just think this is an incredibly irresponsible and flagrant way to phrase the title specifically. Data doesn’t support it, the sheer numbers don’t support it either. Like the actual number is 0.000004% percent of the US population have been sentenced to death, and executed in the US since 1976.

You’ve completely lost the plot, mate. Nobody is saying that a significant percent of the population is being executed.

How many people have been executed on Putin’s orders? A hundred? So that’s only like 0.00007% of the Russian population. no big deal then.

The VAST majority of that coming from the south.

I wonder why.

because we’re talking about a specific state, exercising independent rights over capital punishment,

Independent rights granted by the supreme court. AKA the federal government. The 9 robed, tenured individuals are part of the regime. You’re just uncritically accepting the federalist society’s position here.

Did you know there was once a moratorium on all executions in the US? But you seem to think of it as a natural law that Missouri has the right to execute whoever they please.

The title reads as if the “US government” (an entity, which is not an appropriate description) solely and single handedly murdered a guy

You’re inferring way too much here. Nobody said or implied that the US federal government was solely responsible for this execution. When a headline reads that the Russian regime assassinated a political dissident, do you take the time to point out the federated nature of the Russian government? Would it matter that the evidence points more to an official act of the Dagestan government instead of a direct order from the Kremlin?

Obviously this isn’t a perfect analogy. But the “US government” (the entity, which is an appropriate description) has given the greenlight for these executions. The supreme court has approved these punishments, and the executive and legislative branches have done nothing to prevent it.

suddenly, that lone state speaks for an entire population of 330 million people.

When someone calls a government a “regime” they’re usually implying that the government doesn’t accurately reflect the will of the people.

this wouldn’t even be a regime at all judging by modern contemporary definitions.

I’d like to see the definition you’re talking about. The dictionary definitions definitely fit. Sometimes the definition doesn’t even have negative connotations. You’re just offended because someone used a word reserved for enemies of the US to describe the US.

deleted by creator

I think that’s why they included the “fuck you, official act” part.

Poo innit

White house considers new plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza strip

Frankly, he needs thicker skin if he wants to publish at this level

Au contraire. He’s not writing for a scientific audience, he’s writing for the NYT bestsellers audience. Thin skin somehow helps with the promotion of these books.

Not just an opinion piece, but a reactionary opinion piece.

this guy was a co-author of “The coddling of the american mind” which is just a reactionary screed about campus culture (have blue haired libs gone to far?). Here’s a podcast that goes into the book https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/id1651876897?i=1000603422829

In this article, he’s literally advocating for following the examples set by Utah and Florida with regards to kids and social media. And yes, he’s one of those “social contagion” idiots https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/jonathan-haidt-social-contagion-rogd-pbs

I’m not making a legal argument against searches, I’m making a moral argument for international solidarity.

The lawyer’s statement isn’t that objectionable in a vacuum. But it’s representative of how Americans view the world. We see something terrible in our own society, and we say, “How can this happen here? This isn’t [a country we completely fucked over]!” Then the rest of the discussion is how to solve the problem here, instead of addressing the root cause.

If Afghanistan or Gaza have something similar to the fourth amendment, then maybe I can see your take.

Think of the context the bill of rights was written in. Most of those amendments were a reaction to the fear of an occupying force. Obviously these anti-occupation policies don’t apply to a people under occupation.

Here’s the thing: does a citizen in a crime ridden neighborhood in America have something similar to the fourth amendment? Legally they do. In reality, many don’t. After you have the police bust into your home for no reason without a warrant, you have a different take on the constitution.

Thanks to SCOTUS, the fourth amendment is functionally non-existent for a large number of americans, and the police operate as an occupying force. They use the same weapons as international occupying armies. They train each other. They fund each other. They’re all part of the military industrial complex. It’s all the same struggle

“We’re not in Afghanistan or Gaza,” he says.

I hate this mentality so much. We’re not in Afghanistan or Gaza, but we’re all still human. Their deaths are equally tragic.

It’s even the same weapons a lot of the time! The cops are all kitted out in surplus from the Afghanistan war, and receive “counterterrorism” training from the soldiers currently slaughtering children in Gaza.

Here’s an article from 10 years ago about the Ferguson/Palestine connection. https://www.ebony.com/the-fergusonpalestine-connection-403/

The Lula conviction was bullshit/overturned. The better example would be Volsonato being barred from office because of his own Jan 6th style coup attempt

deleted by creator

He has apartheid brain