• ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I wanna say one of those is about the quartering of soldiers in a civilian home and the other is about the right to assembly (though I might by misremembering that as part of the first amendment) ngl I don’t really pay much attention to the constitution cause it doesn’t come up much in my daily life.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I mean, for all intents and purposes, they kinda are. They’re both pictures of artists making a political statement with their art.

    • Itsamelemmy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      One is clearly a beheading. The other is just calling the guy an idiot. Sure, both political statements but in no way the same.

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

        Isn’t calling for the beheading of a man who is trying to make himself king over America, the most patriotic thing ever? It’s what America was founded on.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They are extremely different, and both should be perfectly acceptable in their repective contexts.

        Griffin’s severed head was not a call to violence. It was a reaction to Trump saying shitty stuff about Megyn Kelly bleeding:

        GRIFFIN: I did say, I want to do some kind of a picture to shame Trump.

        SANDERS: Griffin said she was mad at Trump for what he said about Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News host, after she grilled him in a presidential debate in 2015.

        PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her - wherever. But…

        • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          not a call to violence

          fuck that

          when are we allowed to call for violence then? How many people does a fascist have to kill before we are allowed to wish death back on him?

          How Nazi does a Nazi have to be before you’re allowed to kill it?

          • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:

            Political systems hinge on people following the nonviolent bureaucratic process for them to exist, so anyone who supports a political system’s existence will always condemn violence for political gain, and will punish any violence they feel threatens the status quo. You can still do violence, but you will face punishment for it. Same as during the Union Wars.

            • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              thats a good fucking point actually

              its unreasonable to demand that your opponent follows the rules without doing so yourself.

              im mad that my opponent has broken some of the rules, but if i start doing it too then what was the point