This has got to be some kind of protest bill. Otherwise, why would it specifically call out ‘use of contraceptives’ as an exception?

Boy do I feel this. Dissociate, panic, dissociate, panic…

Well you can only cram in so many jokes at once. Would have been funny though

Honestly Randall absolutely would put the year in the middle just to fuck with us

This may or may not be the darkest timeline (it’s pretty close)… but it’s 100% the stupidest.

I haven’t, but I could maybe see myself doing that

Don’t worry, if my baeic needs are met I’ll happily entertain you for free

Play video games. Bake bread. Learn to code. Create music. Maybe create a game of my own some day. Release it 100% for free because all my needs are met.

… oh, and sex. Lots of sex. But I think that goes without saying

That is what they say.

Unfortunately he seems very capable of multitasking in that regard

Of course we are. Fucking hate this sithole

You could go to matrix

I genuinely can’t come up with something worse than the actual news. I see real news stories and think “wow, my anxiety riddled brain has been coming up with ‘worst case scenarios’ for months now, but this? I hadn’t even thought of worrying about that.”

Like I was not expecting to think “Hitler would be a better President.” And for the record, as of a couple months ago I would have said that Hitler was as bad of a leader as any country could possibly have.

But not only is Trump every bit as xenophobic, power hungry, and ‘above the law’ as History’s Worst Person ™ but his administration is also selling off our national forests, dismantling our educational system, and literally defunding the usda and fda.

At least the nazis supported organic farming or whatever. THAT’S NOT A SENTENCE I SHOULD EVER BE ABLE TO SAY. And yet here we are.

The Republican party, ladies and gentlemen. Speedrunning “worst government ever.”

People with power. Not “in power.”

Power isn’t something bestowed upon you. It’s something you can take. It’s something We The People can take back, if we care to.

I don’t know Randall, but I expect he would enjoy this.

Presumably the Marshalls.

Violence should never be employed

• against someone who is not harming you or infringing on your rights

• against a party genuinely willing to negotiate

• when your use of violence will seem excessive to onlookers such that they will turn against you

But are the people allowed to be violent when the police use excessive force?

…cuz the cops be doing that a lot

I think you may be the only commenter who actually read the post.

I understand and sympathize with your point, but unfortunately the law will never be that simple.

To use your example, you walking up to me and saying “hand over your money or I’ll kill you” is not justification to respond with lethal force per se. The missing element here is assault - in other words, I have to believe you both are able and intending to do me harm before I can respond with force. If no reasonable person would believe that what you said was actually a threat (like, for instance, if you were a five year old) then I’m still not justified in harming you in self defense.

Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.

Yes. They are. And that was your first example, the one meant to be unequivocally black and white.

The problem here is fundamentally an epistemic one. The law is not a thinking, reasoning being. It is merely a system of procedures. The law does not know - it cannot know - the difference between right and wrong. It only knows what the rules are, and those rules may be wrong.

You might think that there is absolutely no reason to advocate for the mass murder of an entire group of people. And under 99.9% of circumstances, I would agree. But if the zombie apocalypse broke out, I might find myself in favor of killing all of the zombies - and legally, there’s no reason that wouldn’t be genocide.

The law doesn’t know whether zombies are people. It doesn’t know whether or not we are. Therefore, there must be some way to have discussions about the law that are above (or outside the scope of) the law. That’s what politics is, fundamentally: the discussion of the law that’s untouchable by the law. Even if we tried to make certain political stances illegal, we wouldn’t succeed, because that is one area in which the law is necessarily blind.

So we can’t curtail the first amendment.

We can’t execute Nazis.

But we could lynch them, as that would be a political act and not a legal one.