Sounds like what chuds think the world is already like
Sounds like what chuds think the world is already like
That’s a quite reasonable response, but I will say that no actual revolution is likely gonna not involve a lot of violence. And yeah… protests are almost always gonna come at the very least with the threat of violence (for a reason). Plus, figures who do something violent that many see as ultimately justified can create awareness that could lead to more pressure on elites.
I just don’t think it’s productive to condemn violence in general. I don’t think violence not done by the state is in itself bad. Obviously a lone wolf going after random people they think deserve it isn’t gonna directly enact real change, but going on about how peaceful you are seems counterproductive.
Mass mobilisation and vigilante justice aren’t mutually exclusive, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Pic unrelated
That sounds nice but I don’t think that’s exactly the case in practice. There are often people who the state defends at the expense of others, who will never realistically receive any kind of justice from the state. I think things are also generally much better when these people are scared.
I’m not trying to advocate for violence against anyone specific but sometimes I think it’s best when people stand up for themselves (and the people) to show that they’re willing to enact some kind of justice in a corrupt system. Thinking of vigilantes in general as immoral and barbaric while thinking “democracy” alone can help you just plays into the hands of those who wish to exploit you imo.
Pic unrelated
Provide security for whom?
I heckin’ love the state’s monopoly on violence!
Nobody cares bro. My farts smell better than yours
I know. I never said they were the same. I’m trying to say that this comes across like a zionist strawman.
Complaining about antisemitism right now is just cringe.
Jews have a right to exist. Israel doesn’t.
There are genuine concerns about people promoting “Israel” to benefit from the extermination of the Palestinian people, and that’s what this looks like a strawman of, to me.
And to be clear, I don’t think “the Jews” are behind this. It’s largely rich and powerful people from the US (and UK and other countries), who often consider themselves to be Christian.
I’m not trying to defend the crazy guy in the comic. I’m trying to say that we shouldn’t be pretending this guy is representative of anyone who matters.
Well sure… but this is a political comic that’s basically saying “these crazy people hate the Jews and blame them for everything”.
Obviously you can post whatever you want and there surely are crazy people like this, but to me this comes across as though it could be trying to discredit certain criticisms and seems in bad taste right now. It doesn’t really matter what you say you personally believe.
But if you find this funny then sure. I’m not trying to have your post removed or anything.
This is a bad post to make when Israel is currently committing a genocide and powerful people are clearly trying to distort the truth about it.
Of course “the Jews” aren’t behind the trees being fake or whatever, and antisemitism is bad… but this reeks of zionist pro-Israel strawman shit.
Delta accomplishes this pricing through a partnership with Fetcherr, a six-year-old Israeli company that also counts Azul, WestJet, Virgin Atlantic, and VivaAerobus as clients. And it has its sights set beyond flying. “Once we will be established in the airline industry, we will move to hospitality, car rentals, cruises, whatever,” cofounder Robby Nissan said at a travel conference in 2022.
So soon even more AI will decide you have to pay more, and that extra money will be going to Israel, no doubt helping to fund their genocide
Just because it’s low compared to other CEOs doesn’t make it reasonable and justified. Also, Wikipedia isn’t a “high-profile firm”. It’s (at least supposed to be) a non-profit that takes donations to keep the site running and free.
Basically everyone has little knowledge about the vast majority of things. People who have strong beliefs generally think they have good evidence for them (even if what they think is clearly untrue and their evidence is nonsensical).
I’ve heard of “appeal to authority” and such, but at the end of the day I think that it’s generally sensible to just believe the mainstream expert consensus on something until you’re given good evidence otherwise, especially if you’re dealing with hard science.
Of course it’s ideal to know more about a topic than basic things you were told and took as fact and this should be paired with some level of media literacy and critical thinking, though.