There was also a march today in town by Piss Boys

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    1011·
    2 months ago

    Oh suuuuuuure, NOW you wanna wear masks over your face. Now that you’re up to some racist shit. But in 2020 it was all “I can’t breathe with a mask on”!

  • PenguinMage@lemmy.world
    81·
    2 months ago

    Honestly confused why they blacked out the contacts there… usually that’s done to protect individuals from things, but I’m pretty sure “fuck the kkk” is pretty well and good.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        10·
        2 months ago

        “All fonts were made by foreigners, only the true Comic Sans is full blooded American.”

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      4·
      2 months ago

      It’s a tradition as old as fonts itself.

      Look at the fucking Nazis. Say what you will, those motherfuckers had style. It’s too bad they completely ruined the swastika for the rest of time because it’s kind of dope looking when you strip away any context. And those uniforms, goddamn.

      • TriflingToad@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        the swastika is a cool ass design, it’s pretty low down on my list of reasons to hate Nazis but it’s for sure on there

    • DJDarren@thelemmy.club
      41·
      2 months ago

      I always pictured them being really proud of having shit themselves. Just waddling about, pants full of shit, with big smiles on their faces. Happy boys, who reek of shit.

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
        1211·
        2 months ago

        For anyone stumbling across this comment: qualified immunity isn’t a bad thing. It shields all sorts of public employees from civil liability only while doing their jobs. It does not shield them from criminal liability and the civil liability is transferred to their agency.

        This means that if a mail carrier opens your mail box to deliver your mail and the lid falls off in their hand, you have to use USPS for damages, not the mail carrier as an individual. You still get compensated for damages, but the government employee can do their job without getting personally bankrupted. If they genuinely did something wrong (as in breaking procedures, not breaking the law) they’ll get disciplined or even fired.

        Because cops get qualified immunity and it has the word “immunity” in it everyone with a beef against police ignored the word “qualified” and started screaming that it was evil and means government employees can get away with felonies. That’s not true. If the aforementioned mail carrier rocks up, decides you suck, and hits your mailbox with a baseball bat, then threatens to beat you to a pulp they’re going to face criminal charges. Qualified immunity simply does not apply for crimes committed regardless of if they were done on the clock or in uniform.

        Before a bunch of brain-dead people off their meds start bringing up specific cases where cops weren’t charged for specific actions that were either possibly or outright illegal please look at those cases for issues with the prosecutors handling them. They are always because a grand jury failed to indict, not because of qualified immunity.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          102·
          2 months ago

          Either way, QI is illegal by the law of the land as passed, not as improperly copied in 1874. I’m not discussing it’s merits. The law of the land is being broken, and either needs to be rewritten by Congress, or followed.

          Harlow v Fitzgerald should have been ruled the other way.

          • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
            23·
            2 months ago

            There are a couple of big, huge caveats to that particular case. They’re stated explicitly in the last two paragraphs of the article you linked:

            1. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. I’m not sure of the current status, but as of the time that article was written things hadn’t been settled.

            2. While the money offered by the city was undeniably too little, the guy also chose to knock down the house and rebuild a bigger, nicer house than he had. A civil claimant is trying to get back what they lost, they can’t expect to get a leg up.

            • ninja@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 months ago

              1. I used NPR as the reference as an acceptably neutral reporting agency, but they didn’t go back and update the article. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. https://ij.org/case/lech-v-city-of-greenwood/

              2. This isn’t a caveat. The city wasn’t ever going to rebuild the house for him. Any compensation was always going to be monetary. The fact that he spent more money than he would have gotten isn’t relevant. If someone crashes into and totals your car your replacement car isn’t expected to be equally as old and used as the one you lost. You’re awarded money and can purchase a replacement at your discretion.

              • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
                13·
                2 months ago

                The fact that he spent more money is extremely relevant because that’s what he was seeking. It would have been totally reasonable for him to pay for home repairs on the existing foundation and structure.

                While the $5,000 the city gave him certainly wouldn’t accomplish that, he took it too far. He destroyed all remaining value left in the structure, built a new (and more expensive) house on his land, and expects the public to pay for that upgrade. He had a right to compensation for repairs, not to have the taxpayer fund the construction of his dream home.

        • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
          3·
          2 months ago

          please look at those cases for issues with the prosecutors handling them. They are always because a grand jury failed to indict, not because of qualified immunity.

          And this is how I know you have either fallen for the propaganda or you’re arguing in bad faith. A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for murder if the prosecutor wanted them to do so. The prosecutor has full control over what evidence the grand jury does or does not see. And there is no defense attorney present to argue against indictment. The prosecutor can intentionally exclude exculpatory evidence, include hearsay (and other types of evidence that would be excluded from a trial,) etc… Lastly, the threshold for indictment is laughably low, because it’s basically just the jurors going “yeah it looks like there’s enough evidence to bother with a trial.

          To be clear, the grand jury is just an arm of the prosecutor. The district attorney can decide to prosecute even without a grand jury indictment, but that isn’t always politically advantageous. Since district attorneys are typically elected officials, they need to worry about the optics of whether or not they charge someone, while also trying to maintain a positive working relationship with the courts and police.

          Let’s say the public wants to see a trial after a cop kills someone. The DA doesn’t want to prosecute them, because the police union has vowed to stop cooperating with investigations if the cop is prosecuted. But the public wants to see a trial, and it’s an election year for the DA. They’ll fall back to the grand jury as an excuse. They’ll go to the grand jury and bring no evidence, (because again, they have full control over what evidence the jury is allowed to see).

          When the grand jury fails to indict because they were given no evidence to indict with, the DA can then jump in front of the news cameras and go “oh woe is me, I tried SO hard to prosecute them but the mean and nasty grand jury refused to indict! My hands are tied! But I really did try to prosecute, so remember to vote for me!”

          And the inverse is also true: Maybe a big case is in the news and the DA needs to look strong. Maybe a pretty white girl went missing and was found dead after a big public search. They can literally frame someone for the crime, and since the DA has full control over the evidence, the grand jury will happily indict them even if they’re clearly innocent. Maybe the DA has DNA evidence proving that the person wasn’t who rapemurdered the girl. But the DA doesn’t care if they’re actually innocent, because that’s what the trial is for; They just need a trial to look like they’re working on solving the case.

          • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
            1·
            2 months ago

            Ok, you misunderstood me and flew right off the handle. I said “look for issues with the prosecutors”. I’m laying the blame on prosecutors for not getting a case past a grand jury.

            You just bit my head off to agree with me.

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
      13·
      2 months ago

      Terrorist acts are illegal, but being associated with domestic terrorist organizations is not illegal in the United States. Affiliation with hate groups has been found by our courts to be protected under the 1st amendment. That being said any radical group not associated with white supremacist ideology is going to get be actively pursued by the US intelligence apparatus extrajudicially.

    • Didros@beehaw.org
      81·
      2 months ago

      What? They have had periods of high interest and low interest. It has never been illegal to be a member lol

      Being a member of the kkk being illegal in America, pfft, who would arrest you? The cop in the hood next to you? Lol

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
      83·
      2 months ago

      lol. lmao, even.

      KKK has included cops and politicians among its members for as long as it has existed. A lot of places they will have parades and other rallies right out in the open in broad daylight.

      • saplyng@lemmy.world
        9·
        2 months ago

        That’s a tough call, on one hand recruiting (obviously). On the other, we could set up a bot to spam the number to hell and back so they can’t get any actual calls

    • andrewth09@lemmy.world
      23·
      2 months ago

      Listen, if your name is associated with the “Klanline” phone number I don’t think you care if people call you a racist online and post your home address.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        6·
        2 months ago

        I’d argue that it wouldn’t even be doxxing to show it, personally. They put out the flier with their number on it, how is me posting a picture online any different from posting the flyer for a local pizza place with the number visible? Seems to me if it’s on the flier it’s now public info.

    • Stabbi@midwest.social
      1·
      2 months ago

      They usually use the information of other people they want to harass. The last time I saw one of those flyers, the number was to an elderly black woman.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    264·
    2 months ago

    If I were in charge, I would fast track citizenship for every Haitian in Springfield that wants it. In 7 days you could be a permanent citizen.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      102·
      2 months ago

      I’ve been wanting a democratic president to do this my whole life. If fuckers wanna pretend the democrats are turning the country over to immigrants, let’s play ball.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      It’ll likely be another “good people on both sides” type of endorsement. The type of thinly veiled support without outright stating that he supports them. Weasel words, so opponents can’t say he outright endorsed them. Because if they try, he can just go “that’s not what I meant” and dismiss it.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    16·
    2 months ago

    Who tf privacy-blocked the info? That’s a public poster of the fucking KKK I shpuld be allowed to harrass them on the phone as much as I want

  • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
    15·
    2 months ago

    Didn’t know that the KKK considered Haiti part of the USA. Since they specifically named them as not foreigners.

    Yeah yeah, I know that it’s just them being dumb, but it still gives me amusement how dumb they are.