Italy’s parliament on Tuesday approved a law that introduces femicide into the country’s criminal law and punishes it with life in prison.
The vote coincided with the international day for the elimination of violence against women, a day designated by the U.N. General Assembly.
The law won bipartisan support from the center-right majority and the center-left opposition in the final vote in the Lower Chamber, passing with 237 votes in favor.
The law, backed by the conservative government of Premier Giorgia Meloni, comes in response to a series of killings and other violence targeting women in Italy. It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn.
It’s sad that it’s been so bad there that they needed a law for this. Good on them for passing it. Now they need to do the work on changing the culture of weak men to remove this behavior. Unfortunately, this is also a worldwide issue that needs to be healed.
This post has helped me root out all the shitty piece of shit incels to block on Lemmy. Thank you for this.
You have selected regicide! If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, please press 1.
I’m reading a lot of responses here that seem to rhyme with the “White lives matter!” responses to the BLM movement.
As was the case then, what seems to be getting missed by those saying this is the context. Italy has a major issue with domestic violence, including spousal murder. From the sound of it, it’s usually women who are the victims. Thus, a new law to target wife abusers specifically.
There may be some merit to debating whether this is an effective move or not, I’m not up on my research there; but let’s not deny that they see a need, and are attempting to address it.
Hi, saying “Italy has a major issue with domestic violence” it’s misleading. Compared to what? To Europe? (we are on the lower end of feminicides, and this law try to target this issue). More in general, Italy it’s a very safe place and homicides are lower than the average of europe.
Feminicides: https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/femicide-remains-all-too-common-in-italy-and-europe/
General intentional homicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
To further expand: Is it an issue? YES, is it even slightly going towards a resolution with this new law? NOPE. It’s just the next new big title from “Governo Meloni”, a right wing party that is in charge, will get re-elected but is acting like it’s on the opposition.
This is not like the “White lives matter” responses to the BLM movement. If they wanted to increase the “hate crime” or “gender crime” homicides penalties, they could have said something like “to address the feminicides we will be increasing all the hate/gender homicides penalties”. But this government hate gays and trans, just love a christian traditional family and slogans (which none of our representatives was able to mantain btw).
To begin with, instead of “Italy has a major issue with domestic violence”, would it be more fair to say “The Italian government sees domestic violence as a major issue”?
My post was a response to all the “it’s still just murder!” comments; because per your first source, Italian domestic violence does largely target women, and that does need addressed.
But it sounds like your problem with this legislation is that the government is using it to prop themselves up and make themselves look virtuous while they target other disadvantaged populations. Would you mind expanding on that? My knowledge of Italian current events is woefully lacking!
Is making the thing that’s already illegal illegal really addressing the issue? It seems like it’s more like paying lip service to the issue if it isn’t backed with some sort of positive social programs as well.
Oh yeah a sexist law to punish a cultural issue. Surely we can outlaw mentality better than to out-educate. Wasn’t murder already ilegal?
Cool, now Italy stop recognizing the copout that is allowing the framing of spousal murders as crimes of passion for the purpose of reducing the sentence, its complete bullshit.
Its like giving a drunk driver a curative discharge, its like, umm no, fuck off
Since when have stronger punishments deterred crimes?
Uhh… what about this mindset - “glad this menace to society isn’t getting released after 5 years”
Also isn’t killing a person based on an immutable characteristic (race, sex, etc) already a hate crime? In the US if someone kills a woman or girl primarily because of their sex that is a hate crime on top of being first degree murder (which is a serious enough offense as it is).
That’s a fair question. It’s complicated. Harsher laws don’t always stop crime, but they can send a strong message and hold people accountable. Plus, the real deterrence often comes from how seriously society treats these issues, not just the law itself. It’s messy, but I think it’s part of the solution.
From what I have gathered, when I read through some criminology papers, it’s less about the severity of punishment and more about being caught and prosecuted which is more effective as a deterrence.
The death penalty for example has been proven in numerous studies to be ineffective.
Consequently, increasing the severity of punishments can become useless and possibly more based in a (public) desire for revenge.
We, as a more or less civilised society, should also be mindful about why we prosecute someone and how we want to treat people in the long run. For example, just imprisioning someone for life – apart from being ethically debatable – will not solve problems but only move them somewhere else.
There needs to be more accountability for law enforcement for this too have any real effect. Studies show up to 40% of law enforcement self identify as domestic abusers. So why would they investigate themselves?
That is a wild statistic! Is that study just in Italy or?
That is a wild statistic!
It’s a demonstrably inaccurate number. The study was vague enough that yelling at a partner was included, and much more damning they included the officer even if they were the victim in the situation. It literally paints the victims as domestic abusers!
“40% of law enforcement self identify as domestic abusers” is demonstrably false and is not something that should be repeated.
Thank you for clarifying, it seemed crazy high. I know the stereotypes but still.
The comment was UP TO 40%. Various studies range from 2 to 40%. But since they are SELF REPORTING, the number is likely higher.
Look through the various studies, but all still show higher rates than the general public. And if law enforcement are the domestic abusers, how can they be tasked with investigating themselves?
The comment was UP TO 40%.
And that comment is incorrect. Unless we are going with Comcast’s ‘up to 1000mbps’ numbers.
Various studies range from 2 to 40%.
No, they don’t range to 40%, and I detailed why. Don’t repeat 40%, it’s demonstrably false.
Yeah, the real number from that study was ~28% self admitted, which is still extremely bad
as far as I know that stat is for the united States, but pigs are pigs
Law enforcement in the USA is specific. It’s not the same in every country. Can’t speak for Italy though.
Yea… I’m with the incels that don’t really understand the point. If murder was already a crime that would be punished by life in prison, narrowing the specificity of who was murdered doesn’t change much of anything.
“Cool, if it makes you happy I guess 👍”
It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn
Read?
My comment is very clearly specifically in reference to the term “femicide” and the official recognition of it within Italian law. It’s murder. If a woman kills another woman, it is not a femicide, that’s just a murder… the penalty is the same in the end… right??? Overall, it seems a relatively unnecessary level of specificity.
Neither stalking nor revenge porn should count as gender-based violence. It is gender violence if it’s strictly based on because of someone’s gender with no other motivation.
If you have to say “I’m with the incels” you’re an incel.
“You don’t agree with me, therefore you must be bad”
I agree with doctors that vaccines save lives, so I’ll be taking that free medical degree now.
Spot on! That’s exactly how agreeing with people works!
When I agree with women, I turn into a woman! When I agree with doctors, I become a doctor!
And every asshole upvoting that trap
I don’t see how the femicide part makes any sense or difference. There were already the exact same punishments for killing of anyone, so isn’t this essentially copy pasting existing laws but with a specific group highlight? If that’s the case, it will do absolutely nothing.
The second part is fine, though I hope it’s meant for everyone and not just women. I don’t know about Italy specifically, but in many European countries if you fall victim to these crimes as a man, you’ll likely receive no help.
Would be great to see some more protections for everyone, as well as more serious punishments for violations against anyone. Making anything like this gender-specific will just fuel already problematic anti-other-gender sentiment.
inequity is real.
If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that. It’s recognizing that a person may not be targetted for being an individual but a part of a group. And that is important. So That is taking their individualness into importance by recognizing the group they are being targetted by.
This should be allowed if you’re being legitimately concerned for EVERYONE’S safety here.
people who may be at their job as a sex worker. Or if they are simply female and that in itself could be weaponized against them.
They will face a violent discrimination just as another person fitting into a different group might. And it’s important to recognize that, make that a law, and keep them safe too. So if “Being targetted for”is a law , recognizing group profile is part of that.
If you aim for equality, making separate laws for separate genders is not the solution. This is anything but equality. Especially when there are already laws protecting the groups in question, as part of the entire nation. The problem here is completely different and requires different solutions.
To note: I’m not who you responded to.
making separate laws for separate genders is not the solution
Absolutely it is. If there is a measurable inequality towards a minority, you should enshrine the protection of that minority into law - which is one reasons why many countries specify anti-discrimination laws. This law regards the same.
The problem here is completely different
Which you have failed to specify. So… the problem is what, exactly? I don’t see one.
and requires different solutions.
Which you also failed to provide.
I’m getting a strong “but won’t anyone think of the men!” vibe from you.
- Women are not a minority.
- Anti-discrimation laws generally apply to everyone. Otherwise they’d themselves be discriminatory.
- Not specifying problems/solutions, since it’s quite a sensitive and complex topic. It’s way easier to rate an existing proposition than to come up with an alternative. Though obviously, a good start would be to respect and enforce laws that are already in place. E.g., all EU countries already have laws prohibiting all kinds of sexual harassment and assault. However, many cases are still ignored for a variety of reasons. In this specific instance, adding more laws would accomplish nothing.
- I know this isn’t literally what you meant, but I am in fact trying to think of the men, as well as women. When striving for equality, you want to consider all of the groups in question and not just one or two out of many. Feminism used to be about equal rights between men and women, but nowadays it’s usually about more rights for women and fewer for men. While it’s not actually feminism, it does present itself as such and many people consider it to be, so it’s still relevant to the discussion. This may ‘work’ for a short while, but long-term will do nothing but pin men and women against each other. As designed, since it’s in most politicians’ best interests to keep us divided. This is not the way.
I think a better law would be more generic in defining what defined group targeting.
Why only protect one group? How many other divisions will there be?
How balkanized will you make the law when ypu apply it to people?
Will more wealth entitle you to more protections?
It sounds lis you’re asking to have 4 more discussion on top of this one.
If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that.
Please note that, by all accounts I’ve seen, Italy’s femicide law does not cover any similar offense against men. It’s an elevated offense to try and reduce the disproportionate number of Italian women who are killed by intimate partners.
It sounds like we are agreeing here.
deleted by creator
Laws that recognize life of one group of people as more valuable than other are the exact same logic that was used to defend slavery. Murder is murder. Recognizing one groups life as more valuable then others is wrong, no matter how much you want to dress that pig to look progressive.
“Femicide” so… murder? Yeah, hasnt “life” been the typical punishment for murder? (Life is usually 25years) .
Did they not already recognize murder of women should be treated like murder?
Victims of relationships violence (myself), stalking and harassment (myself), should have justice. Unfortunately, I dont hear much about the men who suffer from this type of violence.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m interpreting this being in the vein of a crime being murder, but potentially also a hate crime. The motivation of a crime is part of its definition and affects sentencing especially in tertiary cases eg attempted murder, manslaughter etc.
There is a massive imbalance in violent crimes, in that nearly half of all women murdered are murdered by a spouse, partner or boyfriend or other kind of male acquaintance.
This doesn’t skew the other direction, so that’s why women victims are getting special consideration and why there are special laws being made to make it easier to prosecute this kind of crime in a different or more efficient way. (Like we have “hate crime” laws that allow for special forms of prosecution.) This isn’t supposed to solve all the problems, but it may help by making the consequences of a man killing his wife or girlfriend far less likely to be reduced by pleas of temporary insanity or the like or be dropped by the court for minor reasons.
This isn’t a special law to make it easier to prosecute. It adds femicide to the list of elements that can elevate the sentencing.
Edit: I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, I am broadly skeptical that harsher sentences will do anything to reduce crime. This needs to be paired with strong cultural changes if it’s to do anything.
Did you even read the header? It was more than just murder.
It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn
It’s not just about murder. It’s about how men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women. As a woman, If I go out anywhere my #1 fear is a man. We are taught to never go outside alone at night, even in our own neighborhoods. We are taught not to trust strange men. We have to protect our drinks if we go out to socialize. Every position we find ourselves in we have to consider whether its safe or not. We can’t walk across a parking lot to our cars without worrying if a man will do something. Hell, we even have to consider if smiling at a man or not will trigger him. It sounds crazy and over the top but it’s the reality of being a woman. Constant awareness of everything and everyone around us. On average the weakest man is stronger than the average woman. It’s very easy to overpower us so we must be vigilant to never get into that position in the first place. It’s fucking exhausting having to think these things about every man we meet.
I’m sorry about what has happened to you, it’s wrong and you deserve justice. You shouldn’t be ignored just because you’re a man and it is perceived that you can’t be a victim in these cases. I don’t agree with that at all and I really feel for you. But you need to understand the things that happen to women every minute and that’s the point of what Italy is doing.
Ok so it looks like incels CAN’T read. Just as much as they can’t pick a username.
Its best if everyone knows that they’re dealing with a special guy. Its an advantage im not trying to hide.
It take a certain type of flaw in logic to assume that because a group is “getting” something, it means another group is losing something.
What if one group is getting something unproportionally more than the other.
That creates inequality, essentially meaning that the disadvantaged group is losing something. I.e. they get less that the other group.
So yeah, if you give one group much more than the other, they are losing something.
Recognizing group harassment is also benefitting individualism by recognizing that… inequity is real.
People here seem weirdly confused about the term “feminicide”: it means homicide motivated by misogyny. It’s a subset of hate crimes.
They exist in all western societies I’m aware of, if you’re confused it’s probably only because you’re unused to thinking of women as a protected class and hate for women as aggravating circumstances, the way hate for any race of religion is in most legal systems.
Yes they’re 50% of the population, but also yes they’re disproportionately the targets of violence because misogyny exists. Yet they are rarely treated as such in many legal systems.
Women may not not be a mathematical minority, but they absolutely are a cultural/societal minoritiy.
Cultural minorities have nothing to do with the absolute number of members the group has, but how much political and social power and influence the group holds.
That’s why black africans during apartheid Africa would still be considered minorities, even though they made up the mathematical majority of inhabitants.
Shouldn’t it be gynocide? Since it’s clearly pulling from Latin. Activists should be forced to work with linguists for their words, or face the penalty of be hit with a 2x4.
Goddamn I wish the biggest contention about this story was the etymology.
gyne is Greek, femina is Latin.
I think that penalty is a hate crime. But you’re correct.
Just let latin die already.
I see no reason to make a special specific word as every category needs this…
They should just add modifiers to the category: Assault for instance can get aggravated and hate crime as adjuvants. Murder has manslaughter and degrees and could have hate crime modifiers.
This is a more fair and clear generalized solution of core concepts than entirely new specific categories.
The word just existed since 1652
So not very long at all /s, not that it shouldn’t be a word, but rather, why complicate the legal system needlessly when such systems rely on relativity, clarity, and consistency. Outside of that context we can have 10000 words for it.
The “confusion” seems intentional…or rather a symptom of the very problem the new class is attempting to address.
Many people seem to believe that a femicide charge is automatically a more serious charge than murder. It isn’t.
Many people believe that the law explicitly targets men. It doesn’t (No more than a “standard murder charge or an assault charge “target” men, they just commit murder and assault more often).
Many people believe that the very existence of a femicide charge diminishes the importance of a murder charge. It doesn’t, they carry the same sentence.
If homicide and femicide carry the same sentence, what is the point of all this?
The point is culpability. It’s the same reason there’s separate charges for infanticide, assistance a suicide, manslaughter, etc. It a class of charges so culpability, and therefore justice, can be more accurately meted.
Your note about disproportionate targets is misleading and inaccurate. Femicide is specifically about murders as far as I know. In the vast majority of countries, men are victims of murder more often than women (in Italy, men are victims about twice as often). They have higher rates of being assaulted/maimed at pretty much every age category in most western countries.
What you’re likely trying to gloss, is the oft repeated “victim of domestic violence” stats, which is a niche area of violence that gets used by feminist movements to ignore the arguably greater violence that men face on the regular. This sub-division is even more biased, given that men generally don’t report spousal abuse / are less likely to get injured to the point that they get hospitalized by it. Even after the victims of ‘violence’ includes pretty well all categories, in many western countries the ‘results’ are roughly even between genders – Canada for example is at about 48% of all violent offences being committed against men, and 52% against women. But again, not all those crimes are really equal – men are over represented in fatal / serious violent assaults causing injury far more often than women. They both experience violence at the same ‘general’ frequency, but men are more likely to be left maimed/dead.
Murder’s murder, in the eyes of many. It’s strange to provide additional protections for just one demographic, especially when that demographic is far less frequently the victim of murder.
Ah, but how often are they victims of murder because of their gender? Femicide isn’t just murdering a woman, the motivation counts.
Dedicating time and effort to focus on a special category of murder and implementing harsher punishments for perpetrators based on the demographic membership of the victim, feels counter to the equitable application of justice for a country at large.
Intentionally murdering a woman because she’s a woman, is in my view little different from murdering a person for any of the other reasons that get lumped together under things like ‘first degree’ and ‘second degree’ murders. This legislation change isn’t about making murder illegal – it’s always been illegal. It’s about making the punishment more significant if the victim is a woman and the prosecution can prove the murderer had any anti-woman comments/viewpoints.
There are examples of women killing men because they’re men – there are a few famous, and more less-famous, cases where escorts, for example, kill their johns because they’re easy targets. There are examples of minority groups killing majority groups because of clearly racist/hateful motives, that get excused because of the demographics of the perp and the victim. The legislation change noted, basically says killing people is bad, but killing women is somehow worse – ie. that the genders aren’t equally treated, and women are worth more / require more protection. To apply harsher punishments unevenly based on demographics is not what I’d consider a fair and impartial system – it’s one that’s been engineered to preference the protected group’s interests over the interests of the broader whole.
Besides, men get killed 2-5x more frequently than women in many western countries – why are we trying to protect the gender that has far better overall results? This is sorta a gender equivalent to giving tax breaks to the rich – they already have it better than others, why give them even more privilege? Add more supports to the demographic that has terrible stats in this area.
I agree with you, I just think that it’s valid to increase the penalty for hate crimes over regular crimes. Of course this would apply to murdering a man because of his gender too.
The vast majority of the time Men are killed by other men. If there was an epidemic of women calling for violence, hatred and subjugation of men supported by podcasts and propaganda and it was resulting in a large increase in murder then we’d need to address that problem too.
Casually throwing feminism under the bus – a movement that focuses on women’s issues (to the overall societal benefit of everyone) – for focusing on women’s issues?
Huh. Is this socially acceptable now? I thought we were better than this.
Feminism has a place, but it is explicitly about promoting women’s interests – something which if allowed to continue unchecked, leads to significant disadvantages for men. It leads to the sorts of toxic masculinity backlashes that you see in the states, especially because moderates who question women’s privilege in advanced western economies start to support more extreme anti-woman positions, because there’s a perception that left wing feminist leaning ideologies work against their interests. And they’re right.
An egalitarian approach is better, once you’ve gotten to near parity. Most western countries have been at near parity for generations at this point.
Feminism has a place, but it is explicitly about promoting women’s interests – something which if allowed to continue unchecked, leads to significant disadvantages for men.
I think that’s a dangerous belief. I don’t see the difference between saying that and saying “Equality for black people has a place, but it is explicitly about promoting black interests – something which if left allowed to continue unchecked, leads to significant disadvantages to whites.”
Those two statements aren’t equivalent. Feminism is not just about equality (though that’s a huge part of it). If your second statement were something like “elevating black people has a place…”, they’d be equivalent. In that case, yeah, it could hypothetically go beyond equality into something unjust.
I don’t see anything wrong with that second note, translating the position into one about race instead of gender.
Equity-type programs often get started based off of aggregate differences in statistical data based on demographic slices, with good intentions. But I’ve yet to see any cases where they build in a process for removing equity support programs once a ‘goal’ is reached / more parity is visible in the data.
So as an example from Canada, equity employment programs were introduced in the mid/late 1980s to address the imbalance between men and women in the workforce. You can see how this played out in the public workforce data. In 1990, shortly after the leg came in, it was at about 54% men, 46% women. By 2000, it had flipped in favour of women, at 48% men, 52% women. By 2010, 45% men, 55% women – a greater imbalance than in the 1990s, the imbalance which had triggered supports to get put in place for women. That roughly 10% gap persisted through to 2020 at least. No legislation has been introduced to remove preferential hiring for women in the public sector, no legislation has come in to promote hiring men due to the shift in the gender imbalance.
On a racial basis, the same pattern can be seen in our post secondary education grants, bursaries and scholarships. Funding for these sorts of initiatives in Canada allows for them to screen for specific equity groups – what some term visible minorities. The roots of that being based on reasonable equity goals – ie. there’s a statistical gap in education levels for a minority group, so they allow people to target funding to minority groups. However, while these policies have been enforced, white men have become one of the least educated groups in Canada, with about 24% of white men attaining a degree, compared to 40% of asian guys (with the highest rate of attainment amongst chinese/korean guys, at ~60%). White men are still not considered an equity group, and so cannot have funding specifically targeted to them to try and address this equity issue. And we haven’t ‘removed’ the ‘disadvantaged’ minority groups from receiving systemic advantage, even though they are out performing the supposedly privileged majority group. The system quite literally has race-based controls working against white men, with a justification of correcting an imbalance that not only doesn’t exist in the data, but where the data shows white men as significantly worse off. The system is basically designed to kick them when they’re down.
I can highlight that education item a bit more using a personal example. A coworker of mine has a kid going to BCIT, one of our western province’s “leading” tech-type schools. They’re Canadian citizens, recent immigrants from eastern Europe, not wealthy by any stretch. They tried to get financial assistance for the kid through the school, but the advisor bluntly told him there were no grants/bursaries etc that he could apply for, since the kid was a white guy – all the available funding was targeted to different racial sub groups. He would have more charitable funding options available from the system we’ve setup here, had he been a third generation millionaire visible minority.
Murder’s murder, in the eyes of many
You’re right! That’s why we should prosecute all traffic deaths as first degree murder. Someone drunkenly stumbles into the road, into your path, causing you to run them over and kill them? Mandatory minimum life sentence for you. After all, death is death, killing is killing. We don’t give a shit about people’s motives.
I doubt they are saying to discard all motives; specifically they said “murder is murder” so using cases that aren’t intentional (ie manslaughter, not murder) undermines your point. It’s more that there’s an upper limit or certain criteria where we stop caring what the person’s motives are, so where do we draw that line? I don’t pretend to know the answer, but it’s a question worth exploring even if you think you know the answer already.
There’s never been an upper limit on criteria in the eyes of the law, what an odd thing to say.
All adding a charge for femicide does is refine their legal system to they have another charging mechanism that might more appropriate assess culpability. They don’t actually have to use the charge, and the addition of the charge doesn’t diminish charges for other types of murder in any way.
ie there’s no outcry when somebody is charged with infanticide or assisting in a suicide, etc…because motivation matters when you’re charging a crime so the system can appropriate mete justice…femicide is no different. The fact that there’s an “outcry” is a symptom of the problem it’s trying to address.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
These comments seem to be full of the same people who misunderstand that the word “racism” describes a massive cultural and societal issue that affects people in large, hidden ways throughout their life, rather than using bad words.
If they had a problem in Italy of men being murdered for not being obedient, it might be worth considering broadening the scope of this classification.
This does not even target the perpetrators as a class (even though we can probably guess a general demographic), just classifies the crime according to what has happened to the victim, and why. This is the same for all hate crimes that are prevalent enough to warrant it. Imo it is the culture and society that makes it a hate crime, not just the intent.
I find it amazing that half the threads on this post I can’t open because they’re being piled on by people I’ve already blocked on lemmy. 🙄
Men with sexual insecurity is a driving force of contention and violent politics in this entire world. If you read that special protections are being made for a class of people who are suffering dis-fucking-proportionally and you say “What about meeeeee?” to it, you need to get your shit together. You’re not healthy.
But the end result, the punishment… nothing is changing here. Is the general belief that labeling, and “bringing awareness” is going to stop anything? Is this similar to how labeling racism as racism in the USA has completely wiped out racism?
No
Ok… so… 🤷♂️
I hesitated whether to engage because your use of the word “completely” labels you a troll. You also put “bringing awareness” in quotes instead of using the word visibility, presumably to belittle the concept.
Visibility helps collect and track data, drive policy, reveal patterns, support victims and survivors, improve early intervention and prevention, and, hopefully, eventually, shift cultural attitudes.
But you could get that from Google if you gaf.
I didn’t go to google to read the article, it was on Lemmy… thus, I asked Lemmy. You could probably infer that if you gaf but it seems your aim is to be combative. The word “completely” threw you off? It wasn’t the sarcasm implying that “racism is cured now because of awarenes?” Best of luck…
Not at all, if your weren’t trolling, I hope your found those points helpful in describing the benefits of visibility.
One of the things I missed out was government accountability, where police departments have historically labelled these as isolated incidents, because the big picture is pretty sickening.
op has a strange and bot-like post history
