757
Republicans scrambling to get ahead of the Epstein files. Watch. There will be LOADS more of this.
(i.imgur.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
757 points (99.0% liked)
Political Memes
9871 readers
1618 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't have it saved but I'm sure someone does, that Tumblr post about how there shouldn't be no exception death penalties for things because as soon as there are, Republicans are just gonna start redefining LGBTQ people as criminals in an effort to eradicate them. "Death penalty no exception for pedophiles. Oh trans people are pedophiles. Death penalty for trans people". It's been a little bit since I've seen it so I'm iffy on the details but I imagine someone will link it here to do the concept better justice.
Edit Found it, that was a pain in the ass to search for lol https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/45c407a0-332b-4226-9176-1bd2658bfc45.webp
Came here to make this point.
You can be sure that when a person like DeSantis says "death to pediohiles" they're thinking of trans people, not Trump.
Sorry, you mean anyone not white, straight, rich and male.
There really shouldn't be any death penalty at all.
Any sort of "death to X, no exception" is pure rhetoric btw. It's scary how strong that rhetoric is and how both voters & people with a lot of power support it, but afaik no rule of law knows any such thing.
Of course, the USA is this 🤏 close to tyranny, but not yet!
Nicer link btw:
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/45c407a0-332b-4226-9176-1bd2658bfc45.webp
Agreed. So many common sense arguments against it. And thank you for the nicer link!
I don't have a Tumblr post, but I do have this.
Edit: Project 2025, page 5:
"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."
You should note that it’s from Project 2025 for those that won’t open the link.
Public libraries who purvey it. Wow. Yeah show me a public library hosting porn. Except that’s not actually what they mean, they mean books that contain topics they don’t like.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's stumbled across someone realphabetizing their card catalog in the computer section. They could be thinking of that too, that's no fun.
This is the problem with a post-Truth world.
People can use terms like "porn" or "pedophile" or any other word that it taboo and catches the public's attention enough to sew doubt.
What we need are people catering to facts, and calling out this bullshit for what it is.
Their main problem with libraries is the public part.
Didn't have to click the link. The lying and false equivalences gave it away.
Good point, updated.
Page 1:
• children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries
Page 5:
• Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and
sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women.
Page 8:
• Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls' sports and parents' rights to satisfy transgender extremists
Page 554:
• Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims' families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes-particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children-until Congress says otherwise through legislation.
Page 584:
• The new Administration should restrict Bostock's application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.
Page 584:
• The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.
To sum up: They want to remove protections for transgender people (equating them with pornographers), then criminalize being trans as a sex crime against children, thus classifying trans people as child predators, then enforce the death penalty for sex crimes against children. The result being that all trans people will be eligible for the death penalty simply for existing.
I buy that argument. Because as soon as you criminalize one sexual orientation, which we know are determined to be genetic in nature, like pedophilia, then you can criminalize any sexual orientation, like homosexuality.
This is exactly it. Death penalties are dangerous because words are ultimately meaningless, and as we've seen in the misinformation age, people of a particular political party (in the US) can call people pedophiles in name when there is no actual evidence that's the case. Truth has gone by the way side.
What we really need is due process for figuring this shit out, as well as a properly funded remediation program so people can learn why what they did was wrong.
The argument is flawed in the following way.
But this conclusion is ridiculous. Some crimes should be punished more severely, possibly up to and including the death penalty.
My point is that if you do want to argue against the death penalty, this argument is not it.
EDIT: The only good arguments against the death penalty focus on the the kind of civil society you would rather live in — one that has a bureaucratic apparatus for killing people, or one that does not.
Arguments against the death penalty based on specific crimes are unpersuasive, since some crimes really do deserve death, morally speaking — the problem has always been an administrative one. Even if some violent (or even white collar) criminals deserve to die, building a bureaucratic apparatus to administer their deaths would make for an evil sort of society.
Or, I dunno, maybe don't have a sweeping death penalty? Just the fact that it's prohibitively more expensive, and that far more often than is comfortable people who have been executed are later exonerated for their crimes. Can't exactly "oopsie sorry" an execution. But that's a whole different argument, granted.
Bruh. I'm not even the guy you responded to but speaking of bad fucking arguments against the death penalty, that one is close to the top.
The state shouldn't kill people because it is fucking immoral, not because it's too expensive. Jesus christ.
This is more of a counter-argument. I've frequently seen supporters of the death penalty claim it is cheaper than housing the person in prison for life. But this is false.
Fair enough. Sorry for being a belligerent asshole.
Most crimes have a clear victim that is hurt directly by the crime. Battery, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud.
The problem with laws about penalties for "being" something is that it's an identity statement. There is no "victim" to someone "being a pedophile" unless a child is sexually abused, just as there's no victim to someone "being a terrorist". So, the fascist state works to subvert and divide by othering their political opponents with taboo labels of being "pedophiles" (trans people) or "terrorists" ("Antifa"... i.e. anyone who denounces fascism).
There is a categorical difference between those that is completely unrelated to your main argument. One could be in favour of severe punishment for first degree murder and be opposed to any punishment for "thought crime" without any contradiction.
That said, most progressive people who support LGBTQ+ rights (and, apparently, rule of law) also tend to be opposed to capital/severe punishment of criminals.