this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
604 points (94.7% liked)

Political Memes

8106 readers
2278 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 117 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Never ask a Lemming what kind of leftist they are, or what is the best Linux distro.

[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, um, whatever kind you use and whatever kind you are, of course.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's your favorite distro of linux now, but what previous operating system do you come from?

[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 36 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What if he's a Gentoo user? He'll mock me for using Archlinux, I've got to play this hand carefully so as to not blow my cover. There's always the chance he's a Mint user and I have nothing to worry about, but then, he could be one of those users that says ricing is a waste of time, who uses his OS professionally, but then, he might be a Fedora user... how do I approach this issue without seeming like a pleb?! Based Stallman, help me!

NixOS

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 20 points 1 day ago (9 children)

What kind of leftist are you and what is the best Linux distro?

[–] simpolomeo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 day ago

anarcho-communist, arch

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Post-left anarchist, Arch obv

I don't use Arch but that wasn't the question

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 72 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 8 points 19 hours ago

Debian-syndicalist

[–] Nay@feddit.nl 10 points 17 hours ago

Social-Debianist

[–] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 48 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Really good film. He nailed his role. So much so it was a little scary how good he was.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they hadn't done "east west" instead of some other cardinal directions, it would probably be prophetic

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 15 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

The moment I heard "alliance between California and Texas" I was detached from the movie. That is literally the least likely alliance I could think of

[–] unknown@sh.itjust.works 20 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The point of the film is to show how horrible war is in a context Americans can relate to. If they made a more realistic alliance, down some sort of real life right / left politics the message would be lost and it would be held up as some sort of propaganda film by one side of politics with the other side using it to justify why they're correct.

So, yes the "alliance between the California and Texas" is a very deliberate choice.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Also the idea of the two most economically independent and arguably most "separatist" US states forming an alliance in a modern civil war is really not the stretch that most Americans with their ideology blinders on might feel it is. Two large polities that wish to be sovereign lean on each other to support their parallel ends? That's actually tenable world-building, I think.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 10 points 20 hours ago

It was a bit much to work with, but once I realized that the civil war itself and the whys weren't what the movie was about, I went with it. This scene was the most disturbing of them all. Maybe because it's not that hard to imagine some people going this far. I'm sure there's some veterans of various conflicts that would agree and saw it happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cas@feddit.nl 13 points 23 hours ago

This scene really got to me, this was the first time I really felt how awful war is

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 23 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Dublin112@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

The movie is called Civil War

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

Jesse Plemons needs more lead roles. He reminds me of Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 40 points 8 hours ago (8 children)

I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 17 points 6 hours ago

Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 29 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

I'm so tired of the labels, I just want things to be better for everyone

[–] Fiction@lemm.ee 15 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago

so you're with the no labels party then, Joe Manchins party?

/s

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world 20 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Get your finger out of the trigger guard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 19 points 9 hours ago (9 children)

Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

While I am totally in the "bind all and protect all" camp and really against the "in group protect, out group rules" and I think conservatism is often in practice "protect me and rule others", I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.

I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of "in group protect, out group bind".

Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don't like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. "progressive" capitalists to claim that they aren't conservative and therefore not "in group protect, out group bind".

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

An armed one.

[–] FuckFascism@lemmy.world 18 points 20 hours ago (18 children)

The anti right wing/trump kind.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 17 points 10 hours ago

The kind that got chucked off reddit for being mean to Trump, Musk and Netanyahu.

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I'm the leftist from the Church of the SubGenius.
And Slackware ftw!

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] egonallanon@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

Oh, I'm not a leftist. My perspective is a bit more nuanced and complex than that. I am unburdened by ideology. I am the adult in the room. I am a centrist. 😌

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

What kind am I?

Not a neo liberal or a Tankie.

I'm in-between. I'm caring enough to not agree with Conservatives and want a change to the status quo. I'm educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can't be free and other people won't do stuff for free. Capitalism has its place, but needs to be highly regulated.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The fundamental objective of leftism is the dispersion of sociopolitical power as widely and evenly as possible, with an ideal (neither realized or considered possible) in which each person has no more and no less power than any other.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jared@mander.xyz 10 points 1 day ago

Left handed leftist!

[–] neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

truly be like that.

Don't think about dissenting even a bit, you will immediately get a ban from a community you've never been to. Big brother is watching you, comrade 🫡

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Remember how Snowden is still wanted by the U.S. for exposing the NSA and it literally changed nothing other than we now know we’re being spied on and it doesn’t matter because no one in America gives a shit about having rights?

Cool. So cool. Cool and good. Loving it.

How do you help a society that refuses to help itself? I don’t feel like we, as a country, deserve anything good at this point.

[–] hmmm@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›