2个月前

Bernie was our compromise

If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.

Edit: Better image, thanks to @PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee

您正在查看单个对话串。

177 评论

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.
- Except one fought an oppressor, the other took a trip to do some oppressing themselves.
  
  i think that's implied.
  
  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.
  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.
  
  The problem is that in america, the oppressors they are trying to overthrow own literally all of the means. A select few people and corporations own virtually all of the media, virtually all agriculture (and seed producers have all farmers in a stranglehold of corruption, that is a huge rabbit hole), a very large surveillance system, virtually all popular means of organizing and communication, a majority of politicians (I consider giving public bribes to politicians directly correlating with votes on policies bought politicians), and the entire police force (see: luigi resources used vs every single other shooting every day, a special emergency line for the rich, protection of corporations like amazon in strike breaking, and the long history of the police killing union members and strikers for literally >150 years). Not to mention that now, technology has reached the point where it is engineered to be so addictive as to be detrimental to in-person communities that throughout history have done the vast majority of reform and revolution organization. Now they literally don't even have to provide for the basic needs of people because a very small group of people control and have very deep insights into every single part of peoples' lives.
  If you look at extremely influential and corrupt entities in the EU such as deutchebank, ING, nestle, and other special interest groups in europe, they have struck a much better balance of providing for the peoples' basic needs while still owning and controlling absolutely massive amounts of influence, laundering money, implementing governing policies directly benefiting them, etc... while not upsetting the balance enough to spark a movement. Part of this is due to the fact that compared to america, the police states in europe don't have near the control and freedom over the general population, but that is even changing in some places here. Even then, look at the difference of nice orderly law-abiding, unintrusive protests in the EU vs the US. If people's needs are cared for, you can pick their pockets and they will not be nearly desperate or angry enough to organize against you. Unions are being gutted all over the EU, and union membership is falling sharply while wealth inequality is again starting to rise in many places which was exactly the thing that started america down their path.
  
  Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone.
  You say that as if that diplomacy isn't backed by the implicit threat of NATO's proverbial 'big stick.'
  
  I think it's always important to remember who is most in control of a situation and place all of the blame there.
  My psych patients say awful shit to me. Some of them do awful shit. I've seen and experienced multiple attempted sexual assaults and even a guy who cornered a pregnant staff member to kick her in the stomach. I think about those kinds of things a lot when I see news stories about people dying in psych wards from things like extended or improper restraint. I wonder what they did that the staff members were so angry about and scared of that made them fuck up that bad. I'm sure it's the same as when other authority figures like police see stories of police brutality but that brings us exactly to the point:
  The next thing I think (because it's critical that I remember it) is that the staff are still the ones with the power. In addition to a moral imperative to not abuse their power, the staff members are the only ones who CAN change the situation, almost as a matter of physical possibility. The patients are gonna do what the patients are gonna do and the only changeable factor is what the staff do about it. That's just the nature of power and control. The people who have it are ultimately the most responsible for how a situation plays out. Always.
  The rich have the power here. They had the option to give some of it back in exchange for peace. They chose to specifically block that avenue. They chose violence by blocking all other options. Almost every nonviolent crisis deescalation class I've attended over the last decade has included this specific quote somewhere in the curriculum:
  "A riot is the language of the unheard." - Martin Luther King Jr (you know, the nonviolent protest guy?)
  The rich chose this. They chose not to listen. And honestly I'm actually pretty mad at them for it. They've created murderers. Trying to project that blame back on the poor is just another of their tricks. I don't have to advocate for violence to see it as the natural progression of the path the powerful have chosen for us. In fact me advocating for it would do just as much good as me advocating against it. I am not someone with the power to have any choice in this matter. All I can do is watch and to a certain extent I'm actually a little scared; I think we're about to enter a profoundly violent era of human history and I doubt it will be comfortable for me. They have chosen to lead us towards violence and for them to turn around and complain about it is laughably and terrifyingly insane.
  
  You are wrong, in all your paragraphs. And with one exception* in all your statements.
  There is no debate here, history has shown you wrong again and again, for thousands of years, in every state, every idea, every example of oppression.
  Your take that the The Adjuster was part of some movement is bullshit, he was a lone terrorist for a cause resonating with the public, this is the spark of revolutions. Him not being organised is the opening for this revolution to be quelled before gaining momentum.
  *The only statement of yours I'm willing to cede is that yes, political violence is typically justified against a lens of values. Societally the US norm has been that oppression and murder is bad, thus Rittenhouse and his movement are worse than the one killing. Then again the multi-weekly school shootings seem not to be bad, so maybe killing isn't bad any longer?
  
  "Violence has never solved anything, as long as you discount the entirety of human history."
  Instead of comparing Mangione to Rittenhouse, why not compare him to the health insurance industry?
  Refused coverage kills, IIRC, about 45,000 people a year. Why are those lives less important to you than one CEO? Why is it that you have it in you to condemn Mangione and Rittenhouse, but not Brian Thompson?
  Is it because did not personally kill those people? Is it because the laws of his country don't consider those deaths murder? If those are your standards you would also have to agree that Hitler was innocent too.
  Your accusations of moral inconsistency fall short, because you do not understand that we are judging purposes, not methods. Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing mass murderers (as Mangione is alleged to have done), when every other option has failed, is entirely reasonable. Unpleasant, but not unjustified.
  It took MLK and Malcolm X to get civil rights. There must always be the offer of the peaceful resolution, but in reality the peaceful resolution is usually ignored until the other side understands that without peace, all that's left is violence.
  
  Yousa thinking yousa people ganna die!?!?
  killing someone is never the answer
  The your nation's army and most law enforcement disagrees with you.
  We need actual solutions
  Yep, Bernie was the proposal, and it got rejected. We still need actual solutions. As in not pure idealism.
  but I hope we as a society have evolved way beyond that point
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsBx58GxYY - Read history, millennia old philosophers are way ahead of you.
  
  I wish I could agree with you, but the Nazis already invaded Poland.
  
  Don't lose hope, there is a chance yet!
  
  So..... By this logic, slave uprisings are always morally wrong, and will always fail?
  People who oppress are happy to murder to maintain their hold on power, and won't give up power without a fight.
  How do you expect to take it from them?
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Technically you're right that it wasn't the DNC alone. It was the democratic party as a whole and the media machine they influence. Sure the DNC gave Hillary decision making power after she paid them a bunch of money, and also gave her a special funding agreement. But the hundreds of unelected superdelegates that supported her before voting even started were probably more influenced by party elites than the DNC. And it's not like they specifically paid for the opinion pieces telling Bernie to drop out. But it's not actually illegal for a party to rig a primary so we don't need to do any real investigation into it.
- Kyle Rittenhouse was a moronic murderer who actively wanted to kill someone for some pathetic reason and was crying like a little bitch when he was in court. He provoked a fight with some random guy and when others tried to apprend him (and they were in the right to do so. If Kyle was shot then and there as he should have, the shooting had strong elements of legal self-defense). Luigi set out purposefully to kill a powerful person who kills tens of thousands of people a year with paperwork and wants to kill even more. He can be replaced, sure, but his killing sent out a powerful statement to the wealthy.
  Also Kyle is so fucking stupid that he failed the USMC aptitude test so badly that he was not allowed to take it again. Given that normally you are allowed three tries and it isn't that difficult of a test, that is saying a lot.
- Except rotten house has incel energy while luigi has mega chad energy.
  Billionaires and their well paid .1% millionaire lap dogs are our oppressors. Rittenhouse went fully armed with the intentions of shooting unarmed blm protestors
  
  "Yeah but he hot tho" must be the most insane defense for murder I've ever heard. Surely that will hold up in court, because of your giant chad energy you are acquitted of all crimes and will run for president. With how insane the last 10 years have been I might actually believe it.
  
  Go back to late 18th century versailles and you’ll see the level of wealth inequity today is just slightly worse than it was at that point in time so i dont see anything too crazy as far as this whole uhc ceo execution and the public response to it.
  
  Yeah you should stick to the nonviolent argument. This one isn't good.
- You can't possibly believe that is true. You're just looking for controversy.
- Yeah, totally the same thing. No critical thought at all.
  
  Explain how it's different beyond "I agree with them"
  
  It's clear that you're unable to educate yourself, but how is that other people's responsibility?
  In any case: opinions on Rittenhouse were mostly divided on a political "left-right" axis, but either by ignorance or malice, you completely miss the point that Luigi is dividing society based on wealth - the rich and their sycophants, vs the working class and the poor.
  Do reply back, so we know which one it was...
  
  I think you completely missed the point I was making.
  In both cases a murderer is elevated to a higher stature because the people backing them believe the victims deserved to die. This is to me inherently wrong.
  With the right I can understand them supporting someone for shooting protesters, because they believe they have the right to oppress others. And I can understand the right fawning over Luigi, because they think justice with a gun is the way to go.
  What I can't understand is the left taking the same opinion. The side who is against oppression, against guns, against violence. The side that has done the most through better regulation, union, strikes etc. Non violent solutions instead of violence like in centuries past.
  Some misguided people may think Luigi will trigger some sort of revolution where the people holding all the money and all the power somehow capitulate, because one of them got shot? I'm sure a lot of misguided people on the right thought Kyle's actions would usher in a civil war, where it's open season on blm protesters and anyone they didn't like. Luckily that didn't happen, but in the same vain I don't think Luigi will trigger some revolution.
  And when it comes to revolution, I would prefer if we threw our shoes into the machines of industry in the form of sabotage, protests and strikes. Not in the form of an all put civil war where killing someone is the norm. Not just because to me that is morally repugnant, but also because the wealthy control most of the guns and power.
  Yes, it is a good thing the deep problems in our modern society have been given a spotlight. But it's not like these things were a secret. It's been a hot topic for a long time now. And given the chance to vote for someone to be in charge, people have voted for the ones who amplify these problems. Not just in the US, but over a lot of the Western world. Far right is gaining power fast and they are very clear they want to oppress people even more and elevate the billionaires to not be the de facto ruling class, but the actual ruling class.
  Elevating these murderers to something they are not is never a good thing. Kyle was just a dumb idiot with a lot of hate and a gun. Luigi was a guy that was pissed off (rightfully so), but chose to act out with a gun. Neither one was a fighter for their side, they had their own motives. They were both very wrong in the things they did and do not deserve any of the praise or attention they've gotten.
  
  What makes you think the left is against guns and violence? Sounds more like liberal garbage to me
- Nobody on the right is fawning over Luigi, huh?
  I don't fucking think so...
- A ignorant peasant killing other peasants is just another Thursday in the Us.
  The firearms industry is super profitable after all.
- Sounds like you do care blud

177 评论