this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
191 points (98.0% liked)
conservative
1299 readers
175 users here now
A community to satirize conservtive and right-wing "ideals".
This community (now) exists as a pressure valve, a place to process through humor the often frustrating world of conservative politics. Above all, this is NOT the place for serious conservative support/viewpoints/arguments. There are other places on Lemmy for that if you desire it.
Rules:
-
Always follow .world instance rules
-
Parody With Purpose: This is a space for humorous takes on conservative politics. We welcome satire, but draw the line at content that promotes racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry.
-
Memes Over Manifestos: This community focuses on humor and parody, not serious political debate. There are plenty of spaces for earnest conservative discussion, this isn’t one of them.
-
Highlight Contradictions: Sometimes the best content points out inconsistencies and hypocrisies in conservative talking points. Creative commentary is encouraged.
-
Public Figures Fair Game: Politicians and pundits can be satirized, but no targeting of private individuals, doxxing, or harassment.
Children of public figures under the age of 14 are also off-limits, a 16 year old has enough free agency to break with or adopt their parents views. An 8 year old kid doesn't.
-
No News Zone: Memes only, news or other serious content should be sent to the nearest relevant comm. Meme's of current events, however, are encouraged.
-
Clear Satire: Make your satirical intent reasonably clear. We’re here to mock bad ideas, not accidentally spread them. If you're unsure how it will be taken, feel free to DM the mod team ahead of time or explicitly tag it as satire in the body.
A note on ChadMcTruth: Chad's content is 100% satire, but his work can sometimes be hard to tell, but if he posted it be assured, its satire.
- Relevant Content: All posts should relate to conservative politics or ideologies in some way somewhere in your post. Either in the title or the meme itself.
For more general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
-
Community Respect: Disagree with fellow members all you want, but personal attacks aren’t welcome. Save the criticism for the ideas, not each other.
-
Moderation Discretion: Mods will use reasonable judgment in applying these rules. We’ll be fair, but firm. These kinds of comms have a tendency to get off the rails, so we might seem overzealous in moderation sometimes.
-
For the moment, i'm allowing properly tagged NSFW content as long as its funny and relevant. Don't make me regret it.
And above all, HAVE FUN!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm having trouble finding where that's explained. With all I've seen, I have not seen anything mention that.
https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations/
Might have fallen for some misinfo myself because I can't find anything about the physical threats, just the extortion.
Regardless, the state apparently didn't even believe the logs themselves. Normally I'd call them too biased to link but since even the state agrees:
https://freeross.org/false-allegations/
There's a lot of money and powerful people involved so it's pretty hard to say what really happened, but what definitely did happen is questionable evidence that never should have been allowed in his trial was introduced.
He belongs to be in jail for deliberately aiding in human trafficking and CSA (and so you can see why Trump would pardon him). What isn't clear, and was specifically thrown out with prejudice, is the supposed assassination plots.
Hmm. I don't see where the state did not think the logs were real. AFAIK they were pulled from the website's database. The BTC transactions match up, too.
I think I've seen people conflate "there is no evidence that anyone was killed" and them not believing the whole thing, but attempting to hire and the falsified "success" of the supposed murders can be both true.
Honestly, the only places I've seen anything that tries to dismiss or question the accusations are right-leaning libertarian biased sites. Reason.com is often cited and say ""they cite their sources"" but their citations are nearly all just links to blog posts and opinion articles on the same site. I have no reason to believe or trust what they say about it, and I've already done more than I care to check the validity of their claims, which again are opinions.
Citation 7+8 note that the officers who were convicted of corruption had admin privileges, including the ability to change message content.
Of course, it's a PDF of a document that says it's an official court document but is hosted by the site and not a .gov link. I didn't track down any of the case file numbers to confirm it. If you want to, go nuts.
Right. That seems like more effort than it's worth in comparison to how much I care about the situation. As you say, the guy was already a piece of shit. That's why it's easy for me to believe, especially considering the evidence. Anything that may point out the evidence is invalid is pretty buried or seems to only be spread among areas that have an interest in that narrative.
Anyway, thanks for the info and discussion.