Hacker News Reader

Comment by smt88 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Even if this were true, are we really so far gone in the political discourse that we can't appreciate a win as Americans because of the perceived political orientation of the recipient?

I think the answer is yes, but I still naively hold out hope that we can eventually move beyond this.

I didn't say I don't appreciate a win. I was saying that Afroman isn't a crusader for freedom or anything of the sort. We can appreciate the win without glorifying the victim of the case beyond the scope of the case.

> I was saying that Afroman isn't a crusader for freedom

Sure he is, he literally just won this case as a crusader for freedom :)

I can appreciate that this verdict is a win for freedom, while also finding the footnote that Afroman is not pro-freedom quite useful.

Not sure he's "big MAGA" but I assume this is where the idea stems from - https://www.newsweek.com/afroman-explains-his-new-song-hunte...

It is interesting that his treatment is being cast in the light of racial politics rather than persecution of a political dissident.

I see he celebrated anti-ICE protests in some videos on his YouTube channel. Where does his MAGA support you claim come from?

I think he tried to be the Libertarian presidential candidate and made a song about Hunter Biden, so people just assume he's full MAGA and doesn't deserve 1st amendment rights

I mean, both him and Trump have similar approach to opponents or those who wronged them. In this case, the opponents are deeply unsympathetic to most, so it is harder to see.

I do see how someone whose reaction to being wronged is "I fucked his wife doggy style" could be attracted to the Donald Trump personality.

I’m not at all convinced, because that would mean N A S is a Trumper because:

> “When these streets keep callin’, heard it when I was asleep/That Gay Z and C*ck-A-Fella Records wanted beef”

JayZ responded in kind insinuating it back on N A S.

And Drake is also a Trumpist because he told Chris Brown that he fu*ked Chris’s girl.

Tupac also, for some reason:

> ”… You claim to be a player, but I f*cked your wife/We bust on Bad Boys, n*g*as fu*ked for life.”

2Pac in hit-em-up:

> "That's why I fuc*ed your bitch"

Eminem:

> "I f*cked your mother and made her my bitch,"

You know what? Maybe it’s a rapper thing and not an indication of MAGA alignment?

no! no! he said hunter biden! he said wrong! bad man! MAGA! NAzi!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it's unfortunate that this good thing happened to a person not aligned to my political worldview.

He’s willing to publicly criticize government corruption and child abuse, so there’s no way MAGA would accept him. (Both these stances came up in the defamation lawsuit and in the music video.)

When he ran for president in 2024, he registered as an independent, “citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues”.

Even if he is ultra right wing on secondary issues (I have no idea) those are all anti-MAGA or bipartisan stances.

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/664027-afroman-2024-presidentia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroman

The problem isn't finding people who will publicly criticize child abuse and government corruption. The problem is finding people who actually will do something about those specific problems and not find some way to enrich themselves (or their supporters) in their name instead.

> citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues

The first two of those issues were Trump issues in his campaign and Trump rescheduled marijuana to schedule 2.

There was an EO, but that is not law. Cannabis is still schedule I last I checked. The order is to make it schedule III.

A president can not make a law, only sign them into existence. He can also direct enforcement or lessen it.

As far as I understand, the Schedule of Cannabis is written into the US Code. So Congress would need to amend it.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

It's under the purview of the executive branch to determine drug scheduling

> The term "list I chemical" means a chemical specified by regulation of the Attorney General ... until otherwise specified by regulation of the Attorney General

Thank you, TIL!

That's good to know. The second sentence you gave was superfluous because the first one told us that -- I add this not to dismiss your efforts but to highlight them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com