this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
887 points (97.7% liked)

memes

17090 readers
2509 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] graveindividual@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think there's any evidence that 'crack down' did refer to terrorism. I believe it most likely meant harsh criminal charges, as there was no reference to terrorism or any of the wording from the terrorism act in the letters he sent or the responses he got. I do not remember there being any public thought/debate of protest action being proscribed as terrorism, so I don't see how 'crack down' have been inferred to mean terrorism given there was no context of terrorism at the time. Unless we know that both both Teledyne and politicians were thinking of terrorism at the time, to say he lobbied to get them proscribed specifically rather than just harsher charges in general is speculation. However if you do have any evidence, I would love to see it. It wouldn't surprise me too much given that the proscription does not seem to make any sense from reading the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act.

And yes, I did make this account just for this. I've never had a lemmy account before, I always browse logged out because I'm a weird tin foil hat privacy nutter. I understand a newly created account with no prior activity is very suspicious.

[โ€“] skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Being a new account isn't suspicious in of itself, but being a new account that makes such an incredibly weak pettyfogging argument in defense of a shady corrupt arms company, now that is suspicious.

You're asking for "evidence" that lobbying a government to "crack down" on something means pushing them to enact legislation about it? You show me evidence that it doesn't mean that, because the latter reading is by far the least plausible of the two.