• gencha@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    187
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    So they call him Tampon Tim for having provided sanitary products? Do they think this is somehow insulting or belittling? I’d call myself that and act like it’s my superhero name any day. WTF kind of mindset are these people in?

    • SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      They hate women.

      If you help women, you are worthy of scorn. You might as well be a woman if you like them so much, amirite?

    • BetaBlake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      He really should start calling himself that at events and interviews, they’ll all stop calling him that immediately.

    • badhops@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      i have been told that they are also available in the boys bathroom. Having feminine products placed the boys bathroom confuses / emasculates them.

      The same group that removes their children from what limited sex education. Same guys that don’t wipe their ass because it is too gay

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The relevant text of the law is

        The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district.

        so, I think “boys bathroom” only in the case where a school has trans-boy without puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Clearly a very edge case, but right-wing propaganda depends on blowing up rare events or special circumstances, pretending they’re happening everywhere, all the time, and therefore an immediate threat to the way their audience has always done things.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Remember when they were trying to say there was kitty litter boxes for the “Furry kids who identified as cats”

          It was only in schools in one specific area, and in order to have a way for students to shit during a school shooting because they were THAT common

        • gencha@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think I can understand how it would be confusing to someone to have female sanitary products in a male bathroom at a school. I can understand that these people feel like this is part of what influences youth to develop a certain way, and they want to prevent this development at all costs.

          But it is really hard to stomach that there are people who think the existence of a tampon in someone’s surrounding makes them question their gender, and removing the tampon restores order somehow.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I know if I were a kid, I’d just be confused but that’s about it. I mean, worst case scenario this is just an excuse for schools to double up on tampons and have more supplies for female students, a demographic that often has its needs ignored.

      • gencha@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can understand how that would be confusing to someone, but access to a place where you can change a child’s diaper, or get a necessary product for your daughter, should not be exclusive to places that are designated for women. Every conservative father should be able to relate to that. But I obviously am unable to relate myself.

        • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I would imagine a conservative man does not deal with dirty diapers in public, possibly not in private either. The child would remain with the mother until toilet trained.

          The general theme of the conservative meta is not understanding that others have needs different than their own.

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s not the conversation, as I’ve heard it. The real rub is tampons in the boy’s bathrooms, in schools, for 4th graders through high schoolers. Not involving diaper change stations or grabbing necessary product for daughters.

    • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Can someone PLEASE make a Tampon Tim shirt already??? I’m ready for the “FUCK Joe Biden” and “Say no to the ho” crowd to tell me my shirt is inappropriate around children.

    • 5in1k@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      They never progressed or have regressed to a middle school mentality. Literally an insult a kid who just learned about and is skeeved by menstruation would use.

  • Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Walz’s stance isn’t even that restrictive. He’s signed bills for better background checks, which is pretty reasonable. We have background checks for all kinds of other dangerous situations, its not a new concept or a difficult thing to pass. He’s signed a bill to remove guns from those who pose a danger to themselves or others. Is Rittenhouse implying here that he poses a danger to himself or the general public? If Walz’s policies should take the guns away from Rittenhouse then that’s what I get out of this. Kyle is acknowledging, even advertising, that he is a continued danger to those around him.

      • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        My feelings does not care about your facts and logic. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      Most things requiring background checks weren’t guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so it’s not quite comparable.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Bill of Rights literally says “well-regulated”.

        The current laws are a violation of the constitution because they are clearly not well-regulated by any reasonable definition.

        • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          3 months ago

          In context of the time period it merely meant that the militia, which was every able bodied man in the country, should be well supplied in arms and ammunition. Not that the government should “regulate” the militia like a military.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            In context of the time period

            The real source of the problem. If we had done regular updating of the Constitution like some of the Founders wanted we wouldn’t still be arguing over if 18th century phrasing still applies.

            • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Honestly at this point, if somebody’s best criticism is something is “unconstitutional”, it’s tough to not question why their best defense is a 250 year old piece of paper that was never meant to be dogmatic.

              • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Oh come on. Everyone gets a vote now. If you suppress someone’s vote, it’s unconstitutional.

                14th, 1868

                edit: or shit: 26th, 1971

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  14th, 1868

                  14th what?

                  Oh, you mean the 14th Amendment, as in the document can be updated and changed.

            • Zagorath@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The real problem is enshrining so many explicit rights in the constitution to begin with. The American constitutional framers couldn’t have known better because they were so early to do it they didn’t really have a model to follow, but I think history has shown that it was an error.

              When Australia came to framing its constitution over the last decade of the 19th century, they had the benefit of looking at all the countries that came before, and considered putting a bill of rights into the Australian constitution and made a deliberate decision not to. It’s better for the legislature to decide what’s right for the current conditions than to be stuck with trying to interpret some text from a century ago in a completely different context. We have the benefit of a much, much less politicised judiciary as a result.

              • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Explicit isn’t so much a problem, but nuance.

                Example: the right to free speech is explicit a good and pretty well irrevocable thing, however some constraints such as using a public space to promote hate, speech meant to cause mass panic or harm or similar abuses are not protected as an exception to the broad basic right.

                A part of the issue with the second is the population is so fiercely militaristic (we make such a monument of our military as being the greatest of heros) and individualistic that people will twist the wording any way they like to claim they should have the right to a tank rather than to thin what is reasonable for the general population.

                Then there are the folks thinking they can revolt against a tyrannical government armed with globe covering drones because they have 100 rifles in their basement, but those are more especially deluded exceptions.

            • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              You act like human nature has changed. Crimes still occur and the right and ability to defend yourself and your property is still very much relevant. What is your opinion of the police? Do you trust them to come and protect you if someone breaks into your house, or do you expect them to come and shoot you?

              • Rhaedas@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I seem to read this as you thinking I’m not in favor of gun ownership, just because I suggest clarifying the main rule that gives that right that we still argue about its meaning today. If it was clearer, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

                • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I did think that since it’s a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn’t matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.

                  It’s a deliberate misinterpretation.

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            In the context of the time period, it was a replacement for a standing army.

            As we have one, then obviously that amendment no longer has any meaning then? So we should just remove it. Cool.

            • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              You do realize that there were private warships, correct? You act like these things were never allowed. They were allowed for those who could afford them. If you can afford a tank or a warthog go right ahead. Also maybe do a little research. There is no M15.

                • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  And they helped us win conflicts. Private warships. Privateers. Cannons, and bombs, and gatling guns in private hands with no issue until people like Reagan got afraid of the blacks and started cracking down on inner cities.

  • FancyLad @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Weird thing to say to a retired command sergeant major. I bet he didn’t even intentionally cross state lines to murder someone either.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m Australian so being an english speaker on the internet I have an opinion on American politics because no matter how hard I try to escape it I cant. So if I have to hear about it incessantly Im going to keep throwing my half informed opinion in.

      But FUCK ME is the Harris/Walz ticket well thought out. You have a sitting Dem VP who is female and a POC with a history of being “tough on crime” and a male white late middle aged former high ranking NCO veteran with a history of some super liberal policies in his midwestern home state…

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      We are witnessing an idiot’s grift. There is no other place in the world for a Rittenhouse other than prison.

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, absolutely fuck Rittenhouse to death, but isn’t it pretty likely that a retired sergeant major DID in fact cross state lines to murder?

      • storm@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        He’s has 2 civil lawsuits pending against him. Depending on the outcome, whatever assets he has may be taken away and wages garnished for the rest of his life.

    • person420@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      He was relevant there for a hot minute when he spoke out against Trump, but now he’s doing whatever he can to get back in MAGA’s good graces.

    • MojoMcJojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Being relevant justifies his killings. He needs to feel relevant because without it he’s just someone who killed people, and that’s a much heavier weight to carry. Poor guy is going to have to live the rest of his life being a murderer that nobody likes, waaah 😭

      • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Honestly I think he’s just trying to roll his notoriety, fame into easy money & a cushy career. His conscience is clear. This is about money. Occam’s razor.

        • qarbone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          He’s absolutely building a portfolio to eventually become a regular guest on Fox.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        “If you don’t agree with the extrajudicial execution of a person by an 18-year old dipshit, you’re a pedophile”

        Seriously, put some attempt in please. That is just fucking lazy

        • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Not what I said. The things I said were two different statements. Don’t come at me cause you’ve got small skeletons in your closet.

          That’s a joke.

          You’re right, what I meant was the guy deserves some sympathy because he’s dead. The guy does not deserve sympathy based on his previous actions, AND he tried to kill some kid.

          Kyle is objectively in the right here, but he shouldn’t have been where he was, doing what he was doing. Fuck Kyle. I’m not condoning him.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out.

            You’re trying to claim ^ that doesn’t clearly imply that people who downvoted your comment were “probably pedos”?

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I like forums. If you don’t, then don’t use them.

                Especially don’t use them if you don’t have the moxy to stand behind your own words. Word’s which you said. Which go like this:

                Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out.

                You’re trying to walk back the thing you now realise was pretty silly to wrote down. So youre trying to ignore your bs while still replying something.

                You directly implied people who disagree with you are pedophiles. What an intellectual take.

                • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Yea you said that part already cause it’s what I said. By that logic if you are disagreeing that this isn’t worth the time to keep going back and forth about youre probably a pedophile.

                  I like forums too 🙂. I also realIze what I said was fucking weird and back tracked a bit. If you let this go, I’m sure your experience here will be ever so slightly less negative. There’s plenty of other things to be doing on Lemmy then arguing with someone who’s joke didn’t land for you specifically.

                  It would be entirely easier to call me a dick out loud, chuckle at how much better you are for thinking a different opinion and moving on.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Whether the person he shot was a convicted or suspected felon is absolutely irrelevant, vigilante justice is no justice at all, not to mention that he had no way of knowing anything about the people he shot.

        That said, I absolutely believe all three were legitimate self-defense. The problem here isn’t that he shot people in self-defense, but that he was a minor in possession of a firearm. Anyone who enabled him to bring that firearm to Kenosha should be held responsible (if they haven’t already).

            • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              32
              ·
              3 months ago

              Because it’s not against the law and had shit that he was doing there. You act like state borders are like national borders.

                • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  23
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Cleaning graffiti if I recall correctly. Cleaning up in general in a dangerous area subject to some riots.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        He was, but it’s not self-defense if the only reason you are in that situation is because you created it.

        If I put myself and another person in some room that’s rigged to lock and not unlock until the other person is dead… Technically I am fighting for my life, but it’s not self-defense because this wouldn’t have happened if I didn’t seek this out intentionally…

        And that’s basically what Rittenhouse did waving that gun around

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, “putting yourself” into a situation doesn’t change that. If that were true, we’d be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that’s absolutely not the case, it’s not my fault if a car hits me while I’m legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I’m holding a firearm.

          That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.

        • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.

          Don’t fuck around if you don’t want to find out.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s not that he went that out all, it’s that there was a boatload of evidence implying that killing was his motive for wanting to go in the first place.

      • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        HEY everyone, this guy ^^ was THERE THAT NIGHT! We should all RELY TO him with our detailed questions about the events that unfolded since he clearly knows and has witnessed the events and is therefore an unimpeachable source of objective truth on this subject!

        Why weren’t you in the trial, out of curiosity? I’d have thought they’d be after your testimony, you know, since you know all this stuff and are really smart. Just wondering…

  • vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    He looks like such a soft, little cupcake. Why do all these new Republicans look like they’re wearing guyliner?

    Nothing wrong with that BTW, just noticing a trend. Are they not getting enough sunlight in the closet?

  • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Imaginary fights in their head. What a sad life.

    Imagine just living like this and fuming.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Not imaginary for this bitch. He crossed state lines to commit murder.

  • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    Hey, Tampon? Tim?

    Yeah, to me it reads like wee Kyle was just being polite and offering Tim Walz some of it’s spare feminine hygiene products.

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s really sad to me that one of the most powerful tools in the republican campaign’s arsenal is juvenile nicknames for their opponents. An actual Trump campaigning innovation: Lying Ted, crooked Hillary, sleepy Joe, etc. And it works. Like really, really well.

      Turns out many voters are swayed by elementary school level debate tactics.

      • Agrivar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That makes sense though, given how many voters have an elementary school level maturity and education.

        • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Any voter that stupid is no longer a voter, they are a drone. There’s no choice in the vote, they are reacting to basic stimulus, like a pillbug avoiding light.

          It seems like only one party wants and creates drones.

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not sad. It’s by design.

        Same thing as “orange man bad”. It takes away critical thinking and simplifies the issue for their little brain.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    He figured he already got away with three murders, he can do it again.

    Secret Service, arrest this… I will not call him a man…

  • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    #ComeAndTakeWhatExactly

    #WhatDidTimTakeFromYou

    that is not what i thought the hashtag/pound was used for

    • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      “Come and take it” is a pretty standard gun nut refrain. So he did actually use that hashtag correctly.

      • zeppo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Except that nobody wants to take his stupid gun. Very reputable for whipping up ammosexuals though.

  • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    Reminds me of Ted Cruz:

    [Harris’] record is extraordinarily radical. Let me say at the outset, Kamala can’t have my guns, she can’t have my gasoline engine, and she sure as hell can’t have my steaks and cheeseburgers.

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      He’s so transparently pandering.

      Ted Cruz is smarter than all of this which is why I hate him more than MTG. She’s sad as shit because this is real to her. Ted is just a spineless grovelling coward with a shame kink who wants desperately to be powerful.