[flagged]

That's just a YouTube embed

Wrong wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(psychology)

this is so tedious

do you think the administration does not have other targets for the firing squad who are not even criminals? I'll give you zero guesses

https://19thnews.org/2024/11/trump-liz-cheney-shot/

> “She’s (Liz Cheney) a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it when the guns are trained on her face,” he said.

this firing squad was not Hegseth's idea.

That used to be the norm in many places and times. I don’t think it ever really cultivated public appreciation of its weight - and more like the opposite. It makes it lighter

What weight? Shooting someone is way more merciful than long prison sentence.

You should read some history.

The general public fucking loves watching executions. It used to be regular entertainment. They were massive events.

It was like going to the circus. You would bring your young children and goad them to cheer when the trap door opens.

Sating their bloodlust regularly will do nothing to undo their simple-mindedness.

We are barely literate and naked apes. We love violence.

The people who wanted to see this guy dying will thoroughly enjoy it, and teach their children to enjoy it. They will teach them that this is "Justice". They will feel fulfilled and heard and represented. They will literally feel safer, now that a "Bad guy" got solved just like in the movies and other stories.

Do you not realize how goddamned popular the torture porn of "24" was? Including to the Heritage Foundation which paid for the cast to come run a panel at one of their conventions? Including a supreme court justice who explicitly pointed at "24" as justification for allowing torture?

This isn't solely in conservative circles either. Right now you have lots of people who usually vote democrat showing that their only complaint about this administration's stupidity and crimes and crassness is that it isn't being used to oppress the specific rich people they want to watch die in agony.

Seriously though, you aren't the only person in this comment section taking this position, and I just cannot fathom how some of you missed this in every single part of history we know about. It wasn't subtle.

You've been lied to your entire life about this.

Executions used to be public because people love watching bad people die. You might not like it because of some Englightenment-era idea to the contrary, but it's an inescapably true facet of human nature. The only reason Britain and France stopped holding public executions is the crowds eventually started to get too rowdy and governments needed to move them indoors.

The moral-outrage excuse was invented afterwards.

That would be a steep hill for shareholders to climb, IMO. They'd have to prove that ignoring trump was not in shareholders' interest in the short term and (even harder) in the long term, right?

By your theory, couldn't (presumably other) shareholders sue over what Apple actually did? Like, maybe cowing to Trump has done damage to Apple's brand, in violation of fiduciary duty.

> Fiduciary duty (to shareholders)?

Even if that were a valid legal excuse (and it is not clear that it is), it doesn't hold up to moral scrutiny.

But realistically the reason they all bent the knee to Trump is probably not because they were cowards or because they wanted to protect their shareholders, but because they welcomed him being elected.

Partly because they knew it would kill off the anti-trust enforcement that was finally starting to gain steam with Lina Khan's FTC and partly because they are rich enough to play Trump's corruption game, where as long as you pay him off and linguistically publicly fellate him once in a while the world is your oyster.