this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2026
394 points (99.5% liked)
politics
27178 readers
2281 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
Just a reminder that the defense attorney, for the soldiers that gunned down the people during the Boston massacre, was none other than future president John Adams.
He successfully argued they were in fear for their lives.
America has NEVER cared about the masses of people. It has always and will always defend and justify the actions of state violence. The American revolution was very much just a transfer of power from the Royal British to the rich ruling class in the American colonies. And it has remained that way to this day.
What is happening now is nothing more than the ruling class resorting to fascist acts, once again, on its own population to maintain that power.
Look, I would happily pull the trigger on the execution of a convicted ice, but defense attorneys exist for a reason. Yes, they're often scum. Yes, they often 'know' that their client is guilty (paraphrasing one, don't tell them you did the crime if you actually did it, it does make their job harder because they do have a duty to not lie in court) yet defend them as rabidly as a junkyard dog with a cat wandering in. Yes, they often posit logic or reasoning that makes the average person want to spit at them for their sheer gall. Yes! THEY GET SOME FUCKING SICK FUCKS LIGHTER SENTENCES OR EVEN 'OFF...'
But they are critical in a sane world where the law matters not just as a set of rules but also where there are people dedicated to truth, justice, and ensuring a short-lived tyrannical government cannot just throw people it doesn't like into jail based on allegations of crimes and get convictions based on whimsy.
John adams may have helped those six get off, and done it in a manner so similar to modern law enforcement court strategy that it assaults the nose with its stench, but don't smear him because he did that. Smear him for his presidential actions enforcing the class war.
At the time, they were not advocating for independence, just more autonomy. Giving a fair trial and good representation in that trial was a way to demonstrate that the colonies could provide fair justice without England’s intervention. This is why they were so pissed off when the “Impartial Administration of Justice” Act passed.
Which was probably fair in this case. The protesters at the “massacre” were throwing rocks at the soldiers. There was reasonable confusion in the moment.
Holy shit. You actually did "the Boston massacre was justified". Licking the boot of King George all the way in 2026.
Sorry, I studied American history beyond high school “King George was literally Hitler” propaganda.
Don’t forget that a major factor motivating the “Patriots” was the fact that England was going to create an Indian reserve (land speculators doing shit like “buying” all of Kentucky for a handful of beads was pretty problematic for peace), and that they were letting the Canadians be Catholic. But sure, we can pretend that expecting the colonists to contribute to the costs of defending them against the Indians they were genociding was horrific oppression.
Notice how nothing you said had anything to do with your prior justification of state violence? I never compared anyone to Hitler. That was you. What a weird reply. It sounds like you're having a conversation with yourself.
Gonna guess your the same person today that defends the murder of Renee Good.
Fuck you. No, the murder of Renee Good is not comparable to soldiers getting confused about an order to fire when they were literally getting pelted with rocks.
Christ. Obviously Adam’s should haven’t of defended them, they should have just been executed on sight. Makes perfect sense.
Maybe read some primary sources from the time period, instead of trying to argue about a topic you haven’t looked into since high school.
It's always so silly when people make arguments in random internet comments trying to appeal to their own authority on a topic. Like, you literally know nothing about my knowledge of the subject. You don't know if I'm in high school now or literally have a history PHD. What is the point of this?
You know nothing about my knowledge outside of (1) I know that Adams defended the soldiers in the Boston Massacre. (2) I think you are not applying any class based historical perspective. It's why I called you a bootlicker for King George.
Adams was a part of the rich white land owning class. It was beneficial for him at the time to defend his class position and it's why he did so. He didn't do it for some "moral" reason of justice. There was clearly no justice served for the people slaughtered in the massacre.
So maybe stop larping as a historian. If you can't view history from the lense of class struggle then what is the point in knowing a lot of facts if you can't apply them? You sound much more like a high school history teacher than a historian. But I won't make assumptions about you like you are to me.
An analysis based on class struggle would recognize that the Revolution was driven by and primarily benefited land speculators, as I allowed to earlier with my reference to the Henderson purchase. Pure Marxist historians are more creatures of the 70’s than the modern day. Historiography continues on.
I hold a Bachelors in American History and am in fact certified to teach high school history.
Do you have anything other than personal attacks? Going to provide any sources of your own?
If I were a rich bastard and wanted to stay that way, pissing off the poors would be a thing to avoid. A placid sheep and trusting cow are much easier to exploit.
The 1% are incredibly stupid.
They are not stupid. They firmly believe that happy people are not productive at the level they want. And they want our 150% because they are hoping for AGI and other holy grail technologies to happen in their lifetimes. When you have everything the only goal left is to avoid losing it.
lol .ml