main
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Top Image of the Month will remain the Banner for a Month
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
Every troop who was in Iraq is a criminal. That pure vet who was in the army but didn't contribute directly to US imperial violence is figment of your imagination.
Well now you're moving the goalposts, you asked about a cop killing an unarmed black man and now you're logically extending that to every single ex-cop, even paper pushers and IT guys. Were they complicit in a violent system? Yes. Is there an equivalent value between the guy who spent all his time repairing shit and guarding a base to the people working in Abu Ghraib? No.
You think all the vets you'll get will be ones who haven't shot a bullet? What do you do if you get a vet whose job it was to kick in Iraqi doors and arrest all the men? I'm giving you an easy one here, no killing.
You accuse me of moving the goalposts when I stead of answering my question you answered a different one about "vets who didn't commit war crimes". I only moved them after you went to a whole different field.
I wouldn't even say don't let people who have killed in, the basic line I think we should take is to look at it on a case by case basis. If they understand that what they did was wrong, they embrace marxism-leninism and they haven't killed or tortured civilians we should let them in.
You started with "Should the cops who killed unarmed black men let into the party?" I responded with "no those who commit war crimes (implying that we shouldn't let cops who murder unarmed black men or are complicit in that either) shouldn't be let in." You then said that "every troop in Iraq was a criminal" implying that all ex-cops shouldn't be let in as well. If you make a comparison between cops and soldiers, follow through. You're trying to get me to make your point for you by answering each question one at a time, just make your point.