this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
574 points (94.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HWK_290@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I've made it a goal to stay off reddit, but I'm breaking this pledge today too see with r/survivor has to say about this! I'm positive they won't disappoint

Edit: zut alors! It's not being reported there... Or mods scrubbed it

[–] SoupyHappenstance@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This guy's got a couple first cousins somewhere blushing furiously.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chrishazfun@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

how the fuck is this a real headline

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

Because its very misleading and does not properly represent what happened. It was designed to have a response of disbelief.

[–] AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hm, I wonder who he is sleeping with...

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean ... the suspect pool is not particularly large.

[–] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

First cousins in Kentucky? That's probably only a few hundred thousand people it could be.

[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Home Sweet Home, Alabama! ♥️

Seriously, it is incest. And Republicans are into that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KarsicKarl@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This was a mistake in the bill which he retracted, amended and resubmitted.

The first cousins are safe, legally anyway.

What I don't get is I assume they had a law so why was this needed?

[–] ExcursionInversion@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yea, news article I saw said he posted this about it

I filed HB 269 yesterday. The purpose of the bill is to add “sexual contact” to the incest statute. Currently, incest only applies in cases of intercourse. So sexual touching/groping by uncles, stepdads or anyone with a familial relationship is not included in incest. My bill makes that kind of sexual contact a Class D Felony, unless the victim is under the age of 12, then it increases the penalty to a Class C Felony.

During the drafting process, there was an inadvertent change, which struck “first cousins” from the list of relationships included under the incest statute, and I failed to add it back in. During today’s session, I will withdraw HB 269 and refile a bill with the “first cousin” language intact. The fact that I was able to file a bill, catch the mistake, withdraw the bill and refile within a 24 hour period shows that we have a good system.

This is a bill to combat a problem of familial and cyclical abuse that transcends generations of Kentuckians. I understand that I made a mistake, but I sincerely hope my mistake doesn’t hurt the chances of the corrected version of the bill. It is a good bill, and I hope it will get a second chance.

[–] AquaTofana@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

So wait, he was actually trying to expand the definition of incest to protect more victims?

I didn't see that coming at all! Not from a Republican anyhow. They don't really come off as the party that gives a fuck about the victims.

Huh.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A Kentucky Republican has introduced legislation that would amend the state's law so a person who had sex with their first cousin would no longer be criminally liable for incest.

According to the Kentucky General Assembly website, it would strike "first cousin from the list of familial relationships" defined as unlawful incest in the state.

In November 2022, Wilson ran unopposed for the 82nd District of the Kentucky House after Republican incumbent Regina Huff retired.

It would also alter Kentucky law on parole for violent offenders to include a person "who has been convicted of incest by sexual contact" within the definition.

In August 2021, webcomic creator and YouTuber Christine Weston Chandler, also known as Chris Chan, was arrested on a charge of incest in Virginia and later caused a stir by stamping their feet repeatedly in court to disrupt proceedings.

French survivors of incest spoke out online in January 2021 using the hashtag #MeTooInceste after prominent lawyer Camille Kouchner alleged that her stepfather, a high-profile political scientist, sexually abused her as a child.


The original article contains 505 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

It's part of his Game of Thrones omnibus bill.

[–] omega_x3@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

In his defense New York did allow FDR to marry his first cousin.

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] ratcliff@lemmy.wtf 5 points 9 months ago

Kentucky living up to its reputation

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Is this guy the representative for Shelbyville?

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

At first I assumed since this is a Republican that it would be about reducing abortions in case they had an incest exception.

Turns out they don't have such an exception, so he must have a really hot first cousin that is otherwise dtf.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 9 months ago

"This is the problem I wanted to solve when I was elected"

[–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 9 months ago

It's still incest mate. Even if you make it legal incest.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Dude’s probably fucking his young male cousin.

[–] SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I love how everyone that speaks logically and factually about this has to first overtly announce and apologize that they aren't supporting this candidate. Like, is everyone here so opposed to actual facts if it looks like there is even one iota of support for the 'other team'? Even when that's clearly not the case. Please, someone else has to see the stupidity.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

My experience on lemmy is that the facts are secondary. It's a slight exaggeration, but if you don't support someone, you have to oppose everything they do or you are some big supporter of them. If you point out some criticism of them is not based in fact, it's "why would you defend them?"

It's much easier if the world is black and white and you're in a bubble that agrees with that. And so they'll attack anything that upsets this uniform simplicity.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›