• stovemilk@lemmy.ca
      716·
      2 years ago

      I enjoy the format. Even with obvious bias in memes, they make fun of everyone

      • aubertlone
        15·
        2 years ago

        By and large they make fun of the left, liberal leaning types.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          92·
          2 years ago

          It’s super-interesting that hexbear does the same; it’s always dunking on the libs, not dunking on the Nazis, etc.

          Interesting, huh?

          • aubertlone
            4·
            2 years ago

            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

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              4·
              2 years ago

              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.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
    391·
    2 years ago

    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
      161·
      2 years 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.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      10·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Afghaniscran@feddit.uk
        1·
        2 years ago

        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.

  • WiseThat@lemmy.ca
    291·
    2 years ago

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

      • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
        29·
        2 years ago

        @[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.

    • Mrderisant@lemm.ee
      5·
      2 years ago

      Enforced monogamy? I don’t understand. Is it like making adultery a punishable offense?

      • Astroturfed
        8·
        2 years ago

        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…

        • hydrospanner
          2·
          2 years ago

          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.

  • LemmyLefty
    221·
    2 years ago

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

  • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.caEnglish
    3213·
    2 years ago

    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
      151·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.caEnglish
        1310·
        2 years ago

        It’s not self defense of immediate threat has ended. You can’t take retributive action after the fact and call it self defense.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        58·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      61·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.caEnglish
        413·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          4·
          2 years ago

          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?

      • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.caEnglish
        158·
        2 years ago

        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.

          • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.caEnglish
            1010·
            2 years ago

            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.

              • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.caEnglish
                88·
                2 years ago

                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.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    175·
    2 years ago

    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
      6·
      2 years ago

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

        • candybrie
          7·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            22·
            2 years ago

            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.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        310·
        2 years ago

        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.

  • esadatariEnglish
    132·
    2 years ago

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

  • SouthernCanadian@sh.itjust.works
    514·
    2 years ago

    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.