▲ 1022 ▼ The White House Confirms It Altered Photo of Arrested Protester to Depict Her Sobbing: ‘The Memes Will Continue’ (www.mediaite.com) submitted 6 months ago by Redditsux@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 245 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] jof@lemmy.world -9 points 6 months ago (5 children) Why? It’s already embarrassing enough to be arrested permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago (1 child) Depends on the reason for the arrest. If I get zip-tied and dragged off the streets for saying mean things about orange man, I won't be the embarrassed one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] jof@lemmy.world -11 points 6 months ago (2 children) No I certainly would agree with that. But being restrained against your will and having your records publicized about being an offender of the law certainly doesn’t bode well for your own public image or on employment applications. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (1 child) It's not embarrassing for her, it's embarrassing for the police that they arrested her. She is a lawyer and a civil rights activist, my guess is that being a civil rights activist is in line with her activity as a lawyer. And I doubt very much she did anything illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Didn't you know? Free speech is dead, and now saying mean things against this regeme is illegal now. permalink fedilink source parent [–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 6 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekima_Levy_Armstrong Just so you know who is in this picture. No, this does not have the negative impact for her that you are suggesting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auk@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago Tell that to John Lewis or MLK. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (1 child) They probably think the sobbing makes people scared. It makes the arrested look weaker, regretful and vulnerable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago Chin up, shoulders back, still tough, cuz Black don't crack! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 child) How is it embarrassing to be arrested for protesting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekima_Levy_Armstrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] jof@lemmy.world -6 points 6 months ago (1 child) The act of being arrested is not particularly fun. You know, being restrained and walked off like an animal in some sense. Depends what it’s for in general. But it’s the public image of it. And then the repercussions of having to deal with follow up court work, possible jail time and it being a future talking point of a potential employer. It’s just not really something to be proud of. That is a rule in general, with exceptions of course. But my point stands, that the act is embarrassing enough already, especially if it’s publicized. So having your face edited to make it look even more humiliating is worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago being arrested is not particularly fun. Being an inconvenience is not the same as embarrassing. having to deal with follow up court work Which is probably near zero has her case will likely be dismissed, but again she is a lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) How? Cops are pieces of shit and arrest innocent people all the time. It's embarrassing to be arresting someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] jof@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago (2 children) Enforcing the law is embarrassing? Breaking the law is embarrassing. And my point isn’t that she was necessarily breaking the law. I’m simply stating that it’s already an embarrassing enough act to be restrained and then on top of that have images of you in a vulnerable state circulate around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." "The law" and the entire legal system of injustices behind it is embarrassing as fuck too. Same goes for those who simp for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) I’m not saying it’s perfect. It has its share of flaws, but rules and law create order. I’m not a simp for US law, but without it, injustice would run even more rampant. If you claim to love justice then you must also, by principle, be in favor of some sort of law system that enforces it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) Rules != the law. The legal frameworks are inherently flawed and globally protect the rich and powerful, while harming minorities. Yes societies need rules, those can be agreed upon by people living in the societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 child) What would you argue are the differences between rules and laws in society? I use the two interchangeably as I believe them to mean the same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 6 months ago Breaking the law is embarrassing. Slavery was legal, you know... Was flaunting the Fugitive Slave Act also embarrassing? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago (1 child) Depends on the reason for the arrest. If I get zip-tied and dragged off the streets for saying mean things about orange man, I won't be the embarrassed one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] jof@lemmy.world -11 points 6 months ago (2 children) No I certainly would agree with that. But being restrained against your will and having your records publicized about being an offender of the law certainly doesn’t bode well for your own public image or on employment applications. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (1 child) It's not embarrassing for her, it's embarrassing for the police that they arrested her. She is a lawyer and a civil rights activist, my guess is that being a civil rights activist is in line with her activity as a lawyer. And I doubt very much she did anything illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Didn't you know? Free speech is dead, and now saying mean things against this regeme is illegal now. permalink fedilink source parent [–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 6 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekima_Levy_Armstrong Just so you know who is in this picture. No, this does not have the negative impact for her that you are suggesting. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] jof@lemmy.world -11 points 6 months ago (2 children) No I certainly would agree with that. But being restrained against your will and having your records publicized about being an offender of the law certainly doesn’t bode well for your own public image or on employment applications. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (1 child) It's not embarrassing for her, it's embarrassing for the police that they arrested her. She is a lawyer and a civil rights activist, my guess is that being a civil rights activist is in line with her activity as a lawyer. And I doubt very much she did anything illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Didn't you know? Free speech is dead, and now saying mean things against this regeme is illegal now. permalink fedilink source parent [–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 6 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekima_Levy_Armstrong Just so you know who is in this picture. No, this does not have the negative impact for her that you are suggesting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (1 child) It's not embarrassing for her, it's embarrassing for the police that they arrested her. She is a lawyer and a civil rights activist, my guess is that being a civil rights activist is in line with her activity as a lawyer. And I doubt very much she did anything illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Didn't you know? Free speech is dead, and now saying mean things against this regeme is illegal now. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Didn't you know? Free speech is dead, and now saying mean things against this regeme is illegal now. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 6 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekima_Levy_Armstrong Just so you know who is in this picture. No, this does not have the negative impact for her that you are suggesting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Auk@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago Tell that to John Lewis or MLK. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (1 child) They probably think the sobbing makes people scared. It makes the arrested look weaker, regretful and vulnerable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago Chin up, shoulders back, still tough, cuz Black don't crack! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago Chin up, shoulders back, still tough, cuz Black don't crack! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 child) How is it embarrassing to be arrested for protesting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekima_Levy_Armstrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] jof@lemmy.world -6 points 6 months ago (1 child) The act of being arrested is not particularly fun. You know, being restrained and walked off like an animal in some sense. Depends what it’s for in general. But it’s the public image of it. And then the repercussions of having to deal with follow up court work, possible jail time and it being a future talking point of a potential employer. It’s just not really something to be proud of. That is a rule in general, with exceptions of course. But my point stands, that the act is embarrassing enough already, especially if it’s publicized. So having your face edited to make it look even more humiliating is worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago being arrested is not particularly fun. Being an inconvenience is not the same as embarrassing. having to deal with follow up court work Which is probably near zero has her case will likely be dismissed, but again she is a lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] jof@lemmy.world -6 points 6 months ago (1 child) The act of being arrested is not particularly fun. You know, being restrained and walked off like an animal in some sense. Depends what it’s for in general. But it’s the public image of it. And then the repercussions of having to deal with follow up court work, possible jail time and it being a future talking point of a potential employer. It’s just not really something to be proud of. That is a rule in general, with exceptions of course. But my point stands, that the act is embarrassing enough already, especially if it’s publicized. So having your face edited to make it look even more humiliating is worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago being arrested is not particularly fun. Being an inconvenience is not the same as embarrassing. having to deal with follow up court work Which is probably near zero has her case will likely be dismissed, but again she is a lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago being arrested is not particularly fun. Being an inconvenience is not the same as embarrassing. having to deal with follow up court work Which is probably near zero has her case will likely be dismissed, but again she is a lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) How? Cops are pieces of shit and arrest innocent people all the time. It's embarrassing to be arresting someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] jof@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago (2 children) Enforcing the law is embarrassing? Breaking the law is embarrassing. And my point isn’t that she was necessarily breaking the law. I’m simply stating that it’s already an embarrassing enough act to be restrained and then on top of that have images of you in a vulnerable state circulate around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." "The law" and the entire legal system of injustices behind it is embarrassing as fuck too. Same goes for those who simp for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) I’m not saying it’s perfect. It has its share of flaws, but rules and law create order. I’m not a simp for US law, but without it, injustice would run even more rampant. If you claim to love justice then you must also, by principle, be in favor of some sort of law system that enforces it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) Rules != the law. The legal frameworks are inherently flawed and globally protect the rich and powerful, while harming minorities. Yes societies need rules, those can be agreed upon by people living in the societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 child) What would you argue are the differences between rules and laws in society? I use the two interchangeably as I believe them to mean the same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 6 months ago Breaking the law is embarrassing. Slavery was legal, you know... Was flaunting the Fugitive Slave Act also embarrassing? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] jof@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago (2 children) Enforcing the law is embarrassing? Breaking the law is embarrassing. And my point isn’t that she was necessarily breaking the law. I’m simply stating that it’s already an embarrassing enough act to be restrained and then on top of that have images of you in a vulnerable state circulate around the internet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." "The law" and the entire legal system of injustices behind it is embarrassing as fuck too. Same goes for those who simp for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) I’m not saying it’s perfect. It has its share of flaws, but rules and law create order. I’m not a simp for US law, but without it, injustice would run even more rampant. If you claim to love justice then you must also, by principle, be in favor of some sort of law system that enforces it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) Rules != the law. The legal frameworks are inherently flawed and globally protect the rich and powerful, while harming minorities. Yes societies need rules, those can be agreed upon by people living in the societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 child) What would you argue are the differences between rules and laws in society? I use the two interchangeably as I believe them to mean the same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 6 months ago Breaking the law is embarrassing. Slavery was legal, you know... Was flaunting the Fugitive Slave Act also embarrassing? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." "The law" and the entire legal system of injustices behind it is embarrassing as fuck too. Same goes for those who simp for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) I’m not saying it’s perfect. It has its share of flaws, but rules and law create order. I’m not a simp for US law, but without it, injustice would run even more rampant. If you claim to love justice then you must also, by principle, be in favor of some sort of law system that enforces it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) Rules != the law. The legal frameworks are inherently flawed and globally protect the rich and powerful, while harming minorities. Yes societies need rules, those can be agreed upon by people living in the societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 child) What would you argue are the differences between rules and laws in society? I use the two interchangeably as I believe them to mean the same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jof@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) I’m not saying it’s perfect. It has its share of flaws, but rules and law create order. I’m not a simp for US law, but without it, injustice would run even more rampant. If you claim to love justice then you must also, by principle, be in favor of some sort of law system that enforces it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) Rules != the law. The legal frameworks are inherently flawed and globally protect the rich and powerful, while harming minorities. Yes societies need rules, those can be agreed upon by people living in the societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 child) What would you argue are the differences between rules and laws in society? I use the two interchangeably as I believe them to mean the same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago* (1 child) Rules != the law. The legal frameworks are inherently flawed and globally protect the rich and powerful, while harming minorities. Yes societies need rules, those can be agreed upon by people living in the societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 child) What would you argue are the differences between rules and laws in society? I use the two interchangeably as I believe them to mean the same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jof@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 child) What would you argue are the differences between rules and laws in society? I use the two interchangeably as I believe them to mean the same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) I would say Laws are backed by states and their sole authority to use violence to enforce them. Rules can be made by any group of peoples. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jof@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) That is a fair definition. Not trying to argue about anything. So I appreciate the civility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 point 6 months ago Likewise. I wasn't the one downvoting you there for what it's worth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 6 months ago Breaking the law is embarrassing. Slavery was legal, you know... Was flaunting the Fugitive Slave Act also embarrassing? permalink fedilink source parent