this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
659 points (94.3% liked)

Political Memes

5436 readers
3869 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 80 points 1 month ago (3 children)

“Choose peace rather than confrontation. Except in cases where we cannot get, where we cannot proceed, or we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence.”

—Nelson Mandela, Gaza (1999)

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

—John F. Kennedy, Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress (1962)

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago

I also like:

"Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force."

— Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

To add:

“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” -Assata Shakur

Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and was “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and, thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy. -Peter Gelderloos

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." -MLK

I just don't believe that when people are being unjustly oppressed that they should let someone else set rules for them by which they can come out from under that oppression. -Malcolm X

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago (9 children)

"So we're going to take up violent action then, right?"

"Oh, God, no, we're just going to sit here and sneer at those who are trying to change the system without violence, or without enough violence."

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 month ago (11 children)

The problem with violent action is that, to have a chance to succeed, you need a critical mass of support. Not like 50% or anything, but enough that you can’t be easily quelled. The only way you build that support is by suggesting violent resistance to people who scoff at you and accuse you of being unserious until the last straw finally breaks their back and you don’t sound so ridiculous anymore.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 36 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I haven't seen a Flight of the Conchords reference in 13 years.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

I know! This meme format has serious potential

[–] machinaeZER0@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Get your hand off my tail, you'll make it dirty

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Any time violence is used, one fantasizes they are on the winning side

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

When violence is witnessed, one fantasizes that it is always unjustified.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Not me. I'm fully willing to lose as long as I make some impact.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Launch my dead body through a billionaire's front window. Thanks.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] ChillPenguin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I think you know which of those two is superior.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

The point isn't about you and your body, it's the belief that violence will bring about YOUR ideal change

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Liberals: The Christo-fascists are violently taking over!

Also liberals: Give up your guns!

This liberal: Uh, no? I'll keep my arms thank you very much.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

"Liberals" aren't saying "give up your guns." The democratic presidential nominee and vice president are literally both gun owners, and the presidential nominee said she'd shoot a home intruder to death less than a week ago. They're saying something more like "restrict future purchases of particularly dangerous guns and get reasonable rules, regulations, and licensing in place for them like we do for cars."

But I understand that doesn't make for a good dramatic post.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Exactly right. Honestly at this point I think the Dems should just drop gun control entirely as an issue.

Let me preface this next section with the fact that I’ve been largely supportive of common sense gun control laws and think they would be a net positive. But give me a minute because this is a slightly more nuance point (the danger of bringing nuance to gun issues in America is apparent to me)

Why? Let’s say they were successful and made it harder to purchase guns that we categorize as especially dangerous.

  1. This country is already awash in guns. Unlike other nations that have disarmed, there is no appetite for any kind of gun but back or gun seizure program, those dangerous guns will get into the hands of people that want to do dangerous things with them.
  2. The less dangerous guns are still quite dangerous. Humans are creative, bump stocks, self modification of less dangerous guns, having a couple loaded guns, all ways to make less dangerous guns equally dangerous.
  3. There are enough pro gun Americans and money in the gun industry that every change will have loopholes you could drive a semi truck through

So the cost benefit just makes no sense. As a political issue the cost is enormous and the realistic potential benefit is basically nothing. I wish we had a population that cared more about this, but from a pragmatic point of view we simply don’t.

I think it was sandy hook that really cemented this for me. If a grade school full of children gets shot up and the reaction from a significant portion of the population is apathy or to double down on gun rights, that’s not an issue you are winning.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Look, if school children need to die so I can larp in my Meal-Team 6 outfit with my Gravy Seals friends, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to force them to make!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I am less worried that a liberal is armed than I am at which direction the weapon is pointed.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

And, you know, most of my body, if at all possible please!

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don’t know any liberals asking for anyone to give up their guns, but saying so sure makes you appear heroic!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month ago (6 children)

No... by wisdom and strategy.

[–] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago (10 children)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

by wisdom

The wise man once said, "Ow! My nose! Owie ow ow ow! He hit me right in the face!"

and strategy

Ever try to win a chess game without taking a single piece off the board?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah, magic.

[–] match@pawb.social 5 points 1 month ago

ig put me on your terrorist recruitment signup or whatever

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Lot of delusional people out there on both sides who think that an armed uprising is actually viable and would lead to better outcomes.

As if we wouldn't have to share the country with the other half of people who don't want you to uprise shit and will hate you even more if you try.

No, you don't want an uprising. You don't even want to get off the couch, so lets stop lying to ourselves. You want better management of the system so you don't feel so hopeless and tired that you rather just melt into the couch every day.

We got here because they made you unwilling to get involved in your community and your local politics. If everyone cared more for changing their local communities, then we would have a much better federal system with our rights being upheld. You don't kick money out of politics on a federal level, you do it town by town, county by county, state by state. But most people are so lazy that they think they can sit inside as everyone does an armed revolt outside and then the world will be better.

Nah dog, you gotta get out and make changes with the tools we have. Stop believing in magic.

[–] dubious@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

i agree that wisdom and strategy have their place in violent movements. any violent movement without those two key ingredients is doomed to fail.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 10 points 1 month ago

Its true violence is going to happen which is why non violence requires being ready for it to fall on you. If the majority of folks do not follow the system it will fall apart but in falling apart many of those who do not follow it will suffer and die but also those that do.

[–] match@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago

also that guy: "burning down an empty police station is violence btw"

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Sometimes you get what comes around.

Sometimes you are what comes around.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Good looking girls on the street!!!

Depending on the street.

[–] frostmore@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

seeing how anti guns some people are,i wonder how that's gonna happen.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

It's kinda sad that we'd die side by side on the battle feild but voting side by side in the voting booth is a bridge too far.

[–] dubious@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

both are effective. it doesn't have to be an either/or discussion.

for example, you can neutralize your opponent in the polls when there are less of their supporters to show to up to vote.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Bret, you got it going on.

load more comments
view more: next ›