• 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 30th, 2026

help-circle
  • I live on kinda the outskirts of the ghetto, drive through it everyday to get to town, and there’s this one house, dilapidated af, looks like it should be condemned, busted ass Ford Explorer non-opped on the dogshit-encrusted gravel path—and it’s had Trump signs all over the front fence for ten damn years now.

    Idk how to make people like this understand that Donny John literally would not piss on you if you were on fire. He’d just call you white trash, then rape your daughter on his way out.

    Glad yours took their signs down, but damn. Lotta people have decided to die on this garbage ass hill.



  • Fair point. But there did used to be three branches that checked one another. The reason DJT can effectively do whatever he wants through the DOJ is because those checks and balances are no longer in place. If Biden had tried to do with DOJ what Trump has done (which I still would argue that he absolutely should not have), the USSC would have had something to say about it—similar to how they checked him when he (with Sec of Ed) attempted to forgive roughly half a trillion dollars of student debt.

    To be clear, I’m not saying Biden (or his executive branch or the 117th congress or the USSC) was effective or… idk, good? They absolutely weren’t. I’m saying that for Biden to weaponize various departments and agencies (even for the arguable benefit of Americans), he’d have had to have engaged in the same slide into authoritarianism that Trump has.


  • nile_istic@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldYou Disgust Me
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    He didn’t “sit on the files”. They were under DOJ’s purview, because there used to be three separate branches of government that checked and balanced one another. I’m not saying the DOJ under Biden didn’t absolutely drop the ball, because they did. I’m just saying that Trump’s weaponizing of the DOJ is antithetical not to “decorum”, but to democracy. Biden doing it first would have constituted executive overreach just as much as Trump doing it now.


  • You’re not being realistic. There is no “working class vs ruling class” when a portion of the working class doesn’t see the rest as human. It’s not just that we sane Americans are unwilling to side with Nazis to take down billionaires (though certainly that is true); it’s also that someone who calls me a removed is never going to stand and fight next to my black ass. The only way you get the entire working class to engage is if they are willing to stand with us, and that’s not gonna happen by us welcoming Nazis into the fold, it’ll happen when they, ya know, stop being Nazis. Even if what you’re saying is possible, you’re preaching to the wrong side.





  • Do you mean that the issue is the fact that they’re brothers or that it’s been printed in a newspaper with their faces on? Because if they’re two consenting adults, they cannot reproduce with one another, and they didn’t grow up as siblings, then I too am struggling to see what the issue is, considering that the usual incest-related issues (inbreeding and consent/coercion issues born of familial bonds/hierarchies) are addressed. Seems the only remaining issue is that it’s been publicized, meaning they’re liable to get shit on by the people for the rest of their lives for something they weren’t aware of, had no control over, and hurts no one.


  • If this is a genuine question, then my answer would be: a whole bunch of stuff I was taught that wasn’t actually true.

    The way American history was presented to me (and I assume lots of other Americans) in school was the rosiest tinted glasses version of our history that could possibly be constructed. We spent a whole lot more time talking about “breaking bread” with the native Americans rather than slaughtering them, and focused more on our early economic growth rather than the slaves on whose backs it was earned. Our involvement in various wars was characterized as “aid” or “ally-ship”, or even stepping in as the “savior” who made sure the good guys won. Our sociopolitical progress (women’s suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, etc) was framed as the goodhearted majority fighting against a smaller group of hateful bad actors, who all sort of magically disappeared whenever progressive legislation won out.

    Simply put, it’s revisionist history designed to retroactively affirm all the “land of the free, home of the brave” shit, when in reality this is a nation whose economy was built on the backs of slaves from all over the world, and whose sociopolitical ideology has always been steered by a small group of cruel and cowardly men who want endless personal power and wealth, to the direct detriment of their fellow country-folk.

    There are things I’m genuinely proud of. Like all those who came before me who made it possible for me to vote/get an education/walk down the street while black, female, and queer. There are great American artists, academics, inventors—all sorts of people who’ve made meaningful contributions to the world. Like any other people, we are not all the worst of us.

    But holy shit the worst of us are SO worst. And they’re so loud, and they’re so rich, and they’ve stolen so many of our resources, and they’re doing so much fucking damage to practically everyone on earth, not to mention to the earth itself. And they’ve controlled the narrative for a very long time, have taught us (sold us) so much bullshit for so long that a lot of the things the average American is proud of are almost entirely fictional.

    It’s… disheartening.







  • nile_istic@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldMy glasses
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think what Jeff is pointing out is that it isn’t uncommon for someone to be misinterpreted as a misogynist and, when called out, decide to lean into the misogyny rather than away, even if it wasn’t their original intention. In this instance, it’s a miscommunication that the OP handled in a way that made me laugh out loud, but I think Jeff is right, that there are also people who, in the same situation would have responded something to the effect of “I was talking about her vision. Maybe if you women weren’t all so [insert twitter-typical misogyny here]”, etc etc. Obviously that isn’t what happened here, but it has been known to.



  • Lmao, but I’ve found it’s less about being cool and more about being firm. I’ve got three friends that I told very plainly “I will no longer be reachable via SMS, please use Signal”. Bear in mind that 1) these are people who love me a lot, more like family than friends, and 2) I didn’t try to shame them or demand they stop using SMS entirely. I just said “this is how you reach me now”. All three installed Signal, and one of them now uses it as their primary method of text communication like I do.

    Not saying it’s easy necessarily, and I doubt this method would work for acquaintances rather than family or close friends. But every little helps, and it’s a place to start.