.
Personally I am just glad it’s possible we all can still agree on something, but that’s missing the point of the meme. The point is that rape apologia is evil.
Pretends to be opposed to fascism but ends with a criticism of the left and an exhortation to find common ground with Nazis.
This, this right here.
No man, authoritarians of every stripe are fucking evil.
You cannot actually be a member of the left and be in favor of authoritarianism. It goes back to the very beginning of the terms left and right to describe political leanings. We can blame the French, but the term started with a vote, the question was “should the king have an absolute veto” Those who said yes sat on the right, those who said no on the left.
In other words, the authoritarians sat on the right, the people who believed in the power of the people sat on the left.
Tankies take the ideals of the left, and then subvert them in favor of authoritarianism. Orwell wrote about it in Animal Farm, the betrayal of the revolution by the Pigs, because while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
Tankies are just another form of monarchist, pretending to be an ally of the left. I do lump them in with Nazis as being dangerous to my ideals of equality and freedom. After all, tankies are just as likely to kill actual communists, it’s how the name was coined.
And another example of what the modern cryptofascist looks like. I’m sure surprised that a brigade is incoming.
Are the fascists in the room with you right now?
Imagine trying to say that fascism isn’t here when Trump has a real chance of winning again and a woman was just killed for hanging a pride decoration. Fuck you.
