I’m probably going to get downvoted into oblivion for this, but I don’t care. The “left” fawning over Luigi is the same energy as the “right” fawning over Kyle Rittenhouse.
More importantly, you’re missing the underlying point of this meme. It’s displayed in the other pieces of text. We wanted Bernie and would’ve been happy to make that much progress nonviolently, but the DNC did not allow that. And “oppression makes revolution inevitable” because there’s no such thing as negotiating with your oppressor. Think of a hostage situation. The people who successfully negotiate away that situation are the police because they are backed with the threat of violence. Those who crave power will never give it up voluntarily.
We wanted Bernie . . . but the DNC did not allow that.
No. Bernie didn’t win. The DNC was a part of that, but he also didn’t get the votes to suggest he could win, other voters didn’t support him - which is how primaries work. I wish he would have won!
And to add to that, Bernie’s an Independent, not a Democrat. If I ran in a republiQan primary and they did some bullshit to make it harder for me - plus the real issue that enough republiQans didn’t vote for me - that’s not the RNC’s fault. That’s hardly “I didn’t win becaus the RNC didn’t let me”.
I just don’t want “Bernie didn’t win because the DNC prevented it” to become some sort of arguable fact - it is part of a larger picture, but a pretty small part.
You can say that he wouldn’t have won the presidential election if you want but he was absolutely pushed out of the nomination in favor of a more-corporate candidate.
Getting over half the country to vote for someone as out of touch and unlikeable as Hilary Clinton is proof that the most Democrats would have voted for anything to avoid Trump. And this November was further proof that moving to the center does not win elections.
Bernie had momentum and was VERY popular with the youth. Clinton’s ignorance of the working class was the subject of memes…
Yeah, that’s the easy narrative for people to hate Democrats with but I don’t think it’s true. Furthermore, it seems like most of the people who promote that idea either weren’t of voting age at the time or aren’t US voters.
I’d be interested to see it as a post where we can slug it out. Start with the news reports and then make your case as to why you think that. We’ll see if there’s anything to learn.
he was absolutely pushed out of the nomination in favor of a more-corporate candidate.
By who? When? What did he say about it?
You don’t have the actual answers to that. But if you think you do - make a post, let’s see it.
Sure and I think the system should change for sure. But in both cases they are persons that murdered people their backers thought should be murdered. The right wants to oppress, so killing in the name of oppression is right for them. The left wants to break the oppression, so killing in the name of breaking oppression is right for them.
But the truth is, both were wrong, killing someone is never the answer. Preparing to go kill someone, planning to kill someone is a sign of mental health issues.
Nothing is going to be fixed by this. It only further polarizes the world. It only escalates the conflict. We need actual solutions and people in charge that know what they are doing and can bring about systematic change. Maybe using the guillotine in the late 1700s was the right solution back then, but I hope we as a society have evolved way beyond that point. Plus when it comes down to a fight, the people in charge of, you know, literal armies would probably win.
Elevating a literal murderer to the point people see them as a viable political candidate like in this meme is simply insane. We need more tree huggers like Bernie, not insane gun wielding thugs that think violence can solve anything.
That’s just not how the world works, or has ever worked. It’s just a disarming thought thinking nonviolence will save the planet when clearly the powers that be have never had any intention to listen to nonviolent efforts.
Killing people may not be necessary, but the threat of violence undoubtedly is. If you cannot show you are able to defend yourself, there will always be a power ready to exploit that lack of defense.
Nonviolence only works when your opponent has humanity. Capital and the state do not, and never had any humanity in their ideological framework. This cannot be solved if you avoid shows of force, a war cannot be won with nice thoughts and prayers. A war is fought, and we haven’t been fighting in a long time.
It’s a depressing thought, and it shouldn’t be like this. But so it is, and the only way we save this world might be if we taint our own hands, this revulsion from violence will be our death otherwise
Respectfully disagree. Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone. Sure there has been conflict and there still is, but nothing like what it was before.
There are less wars, less murders, less crime than ever before. Prosperity is up across the board. Sure it’s not perfect and we have a long way to go, but there is so much we have done.
The current disparity between the ultra rich and the general population is a huge issue that should be addressed asap. But it should be done using the right means.
I refuse to believe the only way to stop being oppressed is to become the oppressor. It might be the US is lost in this regard, but I hold out hope. But I’m sure in Europe we can deal with it the right way, without getting violent.
Nonviolence only works when your opponent has humanity.
The point of this is that both sides need to be engaged in making a nonviolent solution happen. If only one side is on board with the process, then the result is either a lack of change or one sided violence.
Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone.
In Europe, both sides are engaged in nonviolence. Both sides are interested in diplomacy over violence, so progress can be made.
The situation between American’s and corporations (and increasingly corporate controlled government) is one where nonviolence has been met with inaction. That is a single sided engagement. The lack of both parties being engaged means the approach isn’t working anymore.
I’m probably going to get downvoted into oblivion for this, but I don’t care. The “left” fawning over Luigi is the same energy as the “right” fawning over Kyle Rittenhouse.
First, the right is also fawning over Luigi.
More importantly, you’re missing the underlying point of this meme. It’s displayed in the other pieces of text. We wanted Bernie and would’ve been happy to make that much progress nonviolently, but the DNC did not allow that. And “oppression makes revolution inevitable” because there’s no such thing as negotiating with your oppressor. Think of a hostage situation. The people who successfully negotiate away that situation are the police because they are backed with the threat of violence. Those who crave power will never give it up voluntarily.
No. Bernie didn’t win. The DNC was a part of that, but he also didn’t get the votes to suggest he could win, other voters didn’t support him - which is how primaries work. I wish he would have won!
And to add to that, Bernie’s an Independent, not a Democrat. If I ran in a republiQan primary and they did some bullshit to make it harder for me - plus the real issue that enough republiQans didn’t vote for me - that’s not the RNC’s fault. That’s hardly “I didn’t win becaus the RNC didn’t let me”.
I just don’t want “Bernie didn’t win because the DNC prevented it” to become some sort of arguable fact - it is part of a larger picture, but a pretty small part.
The DNC’s role was not small lol
You can say that he wouldn’t have won the presidential election if you want but he was absolutely pushed out of the nomination in favor of a more-corporate candidate.
Getting over half the country to vote for someone as out of touch and unlikeable as Hilary Clinton is proof that the most Democrats would have voted for anything to avoid Trump. And this November was further proof that moving to the center does not win elections.
Bernie had momentum and was VERY popular with the youth. Clinton’s ignorance of the working class was the subject of memes…
Yeah, that’s the easy narrative for people to hate Democrats with but I don’t think it’s true. Furthermore, it seems like most of the people who promote that idea either weren’t of voting age at the time or aren’t US voters.
I’d be interested to see it as a post where we can slug it out. Start with the news reports and then make your case as to why you think that. We’ll see if there’s anything to learn.
By who? When? What did he say about it?
You don’t have the actual answers to that. But if you think you do - make a post, let’s see it.
Except one fought an oppressor, the other took a trip to do some oppressing themselves.
Sure and I think the system should change for sure. But in both cases they are persons that murdered people their backers thought should be murdered. The right wants to oppress, so killing in the name of oppression is right for them. The left wants to break the oppression, so killing in the name of breaking oppression is right for them.
But the truth is, both were wrong, killing someone is never the answer. Preparing to go kill someone, planning to kill someone is a sign of mental health issues.
Nothing is going to be fixed by this. It only further polarizes the world. It only escalates the conflict. We need actual solutions and people in charge that know what they are doing and can bring about systematic change. Maybe using the guillotine in the late 1700s was the right solution back then, but I hope we as a society have evolved way beyond that point. Plus when it comes down to a fight, the people in charge of, you know, literal armies would probably win.
Elevating a literal murderer to the point people see them as a viable political candidate like in this meme is simply insane. We need more tree huggers like Bernie, not insane gun wielding thugs that think violence can solve anything.
That’s just not how the world works, or has ever worked. It’s just a disarming thought thinking nonviolence will save the planet when clearly the powers that be have never had any intention to listen to nonviolent efforts. Killing people may not be necessary, but the threat of violence undoubtedly is. If you cannot show you are able to defend yourself, there will always be a power ready to exploit that lack of defense.
Nonviolence only works when your opponent has humanity. Capital and the state do not, and never had any humanity in their ideological framework. This cannot be solved if you avoid shows of force, a war cannot be won with nice thoughts and prayers. A war is fought, and we haven’t been fighting in a long time.
It’s a depressing thought, and it shouldn’t be like this. But so it is, and the only way we save this world might be if we taint our own hands, this revulsion from violence will be our death otherwise
Respectfully disagree. Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone. Sure there has been conflict and there still is, but nothing like what it was before.
There are less wars, less murders, less crime than ever before. Prosperity is up across the board. Sure it’s not perfect and we have a long way to go, but there is so much we have done.
The current disparity between the ultra rich and the general population is a huge issue that should be addressed asap. But it should be done using the right means.
I refuse to believe the only way to stop being oppressed is to become the oppressor. It might be the US is lost in this regard, but I hold out hope. But I’m sure in Europe we can deal with it the right way, without getting violent.
It’s not an oppress or be oppressed issue.
The point of this is that both sides need to be engaged in making a nonviolent solution happen. If only one side is on board with the process, then the result is either a lack of change or one sided violence.
In Europe, both sides are engaged in nonviolence. Both sides are interested in diplomacy over violence, so progress can be made.
The situation between American’s and corporations (and increasingly corporate controlled government) is one where nonviolence has been met with inaction. That is a single sided engagement. The lack of both parties being engaged means the approach isn’t working anymore.