• Wataba@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It describes all Americans who allowed Trump to take power, through action or inaction.

    :/

  • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    12 hours ago

    the agency has in recent years spent too much time on Washington controversies.

    I know for a fact they used to spend a LOT of resources catching pedophiles. Are those the “controversies” perhaps?

      • TootTootComingThru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Counterpoint: I’ll use whatever accurate term I want to describe this googly eyed fascist dipshit cuck I want in real life and this type of finger wagging is detrimental in the long run. I don’t love the word but if you’ve ever called someone lame or an idiot, you’ve also used ableist slurs. Don’t be an asshole in general but this isn’t as big a deal to most people in the meatspace and it’s mostly fine.

        These cunts literally want to disassemble what remains of our democracy and put certain groups in camps, its fine if somebody calls them something that actually hurts their feelings. Because calling them Nazis certainly doesn’t.

        • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          35 minutes ago

          The problem is you’re not hurting the ones you want to, and you are hurting people - real poeple - who do not deserve it. It’s like bombing a wedding or school when you want to bomb the terrorists.

          And do we need to discuss how language works? “Colored” used to be the preferred term for people who are Black - the NAACP still has the term in their name from that time. But try calling someone that. In the same way, many of the people who are “retarted” still have the medical diagnosis of “mental retardation”. It doesn’t make the word any less offensive in the same way that calling someone of colour “Colored” is. That’s just how language works. The words you mentioned have passed into common usage.

          So at the VERY BEST, your argument is “I should be able to use offensive and hurtful words because they might become non-offensive in the future” while causing actural, real harm now, and not even accomplishing the goal you want to accomplish anyway.

          As far as how to rescue our country, here are some brief thoughts:

          1. The best way, but one of the hardest, is to try and break through the relentless fascist propaganda and change the minds of those who do actually understand progressive ideas - when it affects them personally. Countless times we hear of them suddenly realizing that abortion is a right when THEIR family needs one, that social safety nets are important when THEIR family needs them. It’s difficult to break through, but this would be the best way if we could.

          2. The second best way is to do the same for all those who have bought into the “both sides” and “politics doesn’t matter” and don’t vote, and get them to vote blue. Even with the current state of the Democratic party with its large establishment contingent that are beholden to the oligarchs like the Republicans all are, we’d see SOME progress with a Democratic super-majority

          3. Encouraging progressive politics. It seems that the DSA is currently becoming a center of power and interest with this idea - enough people are becoming comfortable with the idea of democratic socialism (as opposed to Socialism) that there’s some progress possible here, so we should support that - because the time for progressive politics is the primaries and before that - in the general, it is time for “vote blue no matter who” because the progressive battle might’ve already been lost, but red vs blue is still worth fighting.

          4. The least lovely way for change is by enough people having enough and standing up and taking back our government. This requires MUCH risk. People WILL die almost certainly, and it might not work. But what you NEED for that is enough people out on the streets shutting everything down that action must happen - and you need a plan - and you need people ready to go take over. And to get there, you need massive protests. And to get massive protesets, you need sustained and growing protests. And to get there, you need organization and you need people getting other people to get out and protest, and for that you need people convincing others that it’s something worth our time to do, and to convince others that we CAN make a change and get progressive politics/laws in place. So ti’s a big process. Oh, and most likely, you need some sort of spark for the fire - once everyone is out on the streets, ideally something happens that causes people to lose their shit and stand up and take over.

          So there’s all these things we need to be working on, and none of them involve using ableist slurs that don’t help.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Imagine growing up knowing you wanted to be in the FBI to be part of a crack team working on real crimes and then…getting assigned a task like this?

    I mean, what the fuck?

    • Smug_Marmot@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      “Agent, we have a new assignment for you.”

      “Yes, sir, what will it be this time? Another terrorist group trying to ship in illegal weaponry?”

      “Uh, well… It’s more related to the internet.”

      “Ah, I see, sir. Will this be like the time I infiltrated that human trafficking communication network?”

      “No… Some people on the internet, uh, hurt Mr. Patel’s feelings…”

      “No problem sir, I will take them… wait, what did you say?”

      “You need to create a twi… an ‘X’ account and reply to those who say mean things to Mr. Patel.”

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I imagine half the people who grow up wanting to be in the FBI would have been caught up in the propaganda/entertainment shows like 24 growing up. The run around shoot bad guys and stop nuclear bombs from being snuck into the country before they blow up (insert large city here). Unless they were really into forensics and like lab work, but there can’t be to many people out there that love science and think the FBI would be the best place to study/learn cool new things

      • Smug_Marmot@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        but there can’t be to many people out there that love science and think the FBI would be the best place to study/learn cool new things

        On a serious note, in the past few decades, the government has gone to great lengths to attract people like that into these agencies. In the earlier 2000’s, the government realized it had a significant lack of talent compared to the private sector when it came to technology and especially cyber security. The government has a lot of close connections with the private sector, but also worked to directly attract talent too including allowing more competitive salaries or benefits.

        Years ago there were a ton of articles talking about how the FBI had wanted to do away with the federal drug testing requirements when it came to marijuana, because it prevented them from recruiting certain groups.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Hey mods, I didn’t direct the r-word at anyone, specifically mentioned that it’s offensive, and suggested the alternative and legally defensible term googly-eyed chud. I think the automod needs to calm down a bit.

        • Isaac (ieh)@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I wasn’t the one who did it, and personally, I think it could have gone either way, but while I don’t think I would have removed that one, I certainly would not argue against its removal. I don’t think the moderator needs to calm down at all. A ban for that comment might’ve been rather much, but a simple removal is perfectly fine.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 minutes ago

            No one “did it”. It was automod looking for the existence of a word and ignoring any potential context.

            “<redacted> is offensive” was removed for having the word <redacted> in it. That’s asinine

      • BillyClark@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        17 hours ago

        “His partner’s eyes must be even more fucked than his.”

        (apologies for stealing this joke from Romesh Ranganathan)