this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
691 points (98.6% liked)

Memes

8511 readers
382 users here now

Post memes here.

A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.

An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.


Laittakaa meemejä tänne.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 11 points 6 days ago (3 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack

Life without the possibility of parole. They're full of shit, if you do it deliberately it's no different to any other weapon.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Your example is weak because they did a hate crime, which this would not have been. Do you have a better one?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

My point is, you don't get away with killing someone just because you used a car to do so, and I think that proves my point.

Feel free to come up with some evidence of your own.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Getting away is not the point, the point is a lighter sentence.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

the point is a lighter sentence

Didn't work for the example above, did it?

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well, technically this seems to have been a hate crime as well - just not of a "protected class" (which I'm sure is a "shortcoming" of the law that they'll get "addressed").

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Technically, hate crimes consist of crime because of innate properties of an individual (+religion), which again this isn't. No doubt they'll codify something special for the rich soon, but still not a hate crime.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's that religion exception that belies the idea that it's solely about qualities of a person that they have no control over. Beliefs are beliefs, regardless if they're related to religion or capitalism.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"Capitalist" isn't a protected class, and I don't think that hate crime legislation is very strong in the US in any case.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I'm aware it's not a protected class - that was the point of my initial comment. But your rebuttal implied "hate crimes" were defined as those based upon properties of a person they had no control over - with a major caveat for religion as well. My point was if you can include something a person chooses to believe as an additional exception, then that opens up an extremely wide swath of possible exceptions.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing against the inclusion of religion, just saying that the inclusion can be used to crowbar in any number of other "classes" to be protected as well simply because they're based upon beliefs.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Makes no difference to my point.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] lemmyng@lemmy.ca 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 6 days ago

It's pretty strange… Love the username, though.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

They used to defend universalmonk, judge them by that

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

if you do it deliberately it's no different to any other weapon.

Of course but at least there’s the possibility of it being an accident. Absent other proof, such as that possession of a manifesto, you can quite possibly get away with it

On the other hand there’s no way to spin as an accident that you walked up behind someone and shot them

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

It would be a difficult argument to make if you ran them over on the sidewalk though.

It's not the weapon, it's the plausible deniability.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

What do you mean, isn't guns like play things for everyone starting age 3?