Maybe give it a different title and share it and watch chaos ensue?

Nah I just think it’s funny you think you’re some brave truth teller lol

Sorry that was grammatically unclear. I meant opposing restrictions on abortion. I agree with you.

No one cares about your opinions lol. How are you not getting this?

Starting to remind me a bit of a yappy dog…

I never claimed to endorse that view. You certainly can be downvoted for speaking truth. That’s just not the case here.

Usually this is the case when you are polite and articulate but get no serious replies and only downvotes. In other words, people downvote because they can’t dispute what you’re saying.

When you post a snarky one-liner that ignores the question at hand in favor of some belligerent tribal attitude, that’s just a low quality comment that belongs at the bottom of the thread. There’s nothing to contest because there’s no substance, so downvotes are the most appropriate response.

There is a weird contingent of “libertarians” who are very close to just fascists who hate taxes. It makes no sense but I attribute it to the political magnetism of Trump and similar fascist leaders. These people clearly don’t fit any sane definition of libertarian but I think they just continue to identify that way because they used to and they aren’t aware they’ve gone off the deep end.

They aren’t all like that though.

However, I disagree that there aren’t valid justifications for some of the specific examples you gave that go beyond a desire to repress people. Some people have been deeply harmed by the state and do not wish to be subject to its logic or control and I respect that choice.

Or maybe it just doesn’t answer the question lol.

“I’m downvoted, it must be because I’m right!” is a very silly conclusion here.

Keep in mind that a lot of political words are contentious and can have multiple definitions.

But in the broadest senses, a libertarian would be someone who orients their politics towards the pursuit or protection of liberty. This can take many forms. In the US at least, many libertarians tend to focus on reducing government interventions in their lives, opposing things like taxes, gun control, abortion and speech restrictions, etc.

Anarchists could be considered a subset of libertarians. However, they go much further in that they believe in the total abolition of the state. Most anarchists also believe in the total abolition of all relationships involving the domination of people by other people. This typically includes things like capitalism, racial hierarchies, gender hierarchies, or even hierarchies over children.

So a quick distinction might be that libertarians want a minimal state while anarchists want no state.

Well this actually happened to me so I can speak from experience when I say mildly surprised. He’s a distant cousin though so maybe it would have been a bigger surprise if it was a first cousin. He married an heiress.

Has the hard-coded censorship been removed from PieFed? I thought that was a really weird and concerning choice to include.

Say what you want about Lemmy devs (and I could say a lot) but they don’t seem to have made any major efforts to enforce their views within the platform itself. Just on their servers.

Unfortunately I think it must be assumed in this day and age that any content posted online publicly may be stored indefinitely, on any platform. Even if you delete it, there are bots scraping all your comments, and you won’t be able to delete from those databases. So I’m not sure how much utility this feature would have today.

Yeah I think it’s way beyond what I would know how to do… I’ve also got some pretty crazy things happening in my life right now so I’m not looking to take on any big projects at this time. Maybe when things are back to normal.

Or I’ll ask around and see if anyone else is interested in doing it.

Wow great comment. But I’d have to figure out who is going to host a local server first. I’m not super tech savvy personally, especially compared to Lemmings.

Oh wow this would be huge. The local sub is the main thing that keeps me coming back to Reddit.

However, it probably will take some local organizing to get it to fire in each area. Getting a critical mass for these is tough by just having randomly distributed global internet users join. Even with thousands of users, the California community on Lemmy is way less active than the sub for my city on Reddit.

The courts usually give an obscene amount of deference to the police. In a high profile case like this it’s possible they’ll be slightly more by the book… but usually they wrote the book to allow police to “reasonably” violate our constitutional rights, so that only goes so far.

But yeah unless they ruled it inadmissible, the lapse in custody probably won’t matter. The average juror is hopelessly naive and thinks cops are just pure-hearted goody two-shoes who would never do anything wrong.

Yeah that’s my concern. The courts and the police are besties and they usually have each other’s backs unless something happens that’s so blatantly criminal that they can’t find a way to excuse it. Imperfect custody of evidence doesn’t sound that way to me, but I’m no expert.

The good news for Luigi is his case has a lot of public scrutiny, which can force the courts to behave a bit better in some cases.

You’re saying the backpack was ruled inadmissible? If so that is certainly a big deal, maybe bigger than possible jury nullification.

However again, I have not been following all the twists and turns so I don’t know what other evidence may have been uncovered since the arrest.

Ah well I haven’t followed all those details. Prosecutorial incompetence is always a possibility.

Right, and I think we are seeing increasing cases of jury nullification, especially for civil disobedience against ICE. However, the reality is that Lemmy is a bubble. Luigi and his alleged murder are nowhere near as popular among the greater population as he is here. So that’s why I think the chance of a hung jury is higher than nullification. Hung jury can happen if there is just one or a few people who refuse to convict. But jury nullification requires unanimity. There’s bound to be at least a few law & order boomer types on the jury. But only time will tell.

Not guilty seems very unlikely based on the publicly available evidence. I could see a hung jury happening though, as there are a minority of people who strongly want him to go free.