The most mundane way to have sex to break federal law.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
409 points (99.8% liked)
World News
56554 readers
1857 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm please to hear of the results. I didn't think the "No" side would have won by more points because the pre-referendum polls showed neck and neck.
Anyway, it's a silly initiative to begin with. I was thinking even if the "Yes" side won, in my mind I'm thinking "let the leopards eat their faces". Never mind the arguments on culture and so on, the economic damage to capping the population is insurmountable because it means fewer workers to migrate. And also, how is capping 10 million even logistically possible? Are they going to deport people? Who decides who to deport if a person is either long term resident or born and raised there? Are they going to do sterilisation if by some miracle there is a baby boom (which by the way, Switzerland like the rest of the world right now is having fewer fertility rate) and the population is reaching 10 million? Far right policies are moronic because they are purely based on emotions. Leopards eventually do eat their faces.
Aww yep, good to hear only 45% support 'capping' the people they don't like, phew.
Well, you have to see it in a bit of a context. Many votes in Switzerland are concluded on a much tighter scale. Sometimes stuff gets accepted or declined by 50.5% or even less. 55% against the initiative is pretty decent, especially when it looked like it would pass for a long time. Me personally I would have liked to see 95% against this crap, but this has never happened on any matter that was voted on, so...
Also, the cities and suburbs, with the supposed "problems of immigration" right in front of their doorstep, all declined the initiative. It was the country side and small communities that aren't even affected by immigration, that voted for it. This shows once again, that fear is a powerful tool to mobilize masses. Thankfully it didn't work this time but we gotta stay alert and fight the narrative of fearmongering every single day.
Source: Me, I'm Swiss.
It's so fucking embarrassing to be a human being and watch dumb shit like this and authoritarianism growing around the world.
So many countries started because of this kind of shit I've human history, but we're all outta globe to pack our shit and start a proper country with blackjack and hookers...🫤
somehow you left this comment five times
Holy shit...appreciate the heads up! Its funny too, the top one is the only one with the spelling correction edit. No idea what happened but thanks for pointing it out!
My thoughts exactly. Everyone is like "the Swiss have spoken and are clearly not supporting capping the population". And I feel like that is not really showing the reality...
I know this isn't how it would work but im just picturing some one woman giving birth, the doctor hands her the newborn and she holds it for the first time... Some man walks in wearing a black suit and pulls out a gun. He shoots the baby through the head. "sorry that was the 10 million and 1 Swiss child, we have a limit!"
You might find Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s story "2BR02B" ("to be or not to be") an interesting read. It's not exactly like your theory, but it's not too far off.
Hmm, I've liked some of his writing so I'll add this to my list.
Clearly it would be more humane to take out the oldest Swiss person instead of the youngest
Much better idea: kill the richest person and distribute their wealth evenly amongst the rest of the population, public infrastructure, and social programs
Repeat until there's no billionaires, no poverty, and nobody has to go without anything essential for living in a modern society.
this is switzerland, silly. they're more likely to kill the poorest first.
Nah the nation-wide vote is the most moral approach. The list of candidates is selected from trending posts on social media, then the whole nation decides whom to kill in a democratic way.
I don't know... I'm also considering completely random.
The dice show.... 543, John go kill your mother,sorry for your loss.
That could be worse...watching tv on the couch with your spouse, you both laugh at the joke suddenly the door opens and your partners head splatters everywhere. The man in a black suit says "sorry, the tompsons just had a baby"...
Statistically it's more common for the oldest person to be a widow(er)
But if the Swiss population started to get out of control maybe
Probably true but not as funny to picture...
This initiative was a conservative movement.
It would have been used as a cudgel to oppress immigrants or to target the out group.
And when they run out of immigrants: Rules is rules
Xenophobia and anti-immigrant policies are now present in almost every developed country.
Fucking xenophobes in Japan are not helping in that they're bent on keeping racial purity and "peace and order", anxious to kick out the Kurds, but at the cost of their falling population, growing numbers of shut-ins, and insane costs of living.
Are there Kurds in Japan? That's news to me.
Unfortunately, xenophobia is rising in many parts of the world, even in countries with negligible number of immigrants like Japan. I'm even surprised that in Chile, anti-migrant is a sticking point on their recent elections, even though they barely have any immigrants and many Chileans are even leaving.
I am blaming social media for amplifying polarisation. The elites are doing what they can to divide the population while they steal from our pockets because we're too distracted.
Yeah, I understood that. But a hard limit on population is crazy. You would need to have some way of killing people for each person born. That's disregarding the fact that people have a beneficial use. They can help in food, service, manufacturing, business to business stuff.
But taken to the extreme if some person in a suit just going around the country killing people for each person born...
I don't know how many hospitals are in Switzerland or how big they are but it's definitely more than 10 a day so imagine someone just driving around all day yelling at traffic and any delay because they need to report how many people they killed that week and praying it's not a busy week in the maternity ward...
I have no particular skin in this game, but reading the article:
- Results are still pending
- Turnout of 59% > 55% of 59% is actually 32%
Come on folks 👀
Depends entirely on how the voting results are coming in. It's entirely reasonable to call a result if the sample of votes counted already is a representative sample of the whole.
A counter example would be the recent elections in California. The early results came in from rural red areas for the governors race. So the early results were heavily weighed to the voting trends of those counties rather than the much different high density urban counties.
Also. Article mentions 55% of voters. It never said 55% of the total population. It just also stated independently a 59% total turnout. They wrote it perfectly fine.
Actual results map for anyone interested.
https://abstimmungen.admin.ch/en/details?proposalId=6860
TLDR: There is nothing wrong with the way the article shared percentages or inferring results from a partial count.
What does the article mean when it says switzerland is "all but surrounded by four of them"?
It means Switzerland is all but surrounded by four EU member states. Germany, Italy, France, and Austria.
The point being every country around them is in the EU and Switzerland is a notable enclave when you look at a map.
Liechtenstein: "Am I a joke to you?"
No, just the allbutt :-)
If you've been to Lichtenstein, you know the answer is yes. We have villages that are bigger. And the architecture there is eclectic.
"All but" has always confused me as a phrase even as a native English speaker. You would think it means it isn't surrounded at all, i.e. "all but:" = "the last thing it would be is:", but apparently not.
It's the worst phrase and we need to stop using it! Most of the time the actual intended meaning can be found by just removing "all but". Switzerland is all but surrounded == Switzerland is surrounded
No, it means it's almost surrounded. Lichtenstein is not part of the EU.
Which is the point of the phrase of course. It’s meant to simultaneously acknowledge and dismiss the “well ackshully” crowd. No, Switzerland is not fully surrounded, but also it doesn’t matter in any politically meaningful way.
It's the worst phrase
It's not even in the top 1000 worst phrases
It's made worse by the fact that my native language has exactly the same phrase in terms of literal meanings of words... So naturally the meaning is the exact opposite of what it is in English.
It's all but the worst phrase and we need to all but stop using it! All but most of the time the actual all but intended meaning can all but be found by just all but removing "all but". Switzerland is all but all all but but surrounded == Switzerland is all but surrounded
gosh, it’s almost as if Switzerland is part of Europe!
44% to little
Switzerland should simply allow migrants with needed skills. This would automatically control migration and the population since it's difficult to believe that Swiss have no skills.
I might be wrong here but AFAIK they have a deal with EU that makes them join the four freedoms, which makes them not able to control who gets in and who not as long as the immigrants are from EU.
You might be correct, but the EU is restricting immigration because some of its members such as Germany are facing pressure from far-right groups to control immigration.
EU is not restricting immigration. That’s literally not possible. Each member states are free to have their own immigration policies.