this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
882 points (99.3% liked)

Microblog Memes

11641 readers
1887 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Funwayguy@lemmy.world 170 points 4 days ago (7 children)

No no. If you read between the lines, they didn't explicitly say no. They only insinuated he hasn't met the criteria under international law yet... But they do acknowledge the assholery.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

They only insinuated he hasn't met the criteria under international law yet

Hell, if you go COMPLETELY literal, they're not even necessarily saying THAT!

They COULD be saying that the Tates are legitimate targets for OTHER reasons (such as being in the enemy's army), just not for being assholes πŸ˜‰

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Being a child trafficker should be punishable by death

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 27 points 3 days ago (24 children)

Nothing should be punishable by death. Death penalty is uncivilized and full of problems.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

America would lose half the presidential administration.

Which is fine by me, BTW.

[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

I was gonna say, you make it sound like a bad thing.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 34 points 3 days ago (31 children)

What if he was just out of standing near someone who was a legitimate target. You know like the training officer. Or a particularly offensive piece of foliage.

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] Bohne93@feddit.org 58 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Weren't they there for military training? So after basic training they should be a legitimat target, no?

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 42 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Honestly even before finishing training. He's wearing the military uniform, training, and handling a weapon.

The US defined any male about 16 in Iraq as a combatant/legitimate target and the world didn't bat an eye. Tate exceeds this

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 28 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

He's wearing the military uniform

Any uniform is incomplete without the flag or coat of arms.

The US defined any male about 16 in Iraq as a combatant/legitimate target and the world didn't bat an eye.

That was still illegal.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Starik@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

β€œCannot” or will not? 😑

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 36 points 4 days ago (15 children)

Ukraine displaying the moral high ground.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 40 points 4 days ago

Can't we make just this one exception? It would be a net good for humanity!

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 7 points 3 days ago

we all see your tags and we get it

Ooooh this is how you die from robot bees

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 32 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Wait, since when does international law matter with regard to drone strikes? I could cite dozens of drone strikes by the Trump administration that clearly violated international law and they didn't even make a ripple in any court system anywhere?

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 78 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ukraine's support from other countries relies heavily on them having and maintaining the moral high ground.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well Ukraine ain't the US for one.

[–] pH3ra@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 days ago

You know you fucked up as a country when even 2026 war-thorn Ukraine looks at you and goes "ugh no thanks..."

[–] amio@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago

"Less blatantly unethical than the US" is not that high a bar, to be fair.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BilSabab@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Strongly worded UN reaction incoming

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Ahh come on guys. Cant we just drone strike them a little bit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί