this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
178 points (82.7% liked)

Political Memes

1141 readers
1 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 100 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Please tell me that political compass memes aren’t going to be invading lemmy.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago

IMO this one subverts the format, so it's all good.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WiseThat@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You seen the takes from Authright and AnCaps lately? Trying to get rid of single-party divorces, pro child-marriage, pro 'enforced monogamy'.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is true and scary. I would like to see polling to find out how people truly feel about the issue by political faction.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lemmylefty@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Tell me you identify more with a rapist than with their victim without actually saying that.

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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.

[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (18 children)

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.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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).

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, but I imagine they wouldn't be on board with #repealthe2nd

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] esadatari@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

like ngl sounds like somebody is defending future him’s right to rape and not fear for his life.

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I love how the instant a woman uses a gun they're suddenly not pro gun anymore.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›