|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 09 2026 23:27 LightSpectra wrote:Retaliation because Microsoft didn't openly bribe Trump the same way Google, Apple, and Amazon did. There's a good chance MS will cave, cut the check, and their suspension will be reversed.
Trump is corrupt.
However, Microsoft has been laying off a ton of people lately and they want 6,300 H1B visas. Google has not been laying off people in numbers anywhere near the level of Microsoft.
MS can always threaten to move to Vancouver.
Corrupt evil people are capable of doing great things.
"He is our snake now, Jim", Arcturus Mengsk, SC1.
|
On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Why would being executed scare them when they willingly strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up to welcomed into heaven by 72 virgins?
Did putting children in cages on display towards the border stop illegal crossings?
When in the history of mankind has cruelty as a deterrent ever really worked?
And do you think Pete Hegseth is putting on this show to scare some muslims in Iran who sure are hell are not watching Fox News, or do you think Hegseth puts on this show for the only people who will be watching it, The American public.
The ratings are in the dumpster, the midterms are coming and the government will start executing people on tv. I dare you to tell me with a strait face that this shit isn't being put up as entertainment.
We're back at the roman coliseum, watching people die for entertainment. (ignoring the actual historical inaccuracies with that)
|
On October 09 2026 23:27 LightSpectra wrote:Retaliation because Microsoft didn't openly bribe Trump the same way Google, Apple, and Amazon did. There's a good chance MS will cave, cut the check, and their suspension will be reversed. Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:26 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Islamic terrorists famously don't wanted to be martyred in the most public way imaginable, right? Well it's my question. They want to martyr themselves, if you will. I'm not sure being executed publicly like they would to some poor sap they captured in ISIS territory is quite what they have in mind. Just like how Christians love their publicly executed martyrs like St. Stephen and St. Lawrence of Rome, Islam is replete with publicly executed martyrs that are extremely revered, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali (in Shi'a countries like Iran this guy has a whole month of veneration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_of_Muharram ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayya
I know what a martyr is thanks. Again I'm open to that argument but the fact that people with these types of ideologies like to do this *to other people* raises the question of what would happen if done to them. The martyrs are revered partially for what they suffered. It's more complicated than just being state violence because public punishments have been used pretty much everywhere at one time or another. That's all
On October 09 2026 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Why would being executed scare them when they willingly strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up to welcomed into heaven by 72 virgins? Did putting children in cages on display towards the border stop illegal crossings? When in the history of mankind has cruelty as a deterrent ever really worked? And do you think Pete Hegseth is putting on this show to scare some muslims in Iran who sure are hell are not watching Fox News, or do you think Hegseth puts on this show for the only people who will be watching it, The American public. The ratings are in the dumpster, the midterms are coming and the government will start executing people on tv. I dare you to tell me with a strait face that this shit isn't being put up as entertainment. We're back at the roman coliseum, watching people die for entertainment. (ignoring the actual historical inaccuracies with that)
It's not about the people in Iran it would be about the Hassans in this country.
|
On October 09 2026 23:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Islamic terrorists famously don't wanted to be martyred in the most public way imaginable, right? Well it's my question. They want to martyr themselves, if you will. I'm not sure being executed publicly like they would do to some poor sap they captured in ISIS territory is quite what they have in mind. Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:26 Jankisa wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. These guys want to be martyrs, there was a reason why Osama was unceremoniously dumped into the ocean somewhere, thinking that doing public executions of Islamic terrorists would somehow deter them is, I don't know how else to say it, pretty fucking dumb. Anyhow, in more news on how satire is ahead of the times, here is a gold one from the Onion, published: April 27, 2026: https://theonion.com/doj-to-bring-back-firing-squad-as-means-of-entertainment/“For too long, weak-on-fun Democrats have prevented our country from exercising this beloved tradition of murdering for enjoyment,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming the practice was also a far cheaper and more efficient method of amusement than lethal injection.
“Capital punishment with actual guns and bullets acts as a natural deterrent for boredom when it is carried in front of millions of thrilled, screaming Americans. Firing squads are going to completely expedite the delight and euphoria that are often slow in death penalty cases, with some inmates being forced to wait years before their death provides amusement for a cheering crowd.” Osama was already dead
You're a Christian, right? How do you feel about Jesus' famously public execution. Does it make you shamed to be a Christian? Or is it an absolutely central part of your belief system?
|
I love how in one post you talk about your American co-workers being lazy piles of shit that do no work, and then in the next applaud the government for forcing companies to hire these lazy piles of shit rather then foreign workers who are not only more skilled (cause unlike America they have a functional education system), they are also harder working.
Really is a dichotomy of different worlds with you.
|
On October 09 2026 23:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Islamic terrorists famously don't wanted to be martyred in the most public way imaginable, right? Well it's my question. They want to martyr themselves, if you will. I'm not sure being executed publicly like they would do to some poor sap they captured in ISIS territory is quite what they have in mind.
Dying in combat, very glorious. In some cases like, Hamas fighters, financially lucrative for the surviving relatives who get a payout. The effect of that is not to be understated as there's fewer nuts who will just die but more who are game when you add worldly incentives.
Getting turned into a pincushion by the sheer force of an enemy stronger than you on live TV, not so appetizing. That's why ISIS didn't avoid killing people on the grounds that they were actually doing them a favor by martyring them. The difference is they murdered civilians for being the wrong religion, the wrong ethnicity, for simply being a prisoner of war. We are executing someone because they perpetrated a mass murder proven in court.
|
On October 09 2026 23:39 Introvert wrote:It's not about the people in Iran it would be about the Hassans in this country. That's great.
Care to actually address the point or would that be to difficult at this time?
|
On October 09 2026 20:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 19:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 19:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown. Just literally Ideocracy I have no doubt Hegseth legit thinks this will boost their rating. Bread and Games. Except they keep forgetting the bread part somehow. Next step: Firing squad is boring. Why not have him fight a hungry bear for his life.
100 Ducks!
|
On October 09 2026 22:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 21:47 dyhb wrote:On October 09 2026 20:59 oBlade wrote:On October 09 2026 20:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 09 2026 20:11 oBlade wrote:On October 09 2026 01:06 LightSpectra wrote:
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl. You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt. On October 09 2026 19:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown. That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next. The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein. I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it. For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better. There’s something horrific about a televised execution, period. Voyeuristic. Firing squad, but limited to base personnel and military chain of command avoids that. I've never heard voyeurism described as horrific so the horrificness must be something else. Also voyeurism is when the people don't know they're being watched. Everyone involved here will probably be aware. This thread's penchant for weird sexual allusions continues to rear its head though I see. We already have military released wartime footage. Like people in gunfights with the Taliban. Drone strikes on infantry soldiers. That could be called horrific, but war is horrific, that's life. The videos are public interest because the public has a right to know and understand the information in its true form rather than just a bland euphemistic sentence "Convicted terrorist executed today." Part of the government's job is killing people we have sentenced to death. The people should know what that looks like. Especially an asshole whose crimes are as high profile as this guy's were. The minute I ever break the oath of my uniform and murder over a dozen unarmed colleagues, please consider my right to have a private execution void. There is a public interest here.
Knowing and agreeing are different things.
Do you think it's okay for someone's final moments to be used as entertainment (I was going to be charitable and say warning, but we can drop that charade, I hope?) without their consent? They can request a final meal, but not the dignity of a private death?
Alternatively, the guy agrees to be publicly executed, do you feel they should be granted whatever twisted satisfaction/goals they are aiming for? Or, should they, especially if they agree to televised execution, be granted an anonymous and silent death?
|
Batting for livestreamed executions, just outright disgusting
|
On October 09 2026 23:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:26 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Islamic terrorists famously don't wanted to be martyred in the most public way imaginable, right? Well it's my question. They want to martyr themselves, if you will. I'm not sure being executed publicly like they would do to some poor sap they captured in ISIS territory is quite what they have in mind. On October 09 2026 23:26 Jankisa wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. These guys want to be martyrs, there was a reason why Osama was unceremoniously dumped into the ocean somewhere, thinking that doing public executions of Islamic terrorists would somehow deter them is, I don't know how else to say it, pretty fucking dumb. Anyhow, in more news on how satire is ahead of the times, here is a gold one from the Onion, published: April 27, 2026: https://theonion.com/doj-to-bring-back-firing-squad-as-means-of-entertainment/“For too long, weak-on-fun Democrats have prevented our country from exercising this beloved tradition of murdering for enjoyment,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming the practice was also a far cheaper and more efficient method of amusement than lethal injection.
“Capital punishment with actual guns and bullets acts as a natural deterrent for boredom when it is carried in front of millions of thrilled, screaming Americans. Firing squads are going to completely expedite the delight and euphoria that are often slow in death penalty cases, with some inmates being forced to wait years before their death provides amusement for a cheering crowd.” Osama was already dead You're a Christian, right? How do you feel about Jesus' famously public execution. Does it make you shamed to be a Christian? Or is it an absolutely central part of your belief system?
That example is kind of the exception though right? Most Jewish leaders who were executed didn't end up with world spanning religions following them.
Not everyone has the stomach to be a martyr. I suppose you could argue if you are going to go on shooting spree maybe you are. But conversely, if you think it's glorious to die in battle, maybe you aren't as keen on being executed like a criminal.
On October 09 2026 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:39 Introvert wrote:It's not about the people in Iran it would be about the Hassans in this country. That's great. Care to actually address the point or would that be to difficult at this time?
See reply above, it depends on the mindset and ideology of the potential terrorist.
|
On October 09 2026 23:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:26 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Islamic terrorists famously don't wanted to be martyred in the most public way imaginable, right? Well it's my question. They want to martyr themselves, if you will. I'm not sure being executed publicly like they would do to some poor sap they captured in ISIS territory is quite what they have in mind. Dying in combat, very glorious. In some cases like, Hamas fighters, financially lucrative for the surviving relatives who get a payout. The effect of that is not to be understated as there's fewer nuts who will just die but more who are game when you add worldly incentives. Getting turned into a pincushion by the sheer force of an enemy stronger than you on live TV, not so appetizing. That's why ISIS didn't avoid killing people on the grounds that they were actually doing them a favor by martyring them. The difference is they murdered civilians for being the wrong religion, the wrong ethnicity, for simply being a prisoner of war. We are executing someone because they perpetrated a mass murder proven in court.
Yeah that's true too. Maybe it's in a sense a more severe punishment for a particularly horrendous crime. I'm all for him dying, I'm just on the fence for doing it publicly.
|
It was about this time last year when Ynet (subsidiary of the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, generally considered centrist), published: "Ben-Gvir’s death penalty push: A reckless gift to terrorists and extremists. Opinion: Death penalty for terrorists may satisfy calls for revenge, but it risks endangering hostages, fueling extremism, undermining Israel’s democracy, and handing its enemies the martyrdom they crave instead of real security." https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/skweblthex
If you're actually asking in good faith about whether publicly executing Islamic terrorists is a good idea, give it a read. The relevant part:
At its core, the idea of executing convicted terrorists is not a deterrent; it is a recruiting gift. For decades, terrorist movements have sanctified “martyrs.” They glorify death in service of their cause. Executing them does not erase their deeds—it amplifies them. Each death at the hand of the state becomes a rallying cry for new recruits, a reason to avenge, a symbol around which to organize more violence.
Terrorists are not hapless, misguided souls driven solely by poverty or circumstance; they are people who made a conscious decision to kill. Labeling them correctly — criminals, murderers, perpetrators of atrocities — is essential for moral clarity and for honoring the victims. But moral clarity does not compel the state to kill in return. Condemning their acts and holding them accountable through fair, rigorous trials and long prison sentences denies them the martyrdom they seek while preserving the moral high ground of a democracy that values life even when it is confronted by death.
|
On October 09 2026 23:44 Gorsameth wrote:I love how in one post you talk about your American co-workers being lazy piles of shit that do no work, and then in the next applaud the government for forcing companies to hire these lazy piles of shit rather then foreign workers who are not only more skilled (cause unlike America they have a functional education system), they are also harder working. Really is a dichotomy of different worlds with you.
No, it makes my job easier. The USA was a great move for me. I went from the #1 Math Factory in Canada straight into a place with the worst math education in the developed world. It makes me look like a super genius.
The most important decision any poker player makes is table selection. I am sitting at a great table... And I want to keep it that way.
I believe in the long, slow process of improving the USAs math education so the nation can produce more and better computer scientists in 20 years.
|
On October 09 2026 23:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:43 Acrofales wrote:On October 09 2026 23:26 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Islamic terrorists famously don't wanted to be martyred in the most public way imaginable, right? Well it's my question. They want to martyr themselves, if you will. I'm not sure being executed publicly like they would do to some poor sap they captured in ISIS territory is quite what they have in mind. On October 09 2026 23:26 Jankisa wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. These guys want to be martyrs, there was a reason why Osama was unceremoniously dumped into the ocean somewhere, thinking that doing public executions of Islamic terrorists would somehow deter them is, I don't know how else to say it, pretty fucking dumb. Anyhow, in more news on how satire is ahead of the times, here is a gold one from the Onion, published: April 27, 2026: https://theonion.com/doj-to-bring-back-firing-squad-as-means-of-entertainment/“For too long, weak-on-fun Democrats have prevented our country from exercising this beloved tradition of murdering for enjoyment,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming the practice was also a far cheaper and more efficient method of amusement than lethal injection.
“Capital punishment with actual guns and bullets acts as a natural deterrent for boredom when it is carried in front of millions of thrilled, screaming Americans. Firing squads are going to completely expedite the delight and euphoria that are often slow in death penalty cases, with some inmates being forced to wait years before their death provides amusement for a cheering crowd.” Osama was already dead You're a Christian, right? How do you feel about Jesus' famously public execution. Does it make you shamed to be a Christian? Or is it an absolutely central part of your belief system? That example is kind of the exception though right? Most Jewish leaders who were executed didn't end up with world spanning religions following them. Not everyone has the stomach to be a martyr. I suppose you could argue if you are going to go on shooting spree maybe you are. But conversely, if you think it's glorious to die in battle, maybe you aren't as keen on being executed like a criminal. Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 23:39 Introvert wrote:It's not about the people in Iran it would be about the Hassans in this country. That's great. Care to actually address the point or would that be to difficult at this time? See reply above, it depends on the mindset and ideology of the potential terrorist.
You trying to say that not all public executions end up being glorified? That seems obvious, but it also isn't an exception. Half the Catholic saints were sanctified because they were martyrs, condemned to execution by the Romans/other oppressors for their beliefs. Plenty of other isms also have personality cults around people who died "for the cause" and the more gruesome or public it is, the bigger the following.
|
On October 09 2026 23:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 22:30 oBlade wrote:On October 09 2026 21:47 dyhb wrote:On October 09 2026 20:59 oBlade wrote:On October 09 2026 20:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 09 2026 20:11 oBlade wrote:On October 09 2026 01:06 LightSpectra wrote:
We showed you hard data about the federal deficit over time that you didn't want to talk about, and now you're confounded about why you're getting "toxic one liners." I mean, the simplest answer for that is if you act like an animal, you'll get your meals served in a dog bowl. You very likely still do not even understand the relationship between the deficit and the debt. On October 09 2026 19:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh so the Nidal Hasan guy that went on a rampage a while ago will be executed by firing squad and apparently Pete the drunk Hegseth decided it would be live-streamed.
Because yeah, you know, public executions on the internet are not disturbing at all and a totally decent and normal thing to do. Doesn’t make you look like Isis or something.
I know we live in an era of ultrapartisanship where people’s brains shut off when their tribe is involved, but one has to be a real cunt to not be appalled by that clown. That guy should have been executed years ago. Hopefully Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is next. The point is not the execution it’s the live-streaming, Einstein. I don't find that to be a big deal. You can just not watch it. For example, you brought up ISIS. The main factor (for me, others might disagree) that made ISIS's jihadist media so evil was the torture and the murder. Not the fact that it was filmed and disseminated. They murdered thousands of people that they never filmed and uploaded and that wasn't better. There’s something horrific about a televised execution, period. Voyeuristic. Firing squad, but limited to base personnel and military chain of command avoids that. I've never heard voyeurism described as horrific so the horrificness must be something else. Also voyeurism is when the people don't know they're being watched. Everyone involved here will probably be aware. This thread's penchant for weird sexual allusions continues to rear its head though I see. We already have military released wartime footage. Like people in gunfights with the Taliban. Drone strikes on infantry soldiers. That could be called horrific, but war is horrific, that's life. The videos are public interest because the public has a right to know and understand the information in its true form rather than just a bland euphemistic sentence "Convicted terrorist executed today." Part of the government's job is killing people we have sentenced to death. The people should know what that looks like. Especially an asshole whose crimes are as high profile as this guy's were. The minute I ever break the oath of my uniform and murder over a dozen unarmed colleagues, please consider my right to have a private execution void. There is a public interest here. Knowing and agreeing are different things. Do you think it's okay for someone's final moments to be used as entertainment (I was going to be charitable and say warning, but we can drop that charade, I hope?) without their consent? They can request a final meal, but not the dignity of a private death?
The fact that certain people are going "buh entertainment" and even as far as "huehue fetishization" speaks only to the limits of their own understanding of violence.
You apparently believe a mass murderer has the natural right, or civil right, to have a private death, when sentenced to the death penalty. I disagree and don't believe the former exists. I believe the latter has largely not been adjudicated in US law. The reason it never caught on is just for content you could never broadcast an execution on public TV airwaves, which have been the dominant medium for most of a century. Before that, public executions were not abnormal. We do have audio tapes from some. But we have more diverse media now and aren't limited by the fact that you can't put certain mature content on public airwaves. Like you could have executions broadcast to the internet, or on a cable "Justice" channel, just like all the police body cam videos, of shootings, of police officers and criminals alike DYING, which are released in high quality regularly. You can pull up youtube right now and see the bodycam footage of human garbage executing a police officer in his car, after he stopped to help him on the side of the road. You can hear his last breaths. I don't remember that police officer being asked to consent to that.
For last meals, you have to eat food anyway, last meals are capped at like $40, it doesn't matter in any grand scheme of things.
Like the guy we are talking about, he has had 17 years of life that he denied to over a dozen people. He has had that much due process. In 2 years he will have lived LONGER SINCE the mass murder he perpetrated, than his youngest victim had lived until the day he SHOT THEM. You have misfiring compassion. The only reason we are talking about this now is he wasn't shot after a summary trial a maximum of one month after it happened, which is how these things should be handled.
In most jurisdictions and at the federal (and military) level you don't even have a right to choose the method. Many people have wanted firing squads but couldn't get them because they aren't done where they were convicted. That's interesting, but it plays no role in what I think. I am not guided by compassion for convicted mass murderers.
On October 09 2026 23:49 Acrofales wrote:
Alternatively, the guy agrees to be publicly executed, do you feel they should be granted whatever twisted satisfaction/goals they are aiming for? Or, should they, especially if they agree to televised execution, be granted an anonymous and silent death?
I legitimately don't know what this means. I don't know how a televised execution is anonymous or what a "silent death" is.
|
Also, I want it to be noted that I have acknowledged I am just as lazy as the average USA tech worker. This is not some judgment coming off of some moral mountain top.
|
On October 10 2026 00:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 23:50 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 23:43 Acrofales wrote:On October 09 2026 23:26 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Islamic terrorists famously don't wanted to be martyred in the most public way imaginable, right? Well it's my question. They want to martyr themselves, if you will. I'm not sure being executed publicly like they would do to some poor sap they captured in ISIS territory is quite what they have in mind. On October 09 2026 23:26 Jankisa wrote:On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. These guys want to be martyrs, there was a reason why Osama was unceremoniously dumped into the ocean somewhere, thinking that doing public executions of Islamic terrorists would somehow deter them is, I don't know how else to say it, pretty fucking dumb. Anyhow, in more news on how satire is ahead of the times, here is a gold one from the Onion, published: April 27, 2026: https://theonion.com/doj-to-bring-back-firing-squad-as-means-of-entertainment/“For too long, weak-on-fun Democrats have prevented our country from exercising this beloved tradition of murdering for enjoyment,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming the practice was also a far cheaper and more efficient method of amusement than lethal injection.
“Capital punishment with actual guns and bullets acts as a natural deterrent for boredom when it is carried in front of millions of thrilled, screaming Americans. Firing squads are going to completely expedite the delight and euphoria that are often slow in death penalty cases, with some inmates being forced to wait years before their death provides amusement for a cheering crowd.” Osama was already dead You're a Christian, right? How do you feel about Jesus' famously public execution. Does it make you shamed to be a Christian? Or is it an absolutely central part of your belief system? That example is kind of the exception though right? Most Jewish leaders who were executed didn't end up with world spanning religions following them. Not everyone has the stomach to be a martyr. I suppose you could argue if you are going to go on shooting spree maybe you are. But conversely, if you think it's glorious to die in battle, maybe you aren't as keen on being executed like a criminal. On October 09 2026 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 23:39 Introvert wrote:It's not about the people in Iran it would be about the Hassans in this country. That's great. Care to actually address the point or would that be to difficult at this time? See reply above, it depends on the mindset and ideology of the potential terrorist. You trying to say that not all public executions end up being glorified? That seems obvious, but it also isn't an exception. Half the Catholic saints were sanctified because they were martyrs, condemned to execution by the Romans/other oppressors for their beliefs. Plenty of other isms also have personality cults around people who died "for the cause" and the more gruesome or public it is, the bigger the following.
Martyrs are common but so are (were) public punishments. So I'm just spitballing on this. Idk that previous eras of public punishment were merely for entertainment. It's a question of tradeoffs (moral and otherwise) and effectiveness. I'm sure all those things vary in place and time
|
On October 09 2026 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2026 22:57 Introvert wrote:On October 09 2026 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2026 22:43 Introvert wrote:
I haven't thought about this specific case too much yet but it would be...interesting to see who is outraged by this but is at best ambivalent or even happy about people they hated being gunned down in cold blood. Their thoughts on what is barbaric or not might seem miscalibrated. Do you think the government should televise executions for entertainment? simple yes or no question. For entertainment? No. But I wonder if it would have some sort of effect on the type of person who would carry out such an attack. After all, a lot of these Islamic terrorist types seem to like public executions themselves, so maybe putting them on the receiving end would have some meaning. Why would being executed scare them when they willingly strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up to welcomed into heaven by 72 virgins? Did putting children in cages on display towards the border stop illegal crossings?When in the history of mankind has cruelty as a deterrent ever really worked?
And do you think Pete Hegseth is putting on this show to scare some muslims in Iran who sure are hell are not watching Fox News, or do you think Hegseth puts on this show for the only people who will be watching it, The American public. The ratings are in the dumpster, the midterms are coming and the government will start executing people on tv. I dare you to tell me with a strait face that this shit isn't being put up as entertainment. We're back at the roman coliseum, watching people die for entertainment. (ignoring the actual historical inaccuracies with that)
Bolded - one may argue it worked in Walachia, with small tweaks.
Italic - everytime, thats why it was used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
