And that is called fascism.
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
949 points (99.3% liked)
AntiTrumpAlliance
1671 readers
729 users here now
About
An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.
Rules
-No pro-Trump posts or comments
-No off topic posts
-Be civil
-No trolling
-Follow Lemmy terms of service
Social Media
Other Communities
!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As it says right there on the image. Why just repeat it with nothing added? It's on the same level of "first" comments, just takes up space and fishing for votes.
Not because of a lack of rules and guidelines?
You understand they’re going to keep doing this until you stop them, right?
And you understand that there are a significant number of people working to do so, and that doing it correctly is not an overnight process?
load more comments
(19 replies)
As always there is a german word for this: „Sippenhaft“, collective punishment.
She was used as leverage against the extended family of a guilty person, making relatives liable with their freedom, property, or lives. ‘Sippenhaft’ usually meant imprisonment in a concentration camp. (Taken from Wikipedia)
Widely used by the Nazis - who could have known.
This showed a couple more verified results than the iceblock app recently, and it needs less data to provide notifications.
Nice! A website is a much better idea than an app. You can, theoretically, hide yourself on a website (though not by default, and almost no one will be anonymous if the site wants to collect data, including people with privacy plug-ins).
She should sue.
And then what? It's not like this government cares about lawsuits.
A judge will award her s nice payout.
Which she will just not get.
Which would Crater the economy. The US government not paying it's debts world enrage the donor class backing all this shit
You don't get the point. It would just get referred to the next higher up court until the supreme court just drops the thing with something like "If the president gives me a blowjob I will do whatever he wants".
They haven't really concerned themselves with civil damage cases like this, so your doomerism isn't needed here.
Depending on which state she works in, she might have no rights. Many states have a right to fire an employee for any reason.
Hate being the grammar Nazi, but she didn't *lose her job for who she married".
She lost her job because of who she's married to.
She isn't a hero who saved her husband by losing her job. She's a criminal whose crime is being married to her husband.
At least that's what the wording implies quite strongly.
Most grammar nazis I know would go with "whom" for the object of a preposition.
Not me.
'Whom' is the last vestage of cases in English, and I'd absolutely love to see them go. The only use for 'whom' I have is mocking the British, really.
So selective application of the rules, got it.
Feel free to call it that.
However, languages change with time. Even ones with formally prescribed rules do.
In most languages and cultures there's a tendency of speaking the "standard" dialect (or something close to it) in formal situations, and using a more relaxed form in everyday situations. English isn't like that - just look at anthing US politicians say - they don't strike me as using "formal" speech in the least.
There's also the distinction between "British" and "American" English. And I never heard a "whom" from an American ever, be it in real life or on TV, so to me it seems like an inherently "British" thing.
So appliying the rules "selectively" doesn't really bother me - especially when the incorrect way is so ubiquitous that it's more common than the pseudoprescribed way.
I'm content as long as the selectivity isn't dialed up so much that I need to use arm and leg gestures to communicate effectively.
For non-U.S. Americans, I hear "whom" all the time here, like not a day goes by without hearing some co-worker use it.
I agree though languages change with time.
Is "cases" a typo? If not, what does it mean in this context?
Cases are a thing in languages with inflections such as Latin, Greek, German, slavic ones, and quite a few others. English used to have them in the middle ages, but they faded away in favour of prepositions, and the only place they still exist is who/whom.
Apparently he/him/his and she/her/hers are also inflections, but they seem different enough to not "feel" like inflections of the same root (especially she/her). Since inflections are not a common thing in English, one conceptually doesn't even know they aren't seperate words but deeply connected on a morphological level was opposed to particles (by, for, of, with). Especially someone without the context of knowing how they work in languages that utilize them on a more fundamental level.
However, looking at these words as if they're particles and not inflecions is a simple enough way to know how to use them (that's why you probably haven't heard of them).
Grammatical case. I can only really describe it in German. If you take the sentence "The boy gives the man the apple", it's "Der Junge gibt dem Mann den Apfel". "Der" is masculine form of "the" in the Nominative case. "Den" is the masculine form of "the" in the Accusative case. "Dem" is the masculine form of "the" in the Dative case. It's subject, indirect object, direct object, respectively, if you know verbs. There's also the Genitive case, which I didn't go into here.
The reason it's not sufficient to talk about subject, direct object, and indirect object though is because the grammatical case also goes beyond just a noun's relationship to a verb, it's also affected by prepositions. If you take the German sentence "I'm driving with the Man, but without the Apple" (I know, sort of a silly sentence), "ich fahre mit dem Mann, aber ohne den Apfel. The prepositions here, "mit" and "ohne", dictate that the two masculine nouns in the sentence get the masculine form of "the" in the Dative case and Accusative case, respectively. The reason why some prepositions dictate certain cases isn't clear to me. I just have the tables memorized :D
Most grammar nazis I know would probably go with "Not I"
Informally, leaving that preposition hanging at the end is fine, but for formal writing, you'd be locked away by the grammar cops:
"She lost her job because of the person to whom she is married."
I wonder how long until it's officially illegal to oppose the asswipe.
I would already consider it pretty risky to run the app without doing some pretty serious privacy protections.
I'd prefer not visiting the daily beast but, unless she was feeding info to her husband for the app, how does firing her even prevent the app?
It's a cruel, yet impotent, punishment.
It doesn't, it sends a message.
Show of hands for anyone surprised by this at this stage?
If they start a GoFundMe, I'll kick in.
view more: next ›