• Itsamelemmy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    One is clearly a beheading. The other is just calling the guy an idiot. Sure, both political statements but in no way the same.

    • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Isn’t calling for the beheading of a man who is trying to make himself king over America, the most patriotic thing ever? It’s what America was founded on.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They are extremely different, and both should be perfectly acceptable in their repective contexts.

      Griffin’s severed head was not a call to violence. It was a reaction to Trump saying shitty stuff about Megyn Kelly bleeding:

      GRIFFIN: I did say, I want to do some kind of a picture to shame Trump.

      SANDERS: Griffin said she was mad at Trump for what he said about Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News host, after she grilled him in a presidential debate in 2015.

      PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her - wherever. But…

      • AShadyRaven
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        not a call to violence

        fuck that

        when are we allowed to call for violence then? How many people does a fascist have to kill before we are allowed to wish death back on him?

        How Nazi does a Nazi have to be before you’re allowed to kill it?

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          3 months ago

          I didn’t say a call to violence wasn’t warranted, just that Griffin’s photoshoot was not a call to violence.

          • AShadyRaven
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            i didnt misunderstand you, i was speaking to the royal you

            I think you’re swell and you did a good job conveying your thoughts above

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          The pearl-clutching about political violence is rich coming from people who celebrate political violence on 7/4 every year.

          • AShadyRaven
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            im not suggesting political violence

            im suggesting self defense against social murder and fascism

            but yes i agree w you

        • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:

          Political systems hinge on people following the nonviolent bureaucratic process for them to exist, so anyone who supports a political system’s existence will always condemn violence for political gain, and will punish any violence they feel threatens the status quo. You can still do violence, but you will face punishment for it. Same as during the Union Wars.

          • AShadyRaven
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            thats a good fucking point actually

            its unreasonable to demand that your opponent follows the rules without doing so yourself.

            im mad that my opponent has broken some of the rules, but if i start doing it too then what was the point