You must log in or register to comment.
They aren’t good people.
he didn’t trust herself
And she’s the secretary for homeland security of all things now?..
Ok, news break! The President of the US is the most obvious foreign actor the country has ever had. This is like if Benedict Arnold was actually President while trying to overthrow the government, then running again and winning. His main goal is to weaken the US as much as possible for his daddy, Putin. If this appointment surprised you, get ready. It’s gonna get a lot worse.
Wait, I was just told by a mod of World News that this is speculation and I have schizophrenia if I assume Trump has blackmail on Putin, despite linking American Kompromat by Unger, Active Measures documentary, and Fire&Fury podcast Epstein Episodes by Michael Wolff
Everybody can reply
Pictures taken moments before diaaster.
It’s Bluesky, not x
Video of the exchange:
Holy shit, I wasn’t expecting it to be word for word the same. Wow…
Points for honesty… I guess?
To be fair, it was like 2 overlapping conversations interrupting each other.
Still, though, she can go fuck off.
“We’ll be continuing to talk to him about what he has access to”
Thats what you do before you give them access. Who is she and what is her position of authority? Something tells me i dont want to know.
Her second [autobiography], No Going Back (2024), ignited controversy over her description of killing a young family dog.
Oh, it’s her.
You can see it in her eyes. The look of “I tortured small animals as a kid and felt nothing”.
“Then I continued to torture animals as an adult and felt nothing. Maybe the MAGA train will let me torture brown people, so that I can see if I feel anything.”
That hurts.
Wow CNN “journalists” really can’t interview worth a damn.
In equally current news, that Back to the Future sequel looks very promising!
Is it just me or does anyone else have to fight the urge to be horribly misogynistic to these Trump worshippers? I always fall back to my gender-neutral profanity (such as “Trump’s shit-guzzler”) but I just feel a deep rooted desire to be as maximally offensive to and about MAGA cultists and enablers as humanly possible. I know it’s lazy but I mean if anyone deserves to be insulted in the most extreme way possible it’s these creatures.
It’s fine, you can call her a cunt
Unless you’re Australian, then it might be seen as a term of endearment.
Its fine, just preface it with shit. Shit cunts are not thought of highly
The Aussie term for people like her is a fucking dog cunt.
Hilarious that you think the OP would label calling a woman a bitch or cunt as misogyny. He clearly means worse.
Some people believe using gender-specific insults over gender-indifferent insults implies hatred of that gender. I’m not one of them, but OP might’ve encountered some and thus has become more reluctant in his/her use of language
Why are you running interference for a self declared misogynist? Why are you making up hypotheticals for them?
If you must give up your values then you might as well give them up in exchange for something in return. In this case you get nothing in return which is why I too recommend using gender-neutral insults.
Don’t let them bring you down to their level. There’s so many fun gender neutral insults.
- ASVAB waiver
- Middle School Drop Out
- Failed Abortion
- Incest Experiment
- Good Idea Fairy
- Shit Fucker
- Couch Fucker <-- Thank you JD Vance!
- Two Balls Short of a Spine
- A family tree with no branches
- Couldn’t fight/talk their way out of a wet cardboard box
I mean really, there’s just so many.
or better yet, Shakespeare Insult Generator! https://www.librarieshawaii.org/learn/brain-games/bardly-barbs/
- Thou paunchy clapper-clawed boar-pig
- You fobbing nut-hook carbuncle!
- You paunch bilbo wag!
- mew fut barnacle!
- fawn bully angel!
Oh thank you, I’ve been looking for that! For totally not Bardly DnD reasons…
- Shit Fucker
Which of these words should I emphasise? Or would either work?
They want you to lower yourself to their level. Wrestling pigs just gets you muddy. Please call them out though, it is important work.
Taking the high road has really been working out for us!
Might have our faces in the dirt but we can feel good about being the better person!
You’re not going to be able to put them in their place better than they do for themselves already. Save the effort IMO.
Although, that being said… I have no issues with any kinda of
verbalantagonism towards fascists. If a woman is a nazi, and we’re all saying it’s ok to punch nazis; is it ok to punch a nazi woman? I say yes.Actually, no, and I’m an arsehole. I guess I learned something about myself today.
No, I don’t actually feel a need to resort to something I find immoral to hurt others, this is horrible of you to say
But I’ve known that the misogyny is very prevalent on Lemmy, you all never needed the excuse of “MAGA” to be sexist in the first place.
Like what excuse would it take for you to start espousing feminist rhetoric? Have you EVER done so? Why wouldn’t you just say feminist things to them, since that would literally be combating their viewpoints?
Really it just seems like you’re kink roleplaying with them without any awareness.
you can actually never trust the government
it doesn’t matter if they’re nazis, commies, or whatever, the governments job is to exploit the people in order to stay alive
We can’t trust the government now. We couldn’t trust it before either, but we also can’t trust it now.
I used to not trust the government.
I still do not trust the government, but I used to, too.You especially can’t trust it now.
Very true.
We can trust that they will do the absolute worst thing instead of not knowing if they will or won’t!
They need to stop hitting themselves in the face with the ugly stick. Holy shit.
Is there a name for this phenomenon for when people start to look inbred due to having all of the terrible plastic surgery? It’s like the Habsburg jaw but within a single generation because the deformity wasn’t a product of breeding.
Brian Posehn called it “Hot Girl Down Syndrome” several years ago on a special. While I understand that is problematic, it’s so spot on it does work as a fantastic shorthand.
My boy posehn got Nickelback all but removed from the airwaves.
I missed this! Spill the tea if you got links.
You haven’t heard about the origin of the Nickelback reveal? Basically Brian posehn made one short little bit. And he had been on stuff before but want (and still isn’t) exactly famous. But that one bit went viral back in the day and people were drawn back, analyzed it and realized collectively that he was right and they sucked.
Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don’t necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. “Can’t trust the government” in this context really means “can’t trust liberals/progressives”. You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She’s not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.
Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:
the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty. Why? Because the two cities have different public policies. Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.
If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that “Culver City enforces the law” has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the “law” of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.
if LA has no law
They didn’t claim their was no law, they said they decriminalized it. Which means it’s still illegal but unenforced by criminal charges, just like weed is decriminalized in many states but still federally illegal.
I don’t disagree with you that people put out bullshit but… Can we not put out bullshit to prove it?
ETA: Italics
You’re largely correct, “decriminalized” doesn’t mean it’s legal, but I just wanted to point out that it doesn’t necessarily mean unenforced. Just that it’s no longer a criminal charge. Something can be decriminalized and still be in violation of the law and enforced with fines or other deterrents, e.g. traffic violations. You’re not a criminal for speeding, it’s still illegal and enforced.
Thank you for that correction!
When someone in your Government is a bimbo girl, then you know you are fucked up
Bimbos are cool and they are fine in positions of power. She is a fascist though, you could have just used that instead of using weird misogynistic stereotypes.
Interesting; and I’ll start by saying we immediately disagree but I am curious on your perspective about not being misogynistic towards Nazi women. I recently (like 6 minutes ago) came to the conclusion that it’s fine to punch them. Can you change my mind?
It’s fine and not at all misogynistic to punch a Nazi woman. You’re simply treating her the same as you would a Nazi man.
One might argue that not punching Nazi women is in fact misogynistic.
The thing is: you don’t have to be misogynistic. She’s a Nazi, there’s plenty of other things you can demean her on without using language that broadly stereotypes everyone, or at least that group.
I get where you’re coming from, and I don’t think I’ll change your mind, but that language is not partisan (for lack of a better word). It might hurt the women standing against you, but it also hurts the women standing with you.
And just to be sure: You’re using bimbo to be hurtful, not because you believe bimbos are less than, right? Because that would be fucked if you wholesale discount bimbos simply because of what they are.
So I actually don’t use the term “bimbo,” and never have. I’m not misogynist; just somewhat of the opinion that it should be open-season on Nazis. As in, “anything goes.”
I don’t want to offend people that aren’t Nazis however. It’s unfortunate that someone might interpret a slur directed at someone else as a slur directed at oneself; but I get it.
In my lexicon, I have a lot of words I’d use for Noem. “Bimbo” would not be on the list in normal circumstances.
Misogyny is gender fascism. Don’t be a fascist.
Nah, misogyny is misogyny and fascism is fascism. That’s why they are different words.
What is misogyny if not fascist control of women by men?
You’re misusing the term fascist / fascism and it’s pretty harmful. You may not realize it, but misusing that term when it’s not appropriate downplays actual fascism; which is what’s happening in the US right now. People throwing the term around so loosely and inaccurately for years on end (in their verbal attempt to evoke strong emotion) is why a lot of the red-hatters can’t understand why so many people are calling them fascists right now, and why they continue to do what they do.
Misogyny is a hatred of women.
Fascism is a right-wing authoritarian government.
I’m not. This is gender fascism: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-americas-fighting-force/
Women not being allowed to vote is gender fascism that has happened historically, along with not having bank accounts, attending law school, or being able to own land.
What’s happening in the US is gender fascism along with other forms of fascism. When you engage in misogyny, you’re engaging in gender fascism. Just like what Trump, a gender fascist and rapist, does.
Misogyny isn’t only a hatred of women, that’s a pretty infantile view of it. There’s benevolent misogyny, for instance, which wouldn’t outwardly appear like a hatred of women, just an assumption that women are stupid and naive, or unable to comprehend what men comprehend, or that women are best as mothers who give birth. A lot of Christian misogyny looks like this.
How is the bimbo any more dangerous than a nepo baby?
It seems when some rich white crotch fruit gets the job, that’s right and proper… They are “competent” but if a hot chick or a black dude get the gig, automatically “we are so fucked”
Bootlicker culture is very strong in USia
Congratulations, you just showed everyone you’re a shitty person. Now everyone knows to not take anything you say seriously.
Anyone can look however they like no matter their position in society. What matters is their views and how they handle that position. Doesn’t matter if it’s a bimbo or whatever else, that shouldn’t be something of concern at all. This one just happens to be a really shitty person, which is fully expected from who chose her, and that’s what matters.
women 😤
A government large enough to supply all your needs is a government powerful enough to take everything from you.
What’s the size of a government that supplies precisely zero of my needs yet is still powerfull enough to take everything?
The current one
So glad government mass surveillance has stopped all crime!
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. I’m against mass surveillance! I’m against big powerful government in general. All the fear people had with the Republicans coming to power would not have happened if there was no power for them to come to in the first place.
As for crime, that’s the job of a small, local, effective, community police force to deal with. Not a militarized thug squad that we have now!
Small local police can not deal with everything tho. There is a reason for multiple “layers”. The problem arise when anyone can be police, dealing with people’s lives without any meaningful training or selection, while other professions need years of training and certificates before they are allowed to do far less consequential things.
The problem with police is that they are “others.” If they were members of their communities and they knew the people they worked with (say, by walking a beat on foot and talking to people like a friendly mail carrier) then we wouldn’t have these issues.
But that would take far more cops to actually know people? Like in the order of one per 100? There are currently 700’000 cops, that would be 5x as many. How many people could one cop realistically know? What problem would this “knowing people” actually solve?
How many people could one cop realistically know?
Presumably somewhere around Dunbar’s number (or some other number with a similar goal likely calculated in a better way), which is wildly unrealistic from a practical perspective.
What problem would this “knowing people” actually solve?
They likely believe that police that are “members of the community” are much less likely to react based on vague heuristics built up over time because they are more likely to directly know the people involved and thus be less likely to need to rely on a snap judgement of strangers. It’s right up there with “maybe we should train them better”, except training is several orders of magnitude more manageable from a practical standpoint than having more law enforcement per capita than Bible belt small towns have churches per capita.
deleted by creator
I’m sure a social safety net propped up entirely by bureaucrats is going to suddenly deprive every one of their rights. It won’t be a government with mass surveillance and militarized police. Nope, those are definitely not two different things. Big government is big government regardless of form apparently.
I’m not against safety nets. I’m against bureaucracies and mass data collection. A social safety that features mass surveillance (means testing) is another tool for social control. A simple safety net via a negative income tax doesn’t leave any cookies in the jar for Musk and his goons to plunder.
Good fences make good neighbours. The government I trust most is the one with the least power to hurt me. When you vote for a new bureaucracy with broad powers over people’s lives you’re setting a time bomb that’s waiting to explode the moment the bad guy wins an election.
Never forget that it was the power of the bureaucracy that allowed the Nazis to be so ruthlessly efficient at rounding up all the Jews. The lesson of history was not “only the good guys should be allowed to win”, it’s “we shouldn’t be leaving so many loaded guns laying around the house.”
This government doesn’t provide for people’s needs and is still powerful enough to take everything from us.
The real problem is if it’s not powerful enough to maintain a top position on violence then I’ll end up paying a second set of taxes to the local sheriff and his posse of Ranchers.
We need to ensure power is used responsibly. Not just get rid of it and hope nobody comes along to fill the vacuum. (Spoiler Alert, they will, and there won’t be voting)
