this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
1074 points (94.2% liked)

Political Memes

8505 readers
2882 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.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Stop giving a shit about what is illegal. It was made illegal because it was effective. The establishment doesn't want you to be effective.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

if I'm detained I'm not getting arrainged and released, im getting deported and never seeing my daughters again

or maybe end up in an Salvadorian prison

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You forget the fact they are doing this to countless people regardless. They don't get to make that choice to just sit this out.

It's called having solidarity with those being targeted, accepting the same risks they are being subjected to by simply existing, in order to help defend them against oppression. Part of that oppression is how the State has designed its laws to inhibit the ability of people to fight back against it.

If you allow the opposition to dictate how you are allowed to resist, then you already lost because they will never just allow people to effectively resist their authority. Change requires mass civil disobedience.

Or, continue to follow the rules of the oppressors, fail to effectively resist, and when they are done coming for their current target, they will eventually get around to coming for you, except by then you won't have anyone around to help defend against it.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but I'm calling you bs

it's not called having solidarity, I'm one of those at risk.

that's like saying vulnerable people at risk of COVID need to have solidarity to other people and go out without masks.

I'm going to protests, I'm doing what i can, I volunteer in mutual aids, and I fear every moment that ICE will detain me and I'll never see my daughters again.

I'm not your pawn, and I'm already doing whatever I can while keeping myself safe. It's American voters who put me in this situation. and now they want me to put myself at risk even more?

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Then you should already understand that keeping your actions "legal" doesn't guarantee protection, and that forgoing effective means of resistance only helps the oppressors to have an easier time oppressing your fellow people.

The voters are not responsible for your oppression. The regime that is engaging in oppressive practices is.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Telling people to exceed the bounds of their own threat model is exclusive as hell. When you tell others to put themselves at more risk than they're willing to take on you're pushing them away. You're giving them the impression they're not wanted because there "not dedicated enough". Don't do that.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I think peaceful protesters should encourage armed protestors as a form of disruptive protest, but with rules of engagement as a requirement. It simply boils down to: "Don't shoot first." That is a fair and reasonable rule that can be easily observed, that protects both protestors and police. Of course, if police choose to riot, they should get their own bitter medicine in return.

When police are running down people with horses, vans, batons, smoke, and bullets, they shouldn't have a monopoly on the violence.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Only doing things that are legal won't protect you, us the point. If that were the case, this wouldn't be such a big deal.

Not 'you must do crimes'.

Edit: i get it. Its fucking scary. I have a lot of critiques for 'society of laws' stuff, but i can appreciate what the benefits are supposed to be, even if it's not my favorite. We just... Don't have that right now.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

If the punishment for breaking a rule is a fine, then it's not a rule meant to help people, it's meant to give the wealthy power to do what they want.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago

My city's municipal code forbids dangerous items...like helmets, armor, gas masks, impact masks, social distancing masks, disguise masks, shields, umbrellas, signs that are durable enough to protect against inclement conditions, and more. To say the least, I decided to just abandon the notion of law concerning such things.

These rules are plainly designed to favor bullies. I can understand (reciprocal) restrictions on firearms, but you can't tell me that eye protection or ballistic armor isn't a good thing for peaceful protest. A reporter got shot by a fucker in the back, for having the temerity of doing her job!