Rules:
News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.
Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.
Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.
Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.
Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.
Communities We Like:
Wait, wait, there is an exemption for the Proud Boys and gangs of guys in khaki pants and blue shirts carrying a Nazi flag and tiki torches, right?
MAGAts would be really upset if they could no longer hide their identity while protesting for killing of non-white non-cis people.
The folks doin the crime are the last people you'll see wearing masks.
Kinda weird it was against the law before covid in most places.
Turns out, it IS kinda weird. They allowed concealed carry* permit holders, and open-carry* where that's legal, to continue while masked due to mandates, and crime didn't go up. Hasn't been a problem until now, and still doesn't look to be a real problem at all.
* meaning firearms/guns and other weapons
Is it right-wing nutjobs pushing the bill?
lol
You have to ask? If it passes an NC legislative body, it’s being pushed by the Magamonkeys.
We should ban Republicans from government citing crime.
I'm okay with the entire party being labeled a domestic terrorist organization.
The communist party and participating in "Communist-actions" were banned in the 50s.
Turns out you can just ban your opposition.
That did work surprisingly well in the long run (as a plan, not sure it's really had much benefit to the everyday person)
That said, not like plenty of Red team (domestically, everybody would for foreign) doesn't already meet the definition of "terrorist".
ter·ror·ist noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.Honestly that's not a very useful term, because lawful is determined by the political system. You're creating a group that contains both non-police brownshirts going onto campuses to beat up students and any student protesters using violence to defend themselves.
In practice, it just means enemy of the state.
That's another thing, they make blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional (at a federal level) legislature at the local and state levels, and let it be fought over in courts, with the hope it makes it to the supreme court and maybe becomes legal. While they argue and fight over it, it impacts real people.
Ergo, unlawful violence (arrests) and intimidation (suppression of rights) against civilians, for political aims
Lawful is always going to be defined by whether the state likes you or not.
Whether the state likes you is the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist.
It's better to accept this and understand that using intimidation and violence, including state violence to suppress reactionaries is good, while using intimidation and violence to suppress the left is bad than to play games with what is and isn't terrorism.
Banning something based on lies and fear is a very fascist thing to do.
Especially when they're the ones spreading the lies and fear.