this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
594 points (99.3% liked)

Not The Onion

12577 readers
677 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TootSweet 165 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If a senator's honor is impugned by another senator to the point that it is beyond repair and in order for the offended senator to gain satisfaction, such senator may rectify the perceived insult to the senator's honor by challenging the offending senator to a duel.

The Republican who introduced this bill did so because his feelings were hurt. Wait, who are the snowflakes again?

[–] [email protected] 53 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And what happens when the Democrat tells him to fuck off?

The first rule of dueling was that a challenge to duel between two gentleman could not generally be refused without the loss of face and honor

"lol" said the Democrat, "lmao".

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

In truth, there were several reasons that one could decline a duel without loss of honor. For example if the duel challenge was issued with obvious quarrelous intent.

Eg:

"You're a liar"

"No I'm not. What are you talking about?"

"Ah, so you deny being a liar?"

"Yes, wtf are you getting at?"

"Then by your denial, you accuse me of being a liar! This insult shall not stand. I demand satisfaction."

"Lol, fuck off"

Another case would be if one duelist was not of sufficient station to match the honor of their opponent. A freshly-minted bourgeoisie vs a nobleman, for example.

Lastly, duels might be turned down if it were obvious to all that that a significant skill mismatch were at play. For example, a military officer might not be allowed to duel a civilian with sabres. Guns, however, were generally considered more egalitarian.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 100 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Politicians want to harm each other directly instead of harming millions indirectly? Fuck it, let em.

[–] AllonzeeLV 29 points 11 months ago

I think it's more of a "yes and" kind of thing.

[–] JJROKCZ 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

More like they want to kill democrat or further left opponents we the people of the cities in Missouri (STL&KC) put up against them with impunity. They’ll just claim a duel was called and murder them

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Some of them will overestimate themselves. It won’t be a Democrat-only bloodbath.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PunnyName 14 points 11 months ago

More like, "I want to harm them, but not the other way around" kind of thing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hey, if they’re hurting and killing each other instead of us, that’s a win.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

It won't be an "instead" though. Duelling will be used to get rid of those rare politicians that actually want to help people or improve the system.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HocEnimVeni 99 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Alexander Hamilton called out Aaron Burr for defrauding new york city and died in a duel as a result. Aaron Burr was justified having won the duel and used the money to start J.P. Morgan bank and now we all have to pay $30 for being $0.01 overdrawn.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ackshtually, Burr founded what became the Chase part of it, and the duel was over five years after that.

[–] whostosay 27 points 11 months ago

I love a good akkshually, well done

[–] Buffaloaf 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hamilton was a federalist that started the Bank of New York

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus 11 points 11 months ago

This should be higher in the list. This is a repeat the past moment, not a bad guys killing each other moment.

[–] trevwilson 9 points 11 months ago

Lol what? JP Morgan was started, unsurprisingly, by JP Morgan

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EdibleFriend 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)

.... Why do I support this. Why did I instantly say okay this is good?

[–] AllonzeeLV 26 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Bad guys killing bad guys?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If it ever actually got used, it'd be bad guys killing good guys (yes, they exist despite boomer level "All government is bad" bullshit) instead.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

You can refuse a duel. If the other person persists, it's straight murder. The penalty for refusing a duel is loss of "honor". Which you can't really lose if your opponent is challenging you to a fucking duel in 2024.

[–] EdibleFriend 6 points 11 months ago

And maybe even on video!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (12 children)

make it sabers, like real fucking men

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Yugi, you idiot. We're not dueling with weapons. We are dueling with cards!

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 months ago

If they want to do the dirty work for us 🤷

[–] FartsWithAnAccent 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

I want to see two senators duel with a couple of trout as weapons, whoever gets knocked down first loses.

No shoving, the knockdown must be accomplished with the trout and the trout alone.

Just two grown adults slapping each other with fish.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] force 23 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago

I see nothing wrong with this. Let them kill each other.

[–] FireTower 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who are we to deny two consenting adults?

[–] JJROKCZ 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Guarantee it’s just Jeff co fascists wanting to kill the politicians voted forth by those of us in STL or KC. I’d bet $100 they’ll kill a democrat and claim a duel was called but there will be no witnesses from both sides to back it up.

Well I would bet but Missouri has fucking archaic gambling laws thanks to these fuckheads.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

It’s weird. When I moved from KS to MO, MO was less crazy but now that I’m here it feels like KS is calming down and MO is now losing its shit with all this stupidity.

Am I the problem?

(I know KS isn’t perfect either but they just seem less bananas, lately; with the gambling and abortions and what not)

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Man, they are really rolling back the clock. What’s next, bloodletting? Alchemy?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Thcdenton 15 points 11 months ago

Let that shit ride

[–] blahsay 13 points 11 months ago

This is terrible! It's 2024!

It should be a laser chainsaw battle in mechas

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sounds good for TV ratings I guess.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent 6 points 11 months ago

Yeah, CSPAN just got waaaay more watchable.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm all for it. You think assholes like Ted Cruz would still be around if this was the norm?

[–] shalafi 19 points 11 months ago

“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,”

Senator Graham

[–] themeatbridge 11 points 11 months ago

Wait, I don't think that's what he meant when he said he wanted to swordfight other guys.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yeah and modernize the rules: they get ARs instead of those old dueling pistols

[–] shalafi 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm DOWN! Some rules:

  • Any AR-15 platform acceptable. Plain Jane Colt, Gucci'd out custom rig, top-line Daniel Defense, don't care. 16", 20", 24" barrel, whatever. Standard AR, standard controls, etc.
  • No mag capacity limit. (Some idiot would roll with a 50-round mag, get jammed and smeared.)
  • 100 paces. Make 'em walk it out for max drama.
  • Iron sights only. Red-dots are almost IRL aim-bots. Make 'em work for it.
  • No cover, no armor. Make 'em fight. Looking for a test of manhood here.

So how are we handling seconds? Just let them choose anyone for the role? Sounds fair.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

On the contrary. The duel should be fought only with a rapier. I don't want Fatty McCorruption Face (R) win because the MIC gave him the latest shiny, for helping sell guns to the cartels or whatever.

They want to duel? They think they have it in them to rectify their "honor" this way? Make them work for it.

[–] DontTreadOnBigfoot 6 points 11 months ago

Cassius Marcellus Clay's dick just twitched a bit in his grave...

[–] RIP_Cheems 4 points 11 months ago

YEAH, COURT DUEL

[–] IndustryStandard 4 points 11 months ago

A win-win situation!

load more comments
view more: next ›