“Why would you even get into bestiality?” he asked. “We’re not into bestiality,” said Patel.
In a further exchange, Patel explained to Senator John Kennedy, the Louisiana Republican, that previously, regulations had barred anyone who engaged in bestiality “on either side of it.”
“Either side of what, the bestiality?” asked Kennedy. “So you disqualified the animal?”
“We have great canines, but we’re not going to disqualify them,” said Patel.
194 Comments
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 181 pts · 3d
Is this real life or a god damn SNL skit? It reads like an SNL skit.
brem@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 3d
Scene opens on a group of new recruits wearing FBI uniforms.
Camera pans out, it's an animal shelter.
Camera pans out further, the man speaking is Kash Patel in a gimp suit.
Here at the "Friends of Beastiality Institute", we take not asking or telling very seriously, and my thing is definitely bleeeeep*
Scene cuts to disclaimer of no animals being hurt.
Disclaimer ends. As we return to the scene with the recruits, we see Kash zipping up his gimp suit.
"And that, my friends, was consensual."
Cut to dog wearing a bee suit and smoking a cigarette....
"live from New York, Kash fucks dogs!"
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 19 pts · 3d
Space Ghost: "So how was it working with Lassie?"
Triumph the Insult Dog: "If by worked with you mean 'banged up the ass,' it was great."
SG: "Whoa. You can say that on TV? Huh, well I, too, once banged a dog up the a-"
technical difficulties message
SG: "Well how was I supposed to know I couldn't say it?!"
brem@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 3d
... Moltar appears on-screen
"I thought I recognized you! We both were foced to hench for an obscure Canadian comedy group in 1997! How's it meltin', yo?"
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 3d
The lunatics have taken over the asylum long ago.
Willy@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 3d
those arent exact quotes btw. you can find video of the whole thing. patel explains that his team told him that there have been applicants that were sex trafficked and forced to do some things that might count as sexual acts with animals. apparently that what he meant by being on the other side of beastialty.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 11 pts · 3d
Yeah the actual reasoning given is, reasonable. Assuming they're not lying (which is a massive ask for this Admin). And they're communication about it is horrendous, but that's to be expected from these dipshits. They're not in these positions because they're actually good at their job.
Nouvellalia@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 3d
If he was telling the truth, they would have changed the rule by adding the word "willingly". However, he was just lying to cover for the fact that they want to allow abusers of animals and women into the FBI.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 3d
It is an exact quote. https://x.com/atrupar/status/2099864817901125967 (a clip of the hearing, which I'm sure you've set up to redirect to your preferred Nitter instance)
you're talking about a different part of the oversight hearing the article also covers
AmyAye@nord.pub · 1 pts · 3d
I wonder if they are looking at furries.
bad1080@piefed.social · 1 pts · 3d
are those the reptiles i heard so much about?
remon@ani.social · 132 pts · 3d
How do you start a fight between Kash Patel and JD Vance?
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 3d
Or the weirdest Eiffel Tower.
Big_Boss_77@fedinsfw.app · 6 pts · 3d
No...I suppose it's my fault for having eyes...
NatakuNox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
They seem like the Cleveland steamer type of guys
kreskin@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
damn, I'm not into dogs or couches and thats even turning me on. Thats a tight couch.
/s
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 94 pts · 3d
dan1101@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 3d
Or an escalation from the Epstein files. They have gotten all the underage rape they want, now they want to normalize beastiality.
Susaga@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 3d
They like dogs because the oldest ones are only 15.
kreskin@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
excellent point. A tie in with the epstein files would explain this. If they were fucking kids at an industrial scale I bet they had animals too. So some rich bastards fucked some animals and now they want that decriminalized. Finally this makes sense.
Bluedragon012@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
When I first herd about the files, this was my exact thought. Some of the videos Ive been subjected to as an admin of furry stuff... Ain't no regular person got the funds to support that bad behavior.
There are ghetto (KY trailer park dog sex rings) cases, but anything larger than a dog.... There is an industry. That's why rich people go to horse races, they are shopping.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 3d
This has become more culture war bullshit. People don't genuinely care except that it's a political football. Like, I'm sure if they stopped and thought about it, they could work up some tears, but that's just not the part of their brain that is activated 24/7.
Dwayne_Elizondo_Mountain_Dew_Camacho@sh.itjust.works · 77 pts · 3d
The following post didn't make much sense until I saw this one further down the feed.
Thanks, OP, for keeping me sufficiently aware of the insanity to understand the memes.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 3d
but they are only inside you on friday night because thats date night.
uberdroog@lemmy.world · 64 pts · 3d
The answer he was getting to is just as crazy. There were so many trafficked victims who were also forced into beastiality that ALSO want to be in the FBI there grew a need to update the policy. Like....what?
Sackett@thelemmy.club · 40 pts · 3d
He can't give out FBI jobs to his fraternity alumni because they all had to fuck a pig as part of the initiation.
Nouvellalia@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Yeah, they could have let victims in without letting abusers in, by simply adding the word "willingly". They did it this way though, specifically so they could let in the abusers for the reich they have planned.
Zomg@piefed.world · 14 pts · 3d
The applicant pool is so narrow we had to consider this limitation. It's sad applicants may have been forced to perform those acts either way though.
uberdroog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
I deleted this part of my post...I can't help but think this is one guy who wasn't ever part of trafficking.
uberdroog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
https://vger.to/infosec.pub/post/52412767
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 3d
Because they’re only accepting applications from creeps they know.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Another comment connected dots for me, and consistent with: 'No more walking on eggshells': Hegseth vows to lift guardrails on military hazing, harassment
This is the pro-hazing administration, and maybe animal raping is part of some of their 'good old boy' hazing?
Obviously not sure, but it's at least a theory that has some rationale that otherwise seems impossibly pointless to change.
iamthetot@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 3d
I actually don't find it far fetched that people who were victimized may themselves want to prevent that from happening to others.
uberdroog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Me either, just that this specific item is so prevelant that we are having a public conversation around it. But also...I would have bias if this was my story which should preclude me from service. There is a specific person(s) that was part of the mass hiring recently that makes this current news is my guess. There is a name here.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
If a woman who was forced into it by a gang wants to join the FBI to take these people down to keep other girls and women from having the same fate, why would you deny her?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 3d
Under the law, we do not criminalize or hold people to actions taken under duress. You can keep the policy and just qualify the action to having been done willfully. You don't need to allow abusers in to open the door for victims.
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 3d
And an abuse victim shouldn’t have ever been charged with it either.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Correct.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
Ok? Do you not understand the policy change? You are under the impression that willful beastiality is now allowed in the FBI? If you believe that, why do you believe that? Are you ok with having unreliable information?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
He just said that the policy disallowed the fucking dogs who had been victimized. Are you expecting sensibility on these policies? Are you for real?
Yes I believe 1000% that whatever stupid excuse he gave for this policy change, it will be used primarily to put more unqualified, criminal, deviants into positions of federal authority. That seems to be this administration's bread and butter. Look at ICE, look at several of Trumps cabinet picks and AG picks apart from his own adjudication for rape and association with Epstein. Do you think that the Patel FBI who protects Trump and all the other Epstein abusers has high moral standards for the quality of its hirees? Come on.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Dude, don't live your life like this. Stop believing every hyperbolic headline the media comes up with. The original policy was dumb and it's been corrected. Victims of coercion should not be disqualified from the FBI because the question being asked isn't nuanced enough.
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
Because that's a strawman argument & doesn't happen in reality.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · -3 pts · 2d
You seem to know so much about it, are you an FBI recruiter or do you work with victims of human trafficking? Because unless you've done at least one of those things, I can't see how you would have any knowledge from which to make such an assertion.
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Giving fascists the benefit of the doubt is stupid & I refuse to do so. If Kash Patel told me the fucking sky was blue, I'd go outside to check.
So no, I don't fucking believe them, and you shouldn't either if you have more than two braincells to rub together. What I do know is there is at least one white supremacist group & one really nasty college club that are both reported to use bestiality as initiation rites to use the threat of blackmail to maintain control over their members. The only victims here in those cases are the animals.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 1h
I wouldn't say the point of my comment was to give fascists the benefit of the doubt; moreso to question the credibility of your confident assertion that victims of human trafficking who have been forced into degrading acts such as bestiality never ever apply to join the FBI.
Keep in mind that these sorts of oversight committees set something called precedent, which means the results of the hearing will continue to have consequences even after the fascist administration is over and gone.
If they need to adjust the verbiage to narrow it to an exception for precise circumstances, that's one thing. It doesn't need to be viewed as "either it's always allowed or it never is." There's an entire category of stuff that could be "potentially disqualifying" but situation-dependent and can be granted waivers on a case-by-case basis. This could potentially be one of those things.
But erasing the struggles of human trafficking victims by saying "that never happens" without any actual knowledge of the circumstances, is not the correct response to fascism. Bite me if I'm wrong.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Yes, I do believe you are that easily manipulated.
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
Fuck off, loser.
epicstove@lemmy.ca · 58 pts · 2d
This is the type of shit that would be written for a South Park episode.
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 2d
South America get it right patriot
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 48 pts · 3d
Hr is trying to say people who fucked animals during hazing rituals are victims.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 3d
I feel like the framing of whether they are victims or not is kinda irrelevant. I just don’t want people who won’t say no to fucking animals just to get into a frat to have any kind of authority.
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 3d
You know what, I particularly don't want people who are willing to admit to fucking an animal during a job interview to work.
Not just at the FBI, kinda anywhere.
village604@adultswim.fan · 2 pts · 3d
But if they're not busy working they might be busy fucking animals.
Like how I don't mind when trump plays a shit load of
goodgolf.nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 3d
Golf right? Bad golf at that. Bummer of a typo.
village604@adultswim.fan · 1 pts · 3d
My swipe keyboard failed me yet again.
I swear my pixel 9 has a bad digitizer.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
Personally I could put them to work. My definition of work is quite liberal and can definitely fall under a human rights violation at its most sadistic.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 19 pts · 3d
Yes, people who get hazed are victims of abuse. You can be both an abuser and a victim.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
I was sitting here wondering why there would be such a wide spread issue such that they would move to change the rules instead of just covering up some isolated incident.
I didn't think of hazing as a possibility, but that totally tracks and just reiterates how totally screwed up their candidate pool is...
Nouvellalia@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
They could have just added the word "willingly" to the rule. They didn't, because they're trying to hire some fucked up people for the next stage of their reich.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 3d
What’s really funny here is that they could have said something like “we condensed the questions using screening questions. Instead of asking about specific, uncommon, convictions we ask if they’ve been convicted of anything. This is to make the process more efficient.”
Or whatever.
But now, no one is going to believe that’s why, and everyone’s going to believe cash got shagged by a horny goat.
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space · 15 pts · 3d
That wouldn’t have been as useful as a distraction from the Epstein files and/or various looting and power grabs going on.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 3d
Only people with learning disabilities will think that.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Maybe he was forced to. You know, he's a victim.
TipRing@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 2d
Jesus, is this what even qualifies as a distraction now? If gas prices keep going up Kash may end up sucking off a llama in front of Congress.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 8 pts · 2d
I would feel sorry and embarrassed for the llama.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 2d
This hasn’t been in the news (I’ve seldom seen this in reputable places other than Wired), so it’s an ineffective distraction if so.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Imagine Kash's eyeballs! I would feel really sorry for the llama.
Crozekiel@lemmy.zip · 41 pts · 2d
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 2d
Fuck, these people are weird.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip · 33 pts · 3d
If you watch the full thing they removed the restrictions for vicims according to Patel. Apparently someone was forced to engage in such acts against their will.
BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 3d
Honestly the US is so crazily stupid now. And that cones from someone who lived through Brexit and Boris Johnson as prime minister of the UK.
We are living in the stupidest timeline.
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 3d
Careful, there's a 50/50 chance that every time somebody says that, the stupidest timeline gets stupider.
Maybe I shouldn't have quoted it.
brem@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 3d
Nah, it's the most corrupt & greedy timeline...maybe.
The stupid people in charge are a feature, not a bug.
Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 3d
I get that's what he's trying to say. But that still doesn't make sense to me. Because if someone was trafficked and forced to engage in those acts against their will, wouldn't that situation come up in whatever trial put that on their record? And if someone was in that circumstance, do they still get charged with beastiality despite the fact that it was completely non consensual on their part? That seems wrong to me. Especially if, as he also tried to imply, it happened when they were a minor. If that is the case, I think he should be pushing for the laws around that to get changed, rather than the FBI hiring guidelines.
But to me this whole thing reeks of a hastily thought up shitty excuse. Because even if it is actually the case, that minors who are trafficked and forced into beastiality against their will still face charges for it, how frequent is it that people in that very specific scenario are also actively applying to the FBI? And if it is one specific person they were trying to make exceptions for, why not make an exception specifically for that person instead of opening up the guidelines as a whole. It's just so stupid and incompetent. But what else can you expect from Kash Patel.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 3 pts · 3d
Newsflash, there is a lot in this world that isn't fair.
There are a lot of government requirements like these and they rarely allow for any considerations. It's a yes or no, and the wrong answer is an instant failure with no recourse. There are plenty of other people applying without that disqualification. Whether it's an excuse for their actual reasoning or not, it is a valid consideration that the current rules don't allow for.
Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 3d
Ok hang on. I definitely understand that the world isn't fair.
I'm not a lawyer. And I'm not really sure how to even go about looking this up, nor do I particularly want it in my search history. But are you saying that the current US law as it stands allows being convicted of beastiality simply by being a victim of force?
Because it's not like they hook you up to a magic lie detector and ask if you've ever participated in beastiality. They are asking if you have been convicted of said crime. Which is something they can look up and verify. And I would assume said conviction would require a court case. With a decision by a judge or jury. And so during the case, if you make the argument that you were trafficked/forced into it you still face charges?
And if that isn't how the law works, then we would be talking about cases where somebody was forced into that situation, but was unable to prove that they were forced in court, and were wrongfully convicted. Then we are talking about an exception to an exception. And that just seems insane. Especially with the fact that the guidelines change is so broad and sweeping, rather than as granularly specific as the case trying to be argued here.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not well versed in the laws regarding beastiality. Maybe there's something I'm just missing. But I don't understand how you could be added to a registry, or have something put on your record without some sort of conviction. And I don't understand how you can be convicted of something if you were a victim yourself, and being forced to do something, especially as a minor.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 2 pts · 3d
The change is just making a yes answer not an immediate disqualifier. Meaning it's still a question, and could disqualify you, but now you can provide that context.
The system gets shit wrong all the time. People are convicted for stupid shit all the time. Texas famously just convicted a group of people recently for terrorism for being at an ICE protest and having Anti-fascist flyers.
Relying on the system to always have an authoritatively correct and accurate decision without any room for context is ridiculous, and that's what the old policy was.
Nouvellalia@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Oh good lord. That antifa conviction was not a "letter of the law" accident. It was the most intentional twisting of statute to go after maga's "enemies" that we've seen yet.
As for the beastiality requirement, that could have been changed with the word "willingly", without letting in whatever nasty boys ole's toad eyes wants to let in.
Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 3d
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.
I get that it shifts it from being an immediate disqualifier. But then we're right back to the issue at the start. A "yes" to that question means there has been a conviction. And while yes, the system gets things wrong all the time, especially given the example you cite, why are they specifically making this carve out for beastiality? Like you said, people were wrongfully convicted of terrorism for attending protests. There are plenty of felony convictions that can be incorrect or unjustified or biased. And I'm assuming those felony convictions would also be an immediate disqualifier for employment at the FBI. So it's really weird for them to act like beastiality is a unique charge where these sorts of things can happen . Which makes the whole excuse bullshit.
There's a cognitive dissonance here that I just can't explain away as anything other than just blatant excuses with no real basis. If the argument is that sometimes convictions can be wrong and there can be extenuating circumstances, then that should be applied wholesale. And there shouldn't be any immediate disqualifiers without having a discussion with the candidate. If they're willing to accept convictions for other crimes as gospel because the judgement came from the system, then the same should apply to beastiality.
The fact that this specific carve out is being made (I know that there are other guidelines being relaxed as well, but it's not across the board, they are choosing a handful of specific things) really does just make it seem like no matter what justifications Patel provides he really just does support/like/excuse beastiality.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 2d
FBI background checks look into a lot more than just criminal records. A person doesn't have to be convicted or even charged with something in order for it to disqualify them. Some things that aren't even considered crimes can disqualify you. Having too much debt, being an alcoholic, having a family member with too much debt. Having a history of anything embarrassing that you could be blackmailed for. Et cetera.
They ask you questions about your past and strongly encourage you to tell the whole truth, then they interview people who know you in order to corroborate your telling of it. And since the job requires a TS clearance, you have to pass a polygraph test too in which they ask you questions specifically tailored to your past as it appears in the results of your background check.
It's not a simple matter of going to the local police station and asking for your rap sheet the way civilian job interviewers do.
Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 2d
I get all of that. I'm just saying if we are attempting to steel man Patel's argument. How would the concept of beastiality come up? If not through a conviction, or some sort of registry, do they specifically ask family/coworkers/acquaintances of the person applying whether they have reason to believe that person has had experiences with that in the past? Instead of just broadly asking for any information they should be concerned or informed about? I know personally, if I was privy to the information that someone went through that sort of thing, it certainly wouldn't be top of the mind of things I should be sharing as part of a background check. I know not every body thinks the same way, but sharing that someone was the victim of a crime isn't something that I would think is relevant unless specifically questioned about.
Do they expect to find proof of this occurring on social media? I guess one way would be news stories if someone comes forward to talk about their experience of being trafficked/forced into that sort of thing. It just seems like if this is something that occurred it would be a pretty private issue and not something that they would go around openly talking about to every one.
But like another commenter mentioned it would be much simpler to just add "willingly" to that guideline, in order to have the cut out they are looking for. And as fucked up as it is, wouldn't someone being a victim of trafficking also be disqualifying? It would leave them open to blackmail/intimidation due to their trauma no?
The whole situation is just so strange to me, and the excuses given just really don't add up. In another comment further down the chain I bring up the fact that it seems weird to have this unequal enforcement where for some reason, beastiality specifically is something that they are willing to be lenient on and hear people out but with the other guidelines not so much. And yes I know there are other guidelines that they also loosened, but it seems like they are just blindly throwing darts at a board with their guidelines to choose what to lighten up on instead of easing guidelines across the board. Or more concerningly, they have an oddly specific list of things that they think are acceptable.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 2d
One of the questions on the polygraph test is "Have you ever lied on a government form?" That's kind of a catch-all because earlier in the process, they have applicants answer a long list of Y/N questions on the initial background screening form.
That combined with heightening stress levels by continually reminding the applicant of how seriously they take perjury, combined with basically a promise to dig up anything they aren't forthcoming with, it's pretty common for candidates to tell them all their secrets, because you have a better chance of passing the screening or getting a waiver if you're honest and can demonstrate that it won't be an issue for you.
Also, if it's the kind of dark secret that everyone in a small town knows but no one in the next town over does, then yeah that kind of stuff can come up when they're interviewing an applicant's acquaintances.
I mean I'm not here to defend Kash Patel, I think he's unqualified, incompetent, and wouldn't pass a recruitment screening if he had applied for it instead of being appointed to the top post. He shouldn't have passed his senate confirmation hearing, and I still don't think he has a security clearance.
But of all the things we could be knocking him for, easing a restriction to enable a former victim of human trafficking to pursue her dream job of taking down human traffickers isn't exactly something I can fault him for.
That is, if his story is true... on the other hand, it could just be a lie so that he can hire a college frat buddy whom he's personally seen fucking a donkey or something like that. But I don't see how we would ever know one way or the other...
BehindetheClouds@reddthat.com · 11 pts · 3d
So they accommodated a very small minority of people? 🤔
Sounds woke
Gumbyyy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Kash Patel is implementing DEI at the FBI!
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 3d
I didn't say it was right or wrong
BehindetheClouds@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 2d
I am not suggesting it was right or wrong. Just pointing out the contradiction in logic.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 2 pts · 3d
We have confirmed reports of the Israelis forcing Palestinians to do this shit right now. These aren't hypotheticals.
A single person being outright denied without any consideration to context, like trafficked individuals forced to commit these acts against their will (the reason given for the change), is an injustice. Telling someone that they can't even be considered because of trauma they had no control over is ridiculous.
BehindetheClouds@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 2d
Ok? I was just making a cheeky remark.
kreskin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
then they could have tailored the law to that use case and no one would have batted an eye at its implementation. But they chose not to go that route. They could also change this right now and they arent. So none of this is an accident.
pressedhams@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 3d
It’s reported that Israel does this to prisoners.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2026/6/9/shackled-bleeding-raped-palestinians-describe-abuse-in-israels-prisons
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 3d
You mean they actually did something good for someon?
Why? They are going to torture and killnus all anyway.
arak@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 3d
They hire the animals like horses etc? I don't believe this.
kreskin@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 2d
Its hard to understand why they would do this. Some high muckety muck must have hit bestiality (I'm sure they prefer "zoophilia") on their polygraph, or else its a opener/stage setter to ease a broader category of crimes, probably pedophilia and rape.
But no one can claim the GOP doesn't love animals anymore. A Lot. Patels claim that this is aimed at protecting sexual assault vicitims is nonsensical. They could carve out a law specifically for that use case but they didnt. And the FBI pushing a law specifically for an exceedingly rare outcome for victims is out of pattern. Its not about victims, its to protect perpetrators-- as is usual for republicans in the US.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 2d
Wasn't one of the potential identities of the mysterious "Bubba" that Trump was rumored to have blown a horse?
lawks@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 2d
As weird as it sounds, I assumed there was some logic to this, and there was at least one case where someone had been the victim of sexual abuse and was forced to engage in bestiality. Then someone with half a brain realised that such a victim had no repulsive proclivities, so shouldn't be excluded as a candidate on that basis.
The mere mention of the topic encourages irrational discourse.
Nouvellalia@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
They could have let in those people by adding the word "willingly". They changed this rule to start letting in the more violent people they'll need for the next stage of the reich.
WanderWisley@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 3d
Kash fucked a dog huh?…
HejMedDig@feddit.dk · 5 pts · 3d
Or a dog fucked him....
kreskin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Kash strikes me as more of a submissive type. He'd definitely be the one being fucked.
WanderWisley@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Who let the dogs out?
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
His wife held the leash.
corvide077@lemmy.zip · 24 pts · 2d
groucho@retrolemmy.com · 13 pts · 2d
It kind of looks like an X with stars.
HejMedDig@feddit.dk · 24 pts · 2d
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 2d
Why do I get the impression some second rate LLM scraped references to "fucking the dog' and turned it into official FBI policy?
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
I think it's really just as simple as Kash Patel likes doggie dicks. It's not rocket science.
Boe@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 26 pts · 2d
FTFY
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 3d
Two years of total control and this is what they consider a win?
I know there's no conservatives here because Lemmy is very much not a safe space for them, but I'd really like to ask one what the fuck they think winning is.
DillDough@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 3d
There's conservatives everywhere on Lemmy lmfao. There's even conservatives who think they're communists, there are so many right wing cesspools here just like every other website. There's also just a lot of right wing propaganda that's so prevalent elsewhere that it's getting regurgitated by majority of people worldwide and then gets plastered all over here by "extreme leftists" who don't even realize what they're saying. I do envy your experience here though.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
I blocked ml. That's probably why.
DillDough@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 2d
Lol that's a good point, I haven't blocked any communities and only blocked a couple users.
I probably should currate my Lemmy experience more, i seem to get an overwhelming amount of far right content or trans communities just like back on reddit. Not that those two types of content are comparable at all, nor am I bothered by trans content in my feed, it just has nothing to with me and occasionally I'll unknowingly comment in a community that does not need or want my input, same thing happens with communities for women or regions of the world I have no direct ties to.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2d
Honestly just double check the community before ya comment on it. Or block them as needed, probably no the most elegant solution but it works. Personally I just blocked .lm and my instance defederated enough of the other toxic fuckers that it's pretty good for me. Still lots of Trans shit but who the fuck cares, sons of bitches and daughters of bastards tend to have decent enough shit posts.
sober_monk@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Not a conservative, but I guess "them libs" being mad is worth it for them?
kreskin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
True, but they dont love being laughed at for being idiots. And this will 100% result in a lot of comedy at their expense. So GOP leadership must want this pretty badly. It could be related to this governments attempts to integrate government functions with the state of israel.
kreskin@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
its pretty clear that being able to fuck livestock on a streetcorner and get away with it = winning. Good job republicans. Whenever I've heard "the south will rise again" this is exactly the sort of stuff I thought would happen. This and the elimination of womens rights and the legal enshrinement of racism.
Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 2d
The cruelty to immigrants makes everything else worthwhile to a lot of them. There's also much enthusiasm for Hegseth's bro-ification of the armed services. For wealthier supporters, the enablement of open corruption is a huge plus.
Anyone whose identity requires them to be Republican, but isn't enthused about previous points, can fall back on the claim that Dems would be even worse and this is the lesser evil.
Madagaskar_sky@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
They say the sky is green, the govt says it's green. They say you are vermin, the govt says your vermin. They definitely love seeing you having to live beneath whatever they say. Costs be damned, they won.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 2d
Must be a particular color blindness
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 3d
I guess that's one way to out one of your kinks.
CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 3d
Spiderkash on XVideos has kinks?
saltesc@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 3d
I just keep thinking Furry Bureau of Investigation.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 6 pts · 3d
I never did before... but for the rest of my life, I will read "FBI" as "Furry Bureau of Investigation"
ICastFist@programming.dev · 5 pts · 3d
Fuwwy BOwO of In-what'sthis?
bstix@feddit.dk · 16 pts · 3d
These DEI hiring standards are getting out of hand.
Are companies going to have to hire donkey fuckers to their boards in order to comply or what?
adarza@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 3d
so 'donkey shows' are real.. they're part of the interview process at an fbi job fair.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
You mean more donkey fuckers?
yakko@feddit.uk · 16 pts · 3d
You're all missing the bigger picture, with FBI agents being placed at polling stations they need this to - say it with me - RAT FUCK THE ELECTION!
brem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
No troops at polling places is a very important part of the
constitutionUS code If the US government is going to use the FBI as a thumb, it should remember that a hand has 4 fingers.yakko@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 3d
I'm confused about what you expect to happen?
brem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
Well, Yakko... that's a very Yakko thing to say.
Ask Wakko, he knows.
yakko@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 3d
Very coy, good job. That would go over great on tiktok, but this is lemmy. You can just talk about attacking cops if you want, you get more points that way too :D
brem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
I attack with words, not fists or bullets.
yakko@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 3d
Yet refuse to say what you mean, something's clearly being lost in translation. Could you just sock it to me?
mangaskahn@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 3d
Brem: I'm a psych major! Words are my weapons!
FBI Agent: I'm a FBI Agent. Weapons are my weapons.
reptar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
A hint:
TomMasz@piefed.social · 15 pts · 3d
I'm gettting tired of saying this but I'm glad I'm not an Onion writer. Those poor guys have never had to work so hard to get a head of reality.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
I think they're having a blast. Shit that was "too far out there" is now getting approved.
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 3d
Which White Supremacist group is it that has bestiality as an initiation rite?
Kupi@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 3d
“We’re not into beastiality,” said Patel. “It’s interspecies erotica, and we will not engage in this type of kink shaming.”
kgbbot@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 3d
If the other spices cannot be consenting a consenting partner, wouldn't that be interspecies rape and sexual assault? I don't want anyone willing to commit sexual assault regardless of the species as law enforcement, especially in this dumb fuck wanna be Nazi government
Kupi@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2d
It’s a Clerks 2 reference.
Nouvellalia@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
You a vegan?
Mescalito@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 2d
You're an idiot.
Fredselfish@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 3d
I get this quote!
TwodogsFighting@lemdro.id · 14 pts · 3d
Someone rich is about to join the FBI.
Shaq was not on my bingo card.
Heikki2@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 3d
Kash: Someones gotta fuck those animals. No kink shame
Anyone reasonable: do you really need to find people who fuck animals though?
Kash: How else will do we replace the mounted division with a centuar division with out the JTRHNBR people? Checkmaate liberals!! drops mic showers self with tallboy of Fosters
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 2d
Zirconium@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 3d
Even if they had legitimate reason for the remove the bestiality rules, what about soliciting sex? Surely theres no defense for that?
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 3d
Prostitution is not a crime in every city, nor is it universally unethical. It's entirely possible to have a navy boy who solicited prostitutes in Amsterdam find himself disqualified from federal work.
What I'm saying is context matters.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 3d
How else could they hire more conservatives?
Eternal192@anarchist.nexus · 9 pts · 3d
This is what happens when you elect a degenerate, he'll bring other degenerates to positions that they would never have gotten in a normal situation.
RamRabbit@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 3d
Why would human trafficking victims be denied a job a the FBI? He is talking about trafficked individuals who were forced against their will into sexual acts with animals.
If you truly believe victims are degenerates, you need to go work on yourself before sharing opinions on the internet.
maniclucky@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
The idea that such victims exist is a stretch. That is to say ones that were forced into bestiality as children, sought out a career in the FBI, and were rejected upon revelation that they were victims. The first two conditions I would expect to be vanishingly rare, and that last one should nail the coffin shut. I don't believe a functioning FBI wouldn't be able to make exceptions for agents that would be qualified if not for conditions far outside their control as children.
Far more believable that Kash has sex with animals and wanted to hire his buddies.
RamRabbit@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 3d
The entire point of the article is that there was exactly that limitation and the rules are now coming into line with your prior expectation of how the rules should work.
From the article:
maniclucky@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 3d
The source cannot be trusted.
Nouvellalia@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
Why wouldn't they just add the word "willingly" then? Because that would except the people who were victims without letting in the people Kash really wants in.
Prior_Industry@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
Just need to find out which one of Kashs mates that he wants to hire has done unspeakable things
ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2d
Probably every other frat boy on Kash's short list for hiring, if not himself.
I mean I think it was an Oxford frat that had a dead pig dick sucking hazing ritual or something. Ruling class is weird.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 3d
bestiality is just a form of non consensual behaviour so it makes sense that people who join this fbi would be attracted to it.
SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 3d
Frat bros with weird initiation rituals now free to apply, Skull and Bones come on down.
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 3d
So he fucked two dogs?
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 3d
he needs to take a hit of cocaine first to get him into the mood.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
I mean, that knot can stretch a hole.
cubism_pitta@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 3d
Just wait until you hear what he did to the family cat!
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 3d
He does have resting just-got-his-junk-shredded-by-an-angry-cat face.
saltesc@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
meowzers!
toofpic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
Allegedlys
vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 3d
How does a fella get caught up in that sorta business?
toofpic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
That's the way she goes
SarcasticMan@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
These conservatives will fuck anything
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 2d
Except a consenting adult human, some of them.
anarchy79@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Because there are no adult humans who would ever dream of consenting to having sex with those absolute weirdos.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 2d
Someone needs to tattoo a pawprint on Patel's forehead so the message comes out loud and clear.
D_C@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 3d
The memories of those 'invading' horse cocks could explain his resting facial expression...
nullspace@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
Given all of Trump's foreign policy blunders they're desperate for people with experience in being knotted up in uncomfortable positions.
Kintarian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Kash is truly barking mad… woof woof
Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 3d
How about couches then?
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
They've always had couches at the FBI, lots of them. Many covered in plastic. For... reasons.
anarchy79@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
In this day and age of robotics and AI, you could just fuck a robot dog and there's nothing the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, or NASA could say.
You could fuck a robot dog in the middle of the Oval Office and there isn't a god damned thing the president could do about it, because it's not a real dog.
Sure, it looks like a real dog, it is programmed to sound like it's being hurt, but it's only a program.
Please everyone watch this educational video on how to stop bestiality dead in its tracks:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcNYb3DydA
Nagrom@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2d
Those great canines were asking for it…/s
FE80@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
The future is weird.
Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 2d
It's a requirement now!
mHtt@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 2d
Most Americans really believe they have moral high ground. City on the hill bullshit. THATS the real copium in this world.
anarchy79@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
It's over, Anakin!
RamRabbit@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 3d
The body is talking about no longer barring trafficking victims who were forced against their will to perform sexual acts with animals. It's pretty obvious one should not bar the victim from a job.
The only 'not the onion' part of this article is the title which does not make the facts clear.
Tippy@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 3d
Are you somehow under the impression that victims of sexual abuse are convicted of the felonies perpetrated against them?
The policy was to bar FELONS, as is the case at any law enforcement agency.
RamRabbit@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 3d
The article repeatedly states this is about sexual victims. It doesn't use the word 'felon' a single time. Not only that, it even points out that those convicted of such crimes are still not eligible for employment.
Tippy@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 3d
Yes, we're aware that articles are reporting what Patel is saying the reasoning is. What you're ignoring is that being the victim of a crime has never been a disqualifier and clearly was not the intention of these policies, because it would be ridiculous to believe someone forcibly raped by an animal chose to engage willingly, regardless of what the sexual abusers themselves claim.
The only reason that this is being altered is because, as we have already seen, many of the people being recruited by the federal government to form the gestapo are convicted sexual predators and this can lead to legal accountability down the line if and when they are no longer in power
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
It's better just to say this part, the longer the explanation, the more their eyes glaze over.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
It's an obvious lie. Even if they somehow find a candidate that fits that scenario, they wouldn't have been barred by existing policy. Plus, the way to carve out an exception there is to exempt victims of abuse from a policy, not allow any animal abuser in.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 3d
are you not amused nor concerned by the quotes i’ve put into the body that others are calling “SNL skit”–worthy?