!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
People against death penalty^1^ think the state shouldn't be given the right to murder people. That's it.
These people want the system to work, without the need of murdering anyone, let that be by the state or the people.
The very same people agreeing that a murder was beneficial for the system and the people doesn't contradict that. It's simply a symptom of the system being broken and the state not doing enough to fix it for the people.
And one of the reasons that people think the state shouldn't have the power to kill people is that the system is broken.
You need the death penalty and mob justice for people who are above the law.
The shortest answer is that violence is inherent to every political system, in fact, that is the sole purpose of politics, to determine acceptable violence in a society, and who controls it, and who doles it out.
This includes more extreme violence like killing.
Anyone who has seen the mistakes the state has made and will continue to make will be against the death penalty - not because of the violence, as I can guarantee you they support violence in other ways - but because of the accuracy. In a perfect world wherein we know there is no possible way to redeem someone and we can guarantee a perfect conviction, very, very few people would be against a state-led death penalty.
Now Luigi, and all vigilantism directed towards the top, or mass killers in general, is the same thing. It's unpopular when it's against unjustified targets that have a margin of error. Luigi's target had no margin of error. He was directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. It not only was public knowledge, he received money for this, he received prestige and recognition for his kills. So of course people cheered on the killer of the mass murderer. That's natural.
Typing is one thing.
But how many Lemmy users would Green Mario, IRL, if they were put in his shoes?
Statistically, so far, the answer is: very few.
He is the natural reaction to untenable situations. We don't want to become plumbers, we want material conditions to be improved so that we do not feel the need to follow his example.
His life was fucked before the Healthcare CEO took a long nap. Now thr best he can hope for is an aquittal and a book deal.
We want people to have access to Healthcare so we don't feel the need to put on a plumber hat.
The prosecutors won't enforce the laws against them, and the courts wouldn't accept it if they did.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
This post reads like an llm agent trying to play human. Probably not that idk. But over 50% of engagement is from chatbots now across social media.
none of the people killed by green marios (e.g. kirk and the health care ceo) are remotely close to being given death penalty for what they've done. think about that and you'll know why death penalty by the state won't make the society better.
First, it could be very well be different people. We're at what, 50k monthly active users now? There will be some different opinions even among a small group of people.
Second, the two positions can be compatible. For example, I'm very against the death penalty, but the thought has crossed my mind that when someone is convicted of a brutal murder, for example, and receives the death penalty, the state shouldn't be allowed to kill the convict, but the relatives, friends, or loved ones of the victim should have the option to do so legally if they wish to. I know, it's harsh, but I think that this would be more logical than the current system. The loved ones of the victim would have both a better motive to kill the convict AND also the added burden of considering the negative effects to themselves of following through with that decision.
its not only in lemmy/piefed, its on every social media luigi was on.
I believe it's A and B, different groups of people advocate for different opinions on the fediverse (you can also see this in how people see different instances like .ml and .shitjustworks), and there is nuance in the sense that the state should be held to a higher standard in actions upon the people whereas if the people disapprove of an individual who is not bothered by the state due to their influence, drastic actions might be the only justice the people will see.
This is very much a "goomba fallacy" circumstance if you merge all sides into one "fediverse viewpoint"
goomba/galoomba meme
Because an individual person is different from a nation state.
Violence in the myth logic of states is something i as a subject surrender to the state, so that whatever the state as representative of the people decides can be accomplished, so even just from that very classic liberal perspective there should be oversight and curtailments over the use of violence by the state. Nominally courts fill this role but even there it's not hard to find a good argument that a justice system should never be allowed to kill, or make any irreversible decision.
Now I don't really believe in the Mythos of nation states very much. I do however belive that powerful people within nation states governments as well as surrounding them can be quite bad for the majority of humanity.
Simpler and probably commo selfish reasoning here on lemmy : "I can see myself on death row but not as Luigis target. "
Luigi rules, death penalty is stupid.
Obviously the death penalty is a cruel, medieval, outdated punishment, which is against humanity, as every halfway intelligent person will agree. At the same time, murdering someone is against the law in any country, and should be punished (jail), whatever the motivation. Those people that support Luigi will probably put forward that his victim was responsible for numerous deaths, but we do not live in societies that condone lynch justice, there are definitely other and better ways to express or push political opinions.
So it's wrong to defend yourself or others with lethal force, and you should instead allow yourself and others to be killed unlawfully?
The courts are captured, they won't do it. Your take is way off base here. I oppose the death penalty as operated by the state too, but to argue there is never any reason for those without the protection of the state to kill someone, shows you have lived a very sheltered and privileged life, and frankly shows naivety.