Should make for some great edits putting Charlie Kirk in there since it’s okay to show people being executed by gunfire.
Will Hegseth drink the blood of the executed man to enhance his masculinity?
These people are such freaks
Clearly this is full Nazi behavior. One possible good thing that could come out of this is if someone gets the list of who streams it. That would be very helpful if we ever get to the Nazi punching part, or even as a list of boys you won’t want to date or let into the nice places.
Gonna pull a trigger yourself, Pete? Nice canned hunt for you that won’t shoot back.
The Pentagon announced on Monday evening that Nidal Hasan would be executed by firing squad, which Hegseth recommended and President Donald Trump approved. Acting Secretary of the Army Adam Telle set the date for Hasan’s execution on December 3 at 2pm ET, 1pm CT, at Fort Hood.
Hegseth said the execution would occur on “a Thursday, we’re going to do it at one o’clock, which is when he did it, and it’s going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad.”
Jesus fuck we have lost our way
It’s just a return to what was before, because the people forget after decades of comfort what its actually like living under the rule and culture of tyrants and sycophants.
But this is what we’ve always wanted as a fundamentalist Christian nation: some hardcore eye-for-an-eye shit you can take the kids to. Put it on TV. The line between entertainment and real death is long gone. “Here. Here’s American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it.”
Ironically the actual fundamentals of Christianity:
Be kind to your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Forgive those who trespass against you. …to the least of these… Let he who is without sin…
America has always been violent
I’d argue that in spite of the feckless of attempts, that the US on aggregate has strived to move away from that violent past, but the full throated nature of this sort of thing definitely feels “traditional” in that sense.
US has a huge amount of violent crime, always has. They can’t stop warring since WW2.
My argument is about the overall striving as a people and a nation, evidenced by a trail of admittedly flawed and leaky legislation whose heart I believe is in fact in the right place. It feels apparent that power sticks its foot in the jamb to hold the door ajar just enough for itself on almost every attempt to make progress.
I concede that US history is horribly marred and shameful, and it behooves us to honor that by not forgetting that past.
You believed wrong. It was always corrupt from the beggining. You just fell for the propaganda.
I didn’t say it wasn’t corrupt from the beginning. Best not, I think.
Oh okay, fair enough. People sometimes act like there is something to save. We are well past that point.
Why try to be cute about your timing? This just makes it seem even more immature.
If toxic masculinity had an avatar how would it be any different than Hegseth?
The thought of shooting someone gets this dude hard. I fully believe that.
Pathetic ass loser.
We aren’t allowed to talk on Lemmy about what should be done to conservatives, yet we can openly discuss what they are actively doing to everyone else.
This isn’t reddit. You can say what you want.
That is not true. It’s way better than Reddit, but I have had numerous comments removed and have been banned from several communities for calling for violence against conservatives.
But it is on a .world instance, so no, you can’t.
The entire purpose is to spread fear, so nobody defies Trump over the next 2 years (or beyond that). This really is like North Korea now. Congrats. This is what happens when you elect a dangerous narcissist with dementia (people who knew him even strongly warned about him)
Its a good thing you guys didn’t vote for Kamala. That would have been horrible /s
I’m willing to bet it’s even worse than that. They’re executing a brown man and putting it on American tv. This is just raw meat for the rabid maga cult. Riling up the racists to keep them happy and actively supporting their dear leader, despite the fact that gas & food & everything else are more expensive than ever.
We need to understand that we are already in a civil war. Conservatives have promised to “rise again” every single fucking day since we showed them mercy in 1865. We pulled Sherman back and let conservatives live, and now we have concentration camps. They have been plotting to kill us every day since their “surrender”.
It’s time to finish the war. Properly and completely this time. Act independently. Be discrete. Be prolific.
They won a long time ago considering we have destroyed millions of minority families already. A late call to violence is the very definition of weakness.
The conservatives have dozens of gargantuan new concentration camps that are currently empty. They plan to fill them after midterms. Our latest genocide is just beginning.
I will “deal with” as many of my enemy as I can now, before they put me in the camps. Rolling over and giving up is the very definition of weakness.
Oh God, you are delusional. There is nothing to save and if you think violence is the solution you already lost.
I am not going to follow your recommendation to just give up without fighting.
If you read my comments and thought you would convince me to just surrender by writing a couple of lazy sentences, then it is you who are delusional.
I never said surrender, but your suggestion of discrete murders is fucking bonkers. Please tell me when the shit hits the fan and you pull the trigger how you tell the “good” guys from the “bad” guys.
You are just roleplaying garbage at this point.
Thanks for the name-calling. That’s very helpful. Also helpful are the presumptions you make in each sentence, ensuring no response can adequately address your deception or your strawman nonsense.
Your very first comment to me was an instruction to give up, yet here you claim to have never suggested surrender. So, you are a liar in your first sentence. If you are just trying to play a semantics game here, then I will still label you a liar.
Then you presume every encounter with a conservative will be predicated by “shit hitting the fan”. Sounds like you have a very limited imagination. Either that, or you are attempting to manipulate the conversation to reflect only limited possible scenarios. Either way, you are being deceptive in this presumption, which is consistent with your established history of being a liar.
As for telling the “good guys” from the “bad guys”, you again presume anyone who resists would indiscriminately attack everyone they see. This is also an absurd comment intended to cause me to not address it. But I will address it. In a war, it’s important to properly identify your target. There. One sentence. Another manipulative strawman is addressed.
You write like a conservative. You suggest giving up in the war against conservatives, claiming they already won. And then you seem to be pathological in your lies in your responses. I think we both know why you are offended at the notion of resistance against conservatives.
Conservatives are truly, deeply evil. As long as they continue to live, there are some of us who will never, ever stop dealing with them. Be afraid. Or better yet, just take your own advice and give up.
I hate these jerks but I think this is the right thing to do for two reasons. Firing squad death is about as humane as we have. Lethal injection is too error prone and can end as torture instead of death. I also think that if you as a society are going to execute people, it should be public so that people have to see the actual consequences of execution. If it’s too gory to watch, maybe don’t do executions?
Doesn’t really work like that. There were thousands of years of human history with public executions and no real action being taken to stop them.
Pre radio and tv, and interestingly the human rights revolution in western nations aligns well with increased public discourse allowed by radio and tv.
Key Abolition Timeline in the Western World
-
19th Century:
-
Post-World War II (1940s–1960s):
-
Late 20th Century Wave (1970s–1990s):
- Portugal: 1976
- Denmark: 1978
- Norway: 1979
- France: 1981 (under President François Mitterrand)
- Australia: 1985 (completed across all states/territories)
- New Zealand: 1989
- Canada: 1998 (abolished for ordinary crimes in 1976 and completely for all military/remaining offenses in 1998)
- United Kingdom: 1998 (de facto ended in 1965, formally abolished for all remaining offenses like treason in 1998)
I have no idea what those dates are supposed to be demonstrating to me. Did any of those countries have televised executions?
You’re deliberately missing the point. Whether you watch it or not, that it is televised brings the issue of execution to the public’s attention:
- If a country is going to execute people, it should have the honesty to show the public what that actually means
- if the public can’t handle public executions, they should perhaps revisit why they want something they are unable to bring themselves to watch.
- Regardless of intent, making executions public is increasing public dialogue about executions. We can see that correlation in other countries above. Improved communication modes correlated with abolition.
- If that increased public dialogue focuses on the fact that the executions are public and not that they are happening at all, that shows a basic dishonesty about what the problem actually is.
I’m not missing the point at all, I understand your reasoning. The question is whether there’s any actual evidence to show that that reasoning actually holds up in practice. I think there’s a significant amount of evidence that it doesn’t, that being that executions were publicized for thousands of years. You countered that TV makes a difference and listed a bunch of dates. I asked if any of those dates actually show a correlation with televised executions. Since you didn’t answer, and I’ve never heard of that, I’m gonna say no, and so there’s no real evidence for what televised executions would lead to.
All you have is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
I dunno man, there are some things that are simple enough that we don’t need a double blind study for. The general idea: will more conversation be generated about a controversial topic that:
A) Is hidden in the shadows; or
B) Open and blatantly in public
The problem is that putting it in the public can also normalize it and desensitize people to it, especially if it’s celebrated or seen as entertainment. We know that this can be the case, because again, it was the case for thousands of years.
Also, it’s entirely possible that even if it leads to conversations, and even if those conversations lead to things changing, it may be that the thing that changes is simply not publicizing executions. The Democrats pat themselves on the back for making incremental “progress” just by returning to the status quo, and anyone who says, “But executions are still happening” will be seen as an unreasonable radical, a “both-sideser.”
What you’re suggesting is similar to the logic of accelerationism and accelerationism doesn’t generally work. ICE raids have increased in intensity and visibility, but the Democrats still won’t commit to abolishing it. They raised a big stink over child separation before and when they got in power they ended that specific policy but kept the camps and deportations going, and what I described above is exactly what happened with mainstream discourse.
You can’t just make conditions worse and expect it to spur people into action, even if it might seem like you could intuitively. And the reason we know that is that we have history to look at, and we can see ages upon ages of people in horrible conditions, unable to change those conditions because of a lack of power and organization. And you’ll note that “do people have power and organization” is a question that the logic of accelerationism doesn’t even look at, it’s a factor that we discover is important when we look at what actually happens in practice. Which is exactly why you can’t just use this kind of extremely reductive reasoning and expect it to be at all reliable. There are any number of factors that could lead to things playing out differently.
-
