this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
830 points (98.4% liked)

Political Memes

5436 readers
3650 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 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 114 points 1 week ago (1 children)

'modesty' is code for victim-blaming rapists

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

"Think about the children" is code for "look over there at some other group while we molest children"

[–] SparrowHawk@feddit.it 56 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Margaret Atwood saw it coming

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Considering 70s styles, they look like a wild cross of modern for the 70s, and modern for today. Like if you saw them walking down the street in America today looking like this, you wouldn't think they're going to a 70s party.......but there's definately 70s influence there.

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And today, they'd be murdered in the streets for wearing that.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I want to upvote you for being factually correct, but I want to downvote you because I disagree with the message.

Not even sure what I should do with that.

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, I hate that message, too. My mom is 73 and married to a woman, and I'm terrified of what will happen to them.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Like what will happen do you think? Serious question.

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They'll be rounded up into camps like the homosexuals in Nazi germany.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That would definitely be a bad outcome.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As somebody who was in middle school when 9/11 happened and was terrified then, and is terrified now, let me tell you why it's different this time.

W was a warmonger and a figurehead for Cheney from a family of career politicians, but he was a politician and was limited in what he could do by things like the Supreme Court. Trump is none of those and has no checks or balances. He's a failed businessman who has bankrupted every company he's ever owned (except for the real estate empire he inherited from his father) who has no idea what the laws are, nor does he care. He doesn't know what it takes to run a country, and he sure as hell won't put anybody who does into a position of power. Those are reserved for his sycophants.

He's a self-styled Mussolini who "wants generals like Hitler had," keeps Hitler's speeches next to his bed to read before falling asleep (according to one of his ex wives in the book she wrote in the 90s), and has both made loyalty to him the number one priority for the people in his party as well as said party having stacked all positions of power with his supporters. The Supreme Court has said that he cannot be held accountable for any crimes committed as President, and he has talked about imprisoning his political opponents.

W was a continuation of Reagan politicians. Trump is a fascist who talks the same way that Jim Jones did while praising people like Putin and Kim Jong Un and has already attempted a violent coup without any real repercussions. The Republicans of Bush's era have been labeled as cowards, traitors, and communists by Trump's party.

The only things today's Republican care about are gaining and keeping power and hurting anybody their bigoted egos demand.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Ok.....but the problem with this is that yes, they take five steps their direction, and ghen we take steps back our direction....only issue, is they take 5 steps, we take 2 steps. The pendulium may swing back the other way, but not as hard. Overtime, the things that 40 years ago would have been seen as a slightly right wing policy is now a left wing policy. Simply by moving the goal posts.

I remember bush being what I assumed at the time would be the worst president we'd have in my lifetime........and now, trump makes bush look like a light hearted rump through the open grass fields, rather than the war monger we know he was.

And thats the problem. Obama wasn't some corse setting correction for this country. He was a mostly nothing president. Take away his health care, and I can't name a single long lasting policy he set that is in effect today.

But I can go on and on all day about reagans policies. I can talk about how george W bush was just continueing what his father started.

I can talk more about Clintons sex life than his policies.

Biden will be forgotten to history. Biden himself may not even know who's president right now.

So it's not an even back and forth. It's continuously pushing more and more to the right.

My fear is in another 20 years we may get someone else who makes trump look like a cakewalk. It doesn't seem possible right now, but it also didn't seem possible 20 years ago.

And that's my point.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

That's not going to happen in the US XD, don't worry.

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I feel like hairstyles are a huge part of the times. Those hairstyles with the bottoms upturned just scream 70's to me. The clothing is something I could totally see today.

Styles tend to be a bit cyclical. There's plenty of 70s stuff that's popular at the moment.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

The flip hairstyle.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Imagine a world without Regan

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Imagine there's no Reagan, It's easy if you try...

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 19 points 1 week ago

I mean Christianity also have all these stupid misogynistic law that use god as an excuse to punish woman if you dig hard enough. They both came from the same lootbox.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Oh god, apologism for the fascist shah, take it back to Reddit.

The the government Iran had in the 70's was the result of a CIA coup to oust the progressive leader Mohammad Mossadegh who became prime minister with overwhelming popular support and reclaimed control of Iran's oil from the British colonizers who had made an extremely exploitative deal with a different authoritarian dynasty before the country had any form of democracy - a deal, which despite being extremely favorable to them, they still consistently broke, lying about how much oil they were taking. This coup crushed Iran's fledgling democratic movement and reforms, and the shah proceeded to use secret police to hunt down and exterminate his political opponents, primarily leftists. In order to give the country the appearance of modernization, he banned women from wearing traditional religious garb. In other words, even then the government was still controlling how women dressed. This shit is falling for decades old propaganda from an awful government.

Because the shah was so successful in suppressing and killing leftists, when he fell out of favor as a Western puppet and lost foreign support, guess which faction remained that had the power to take advantage of the situation? The Islamic fundamentalists. The modern Iranian state didn't just spring up from nowhere, it came about as a result of the actions of the CIA and the shah.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Because the shah was so successful in suppressing and killing leftists, when he fell out of favor as a Western puppet and lost foreign support, guess which faction remained that had the power to take advantage of the situation? The Islamic fundamentalists. The modern Iranian state didn’t just spring up from nowhere, it came about as a result of the actions of the CIA and the shah.

Oh yes, remember how the Left was totally dead by the time of the Iranian Revolution, and definitely not a key part of the coalition until the Islamists turned on them and gleefully murdered them? Good times!

Amazing how MLs will simp for literal anti-communist theocrats and the stripping of women's rights because "All enemies of the US deserve (un)critical support!"

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think their comment was pro-Iranian-post-revolutionary-government. The Shah was awful, was installed by the CIA, and did kill political opponents. US-backed governments don't typically fall to revolutions, so a lot of people must have been upset to have enough of them to manage that. It's generally accepted that what came after the revolution was worse, but it's not just nutters, Stalinists and tankies that recognise it was also bad before, and got that way because the British wanted oil.

As far as I'm aware (which is a bit more than average as I'm British with an Iranian grandparent), both of you posted correct things. If the Shah hadn't started killing anyone who disagreed with him, it would have been harder for the religious extremists to kill the rest. It's not like you can ever assassinate all your political opponents as everyone knows other people, and those people don't like their friends and family being murdered.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I don’t think their comment was pro-Iranian-post-revolutionary-government.

I don't have the confidence you do. I don't remember if this specific tankie has expressed this view before, but I have seen and argued with many tankies who are outright supportive of the Islamic Republic.

US-backed governments don’t typically fall to revolutions,

You sure about that? I can name quite a few.

It’s generally accepted that what came after the revolution was worse, but it’s not just nutters, Stalinists and tankies that recognise it was also bad before, and got that way because the British wanted oil.

The Shah was, of course, awful. He was a murderer, an authoritarian who squandered his nation's wealth, and had no one to blame for his fall but himself and his own tyrannical, torturing regime.

But coming in on a post which is about "Theocracy can reverse women's rights quickly" and putting it down to propaganda of the Shah is, itself, nuts. It's beyond a whataboutism, it's downright deflection and borderline denialism.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

TIL Iran's modern history is even more fucked than I thought.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

Oh, Iranian history is a special interest of mine, if you express the slightest interest in it...

The roots of it go back to the 1800's, when the Qajar dynasty were trying to maintain exorbitant lifestyles on the backs of an extremely poor and undeveloped country, so their solution, rather than developing the economy to increase long-term tax revenue, was instead to basically hold clearance sales of the entire country. The Reuter concession is an almost unbelievable example of it. They tried to sell essentially the entire country's economy to the guy who founded Reuters news: trains, trams, roads, forests, mines, canals, irrigation systems, telegraph systems, mills, factories, workshops, and even the national bank - in exchange for cash in the shah's private bank account. It was so bad that even the colonial powers of Britain and Russia said it was too much and wouldn't allow it.

The people were so pissed off about this sort of behavior that after they sold off tobacco rights to the British in 1890, there was a widespread boycott of tobacco, possibly the most successful boycott in history encompassing people across all of society, with a major religious leader even issuing a fatwa against violating the boycott, and going all the way up to women in the shah's own harem participating in it, forcing the shah to break the deal. The success of this mass action, combined with dissatisfaction with the shah selling out the country, led people to rise up in protest and start demanding things like a constitution and parliament. They even got the shah to sign off on it, and they brought in an American named Morgan Shuster to reform the tax code and root out loopholes and corruption. But when the shah died, his successor had other ideas, and he called in Britain and Russia, who were making quite a bit of money off loopholes and corruption, to come in and shell parliament.

Fast forward to WWI. Once again backed by Britain and Russia, the Ottomans invade Iran, and conduct the Armenian genocide. At the same time, there's a major famine, and the Spanish Flu is running rampant. When the dust settles, the old dynasty is gone, and a new shah comes to power, backed by Britain: Reza Shah Pahlavi. He attempted to push back against the oil deal but the British stonewalled him, and he lasted until WWII, when the Allies invaded to establish a strategic supply line between Britain and the USSR and to ensure Iranian oil didn't end up in the Nazi's hands instead of theirs. Afterwards, Britain forced him to abdicate and put his son in power, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

The new shah also attempted to renegotiate the oil deal, and again was stonewalled. British advisors hand-picked prime ministers for the shah to appoint, in the mostly powerless parliament, but even then they stonewalled their own prime ministers when they attempted to negotiate. Public sentiment grew increasingly heated, and the advisors sent word back that the situation was reaching a boiling point, but still the British wouldn't move an inch. Finally, the shah became more afraid of a revolution than he was of the British, and he appointed Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister, with a huge wave of popular support calling for nationalization of the industry.

Still, Mossadegh attempted to negotiate, and the US under Truman attempted to intervene as a mediator to prevent a crisis. But the Iranians had been struggling against British colonialism for a very long time, and the British still wouldn't budge. The oil industry was nationalized, and the British responded with a naval blockade that shut down Iran's economy and caused rampant poverty. Churchill approached Truman asking him to use the newly formed CIA to oust Mossadegh, and Truman told him to go to hell, that Mossadegh was a legitimate democratic leader and that the CIA was supposed to be about stopping communism not enforcing colonialism, and that the British brought this on themselves. There was no real animosity between Iran and America on either side at this point, the Iranians saw America as well-intentioned but naive, while Americans saw Iran as sympathetic but stubborn.

But Truman was replaced by Eisenhower, and Eisenhower was not acquainted with the background of the conflict, and Churchill and Alan Dulles were both pushing him to do it. Churchill changed tacts from talking about protecting Britain's property to warning that Mossadegh might end up aligning with the USSR, and also saying that he wouldn't support the formation of NATO or the Korean War unless Eisenhower gave him Iran. So he signed off on it.

They took over nearly every media outlet in the country, they bribed anyone who would take it, from politicians to vote counters to religious leaders, the hired protesters to march against the government and false flag "pro-government" protesters to go around wrecking things. Just before the coup, the American ambassador called up Mossadegh and told him a false story, that he was worried he would have to shut down the embassy because Mossadegh's supporters kept calling to give death threats, even to children at the embassy. Moved by the story, and eager to improve relations with the US, Mossadegh sent out a radio announcement telling all of his supporters to stay home and stop causing trouble. That's when the CIA made its move and deposed him, and no one was there to come to his aid.

They covered up their involvement for decades, until it was far enough back in history that people wouldn't care that they could finally admit it. That was the first democratic government they overthrew, and once the precedent had been set, they repeated around the world, Iran on behalf of BP, Guatemala on behalf of Chiquita, all across South America in Operation Condor, and so many more.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago

... and the islamists

[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

More like US flavor of Nirenberg laws.... ( Which were inspired by Jim Crow laws, so it's a fool circle)

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Nuremberg laws*

Full circle*

Not trying to be a dick just trying to help.

[–] cnirrad@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Fool circle seems pretty apt.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 9 points 1 week ago

Under that eye, gurl! Next on Oprah.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Did you mean "before their politicians wanted to get fair prices on oil"?

[–] belastend@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're conflating the 53 coup of Mossadegh with 79 revolution and eventual takeover of said revolution by theocratic fuckheads.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You are 100% right that was the 50s not the 70s my bad

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

OP's picture is after the foreign meddling. Iran was trying to paint itself as a westernized country, and so western styles were part of the way the Shah's regime encouraged that.

The coup which ousted Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah occurred a full 20 years before this picture was supposedly taken.