Yeah, I used past tense in my comment but the US is still doing a ton of unethical shit (both in Cuba and elsewhere), a lot of which I'm sure we don't hear about.

Our history with Cuba is shameful, and it's complete hypocrisy calling them a "sponsor of terrorism" when the CIA literally sponsored terrorism there and we attempted to assassinate Castro or overthrow their government countless times. All of their economic problems are blamed on "communism" despite the massive US embargo and our continued threatening of other countries that do trade with them. Then we get opinion pieces like Opinion: Mexico shamefully joins Russia, Venezuela in backing Cuba’s dictatorship when the UN almost unanimously votes against the embargo again, like they have for 30 years now.

join-lemmy.org has a list of instances you can join. If you just want to look through a list that's a great place to browse.

If you're looking for specific recommendations I'd say lemm.ee is great in terms of moderation, they don't overmoderate and tend not to defederate from many places so users can kinda choose themselves whether or not to block an instance. Dbzer0 is similar, it's the instance with the big piracy community which .world blocked, and the admin is also great.

Both of those are in the top 10 communities in terms of size though iirc, which ideally people would avoid the biggest instances and join smaller ones to try and prevent centralization like what happened with .world communities.

Lemmy.zip is also great from what I've heard, and while it's not small, it's top 20 instead of top 10 at least.

I've always found that so stupid yeah. "Cop killing" is always painted as this ultimate evil and so much worse than killing a regular person, especially in all the copaganda shows. But theoretically the whole reason cops have so much legal leeway and can use so much force and whatnot is because they're taking on a risk by putting themselves in the line of duty (even though you're actually more likely to die as a pizza delivery driver).

Maybe he was on track for that or maybe he would have taken a different path, we don't actually know. But it doesn't matter because what did happen is he became radicalized against corporations (or at least corporate healthcare) and took action. What he did and what he believes now are far more important than who else he could have become.

Idk, joking around and feeling relatable are pretty good strategies for making a jury feel more sympathetic to the defense. And as other people have said with how high profile this case being calm and good on camera is important. So far I've thought he seemed great.

I'd honestly even say killing Bin Laden was less morally acceptable than killing Thompson tbh. One had 0 additional casualties, and one was preceded by a war which fucked the entire middle east, created multiple power vaccuums, killed thousands of civilians, and involved literal warcrimes.

I mean honestly the being knee deep in blood because a revolution started after one guy was acquitted for killing a CEO sounds way more like a movie plot to me but idk.

Regardless, the point of that wasn't that "the CEO is dead, now everyone is saved!!!" Right now we literally have a situation where a dictator was removed from power in Syria. The outcome of that is still unknown, and could turn into something worse or something better, time will tell. But either way no-one is really saying "how dare they violently overthrow the government, don't you know that violence is bad", because that would be a stupid reaction to Assad being removed.

In any of these situations saying that the person using violence to respond to violence deserves to be imprisoned doesn't make sense. Luigi Mangione would not be someone I'd feel unsafe walking past in the street, so why should they be locked up? The point of a prison system should be preventing someone from committing crime again, but I wouldn't be worried about that in the case of Mangione so it makes no sense to sentence them to prison.

I also don't want a violent revolution to come from this. Some violent actions leading to a government making large reforms as a concession to avoid further violence is something that happened all throughout history, and is how we got the New Deal. Something like that coming out of actions like this would be great, but my ideal system of change is more based on mutual aid and setting up dual power to allow people alternatives to replace corporations or weak government programs.

Imagine if someone was living in a dictatorship. The dictator was passing laws and policies leading to thousands dying yearly. They were embezzling funds from the country and stealing money from citizens, putting them in debt and leading to all the consequences that would entail. They increased the prices of essential goods like medicine in order to skim off the top. They never directly killed anyone, all of the pain and suffering and death they caused was due to policies that technically seperated them from the outcome, being enforced by courts, banks, police, hospitals, and prisons. And they also never broke any laws. Sure people died, or were forced into debt causing them to lose their homes, but all of that was allowed since they helped make the laws.

You've heard stories of other distant countries which don't have these problems, but your country spends a considerable amount of time and money to convince you that those other governments are worse or impossible. Even so, the people tried voting this dictator out, but they rigged the elections so that no matter the outcome they still kept power. Some tried leaving, but all the neighbouring countries have the same type of government, so it was futile.

If in this situation someone kills the dictator very few people would believe that the assassin should be in jail. They didn't kill someone because they were violent or dangerous, they did so out of desperation and a desire for improvement. This assassin won't be a threat to any other citizen, only to other dictators doing the same thing. Why imprison someone who was fighting for a better future?

I can't claim to know your exact situation or anything, but it could be possible that some of what you see as people thinking you're gross isn't really that. If you experience enough mistreatment or hate then other things that might have a different explanation can definitely feel related to it. I'm not saying that as a way to try and minimize your experiences or anything, but sometimes it can help to try and find other reasons that people act how they do. If you have a negative image of yourself then it makes sense you'd imagine any sort of negative interaction is because of that, but people are complicated and there's no saying what necessarily causes someone to do anything.

Either way, the people who would bully anyone are assholes. If anyone mistreats someone because they don't conform to their specific standards then they don't deserve to have an opinion on you. I know that it's easier said than done, but try to ignore those people. Your self worth shouldn't be based on how jerks feel.

No matter how people act or how you perceive yourself, you are still worthy of love and happiness. There will always be people who find you unattractive for a variety of reasons, just like anyone else. But there are also tons of people who will find you attractive for those same reasons and more. And like I said before, what matters the most at the end of the day isn't how others feel, it's how you do. So try to go easy on yourself and remember that one person's opinion isn't a fact.

If you want to change something about yourself to make you happy, go for it! But trying to change yourself to make jerks happy will never work, because they can always find something new to criticize.

Hey, I just want to say I'm sorry you feel like this. I know it sucks not being happy with how you look, and it's hard, but try to step back and look at yourself through someone else's eyes. You might not be a supermodel, but you know who else isn't? 99.9% of everyone else. And so what? I find plenty of people attractive who aren't models, and plenty of models are unattractive to me. And honestly that's the thing, everyone has different opinions on what is or isn't attractive. You'll always be your own worse critic, but try to seperate your personal opinions on beauty from the equation. You aren't unattractive, you just might not be your type. I remember seeing some of your older posts, and like many people said then, you actually do look good. Dysphoria and self-image problems can make that hard to accept, but don't let your brain convince you that what some jerks might have said to you elsewhere (or what you imagine people think about you) is more true or important than what people are saying to you here.

Looking at yourself you'll see every flaw, every detail of yourself that you can criticize or compare with others. But when others look at you, I promise that's not what they'll see. They'll just see you, and the happier and more confident in yourself that you are, the better you'll look to them. Being yourself and being happy about that will do miles more than anything else to improve how both you and other people see yourself.

Trying to fight things like this alone can be hard, so if you're able to do so, I'd recommend trying to speak to a therapist. They'll be much better at helping articulate things than any random comment online could. If you can't do that then reach out to the comments offering to talk. I'd always be down to, and while I can't personally offer much advice in the way of makeup or clothes or stuff like that, I'd be more than happy to just chat or help out with anything I do know about.

If nothing else though, I hope you can try and look at yourself through an outside perspective. When you see a stranger on the street you won't scrutinize them for features of their body you dislike, so why should you do that to yourself? All that will do is magnify those thoughts, so try to find the elements of yourself you are happiest with and internalize those feelings instead. They don't even need to be physical, they could be clothes, skills, personality traits, events, whatever. Try to celebrate anything and everything that makes you happy to be you.

I know the Daily Mail is a British publication so they need to be more careful about libel, but it's kinda crazy that the fucking Daily Mail is being so careful not to explicitly call him a nazi or white supremacist when he had a full on tatoo of Hitler on his chest, but so many actual generally respected papers here in the US have basically straight up called Mangione guilty. When the Daily Mail is doing a better job than you at something you should probably reflect lol.

I've said this a few places now, but I'm pretty sure everyone has situations where they believe killing someone is justified. It could be the death penalty, or removing a dictator, self defence, whatever. And everyone will have some they think are wrong that others don't. I'd obviously want to avoid it as often as possible, and in instances where there is another viable alternative I'd prefer that to be taken, but there are plenty of situations where unfortunately there is no other method. I think relying on any rigid set of rules to definitively say something is wrong or right in all contexts is flawed. Laws shouldn't be some ultimate measure of morality, and things that should generally be unacceptable can still have exceptions, because nothing exists in a vacuum and the judgement of an action can't be done without understanding that context.

If you otherwise like lemmy I'd recommend dbzer0 or lemm.ee. Both are kinda large instances which ideally would be avoided, but both of them are also very fair with moderation and don't defederate from many places, which means you can decide whether or not to block one on your own. I also have heard decent stuff about .zip, so that might be worth checking out.

It does suck how many communities ended up centralized on .world, but a lot of the news related ones that are the most susceptible to over-moderation have fairly active alternatives on other instances.

It's crazy how many articles I've seen that just casually imply or outright say he did it.

"Candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri" could be read either as can't be a candidate on the ballot in Missouri or can't be a candidate for a state position. It depends on if it means [candidate for public office] in Missouri or candidate for [public office in Missouri].

I don't like how laws are always written very formally like that, I feel like English (or any language tbh) is able to be misinterpreted easily enough as is, and the stilted way it's used in legal speak just leads to questions and misunderstandings like this. I'd much rather they be written as plainly as is possible and in ways that attempted to remove ambiguity instead of add it, though a lot of the time that's the point I imagine lol.

Saying the crime was "broadly condemned" in the same article about the flood of money and support he's received, with a large section of said article being about the praise given online, is an interesting way to frame things.

I actually kinda feel that someone like Bernie may have had enough youth appeal to have a somewhat organic version of that happen. During the 2016 primaries, a decent amount of memes and online talk were spawned by him/his campaign.

Definitely agree that delivery is extremely important though, campaigning on helping workers while appearing elite and out of touch just makes people consider you a liar or to be looking down at people.

It definitely seems to be yeah, given the number of reposted tiktoks I've seen, and the facebook unitedhealthgroup laughing emoji ratio, and all the videos that corporate media are clutching their pearls over. There are tons of comments in Ben Shapiro's videos on the subject that are cheering on the death of a CEO, despite his attempt to paint this as only the "violent left". When Ben Shapiro's viewers disagree with him you know the feeling is widespread lol.

I think he's just kinda an ordinary person who grew up privileged. He has fairly standard techbro style libertarian beliefs, but he also has criticisms of some of the influencers he watches, and didn't seem to like Peterson very much. He also seems to be an environmentalist, and I think he seemed to have become more anti-corporation based on the manifesto released (obviously assuming he did it).

Him being a privileged but ordinary guy who still got radicalized reflects a lot more strongly on the plight of everyone who isn't one of the owner class. It doesn't matter that he was relatively wealthy, he still wasn't one of them.