this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
938 points (94.3% liked)

Political Memes

8484 readers
3530 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
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 99 points 1 day ago (24 children)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 55 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Remember when the founding fathers held a peaceful protest in Boston and the British were like, "Woah, we better Bach the fuck up"?

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago

Yeah, you don't fuck with Bach. If it was Beethoven, we wouldn't have stood a chance.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Here we go again,

The Peaceful LA Protests of June, 2025 worked. We're all talking about it now. If the LA protests weren't peaceful, we would have different talking points for this weekend's protests and protesters would have been killed. This administration wants this.

YSK - That there is a lot of trolling and brigading starting to happen around the LA peaceful protests to start violence. Here is a roadmap from 2015 on how they do it.: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39873361

Also, this:

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/protest-trump-resistance-power

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (7 children)

How did they work? ICE is still in my neighborhood snatching people up

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

They're fucking brainwashed. They equate just protesting with some victory in their heads. No matter how small, every protest is some achievement

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In the lib's mind, protesting is not a tool, it's the goal on itself. Just show up, wave a little flag and the bad guys will magically change their mind like it's a fucking movie.

It's all performative actions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] scintilla@piefed.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 day ago (4 children)

This administration already called in the national guard for a peaceful protest. Do you think that it will stop here and the they will not continue to commit more and more violence against peaceful protestors until we reach a breaking point and have to start defending ourselves?

Or are we supposed to allow ourselves to become martyrs and die before we fight back against those that would see us dead.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 30 points 1 day ago

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts

This is misleading. Nonviolent resistance is obviously going to be more likely to succeed because armed conflict only happens when the government digs in its heels after the nonviolent resistance. What? Did you want Syrians to nonviolently resist Assad's Sarin gas?

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago

This administration wants this.

This administration wants people not to resist them. Failing that people resisting them verbally but in no practical manner will do just fine.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

That's not working. Just talking about it isn't an accomplishment. Fuck

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 30 points 20 hours ago

If you see an oppressed people protesting against their opression, and your first instinct is to lecture them on the optics of their protest, you’re not really an ally. You’re just using “optics” as an excuse to not do anything to help out but still think of yourself as a good person. I don’t think anyone falls for it.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 23 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (4 children)

No one gives sympathy to protestors who fire the first killing shot on the authorities. Syrian peaceful demonstrators turned rebels have sympathy from the world because they were fired at first by Assad. Many people soured on the French Revolution at the time when The Terror occurred after the people started executing just about anyone deemed enemies of the revolution.

No one is against violence if it has to come to it, but on Lemmy it is the usual suspects (I probably don't need to mention what political ideology they tend to be) who want to pull the trigger first on the army and police without ever thinking of consequences (they wilfully ignore the existence of Insurrection act). They are like the 2nd amendment right wingers, looking for any opportunities to fire their guns and live their fantasies, but on the opposite extreme end of the political aisle.

Or, it could be anti-Western actors stoking violence on Americans to maximise political divisions because it will tremendously help if US is thrown further into chaos.

Edit: wording

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 15 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

Here in America the police have already been shooting and killing us - without repercussions - for years. The weapons they're using on protesters right now are called "less lethal" for good reason.

How many killing shots do the police need to take before we can take one? Should we just wait until the first murder at each city, or at each individual protest within each city, or until we see one personally?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nelly_man@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago

I think Gene Sharp characterized it nicely in his essay, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Notably, this essay has been cited as a major influence on the Arab Spring uprisings, so it's especially relevant to the Syrian protests.

Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.

One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you're at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 23 points 21 hours ago

It's not an either/or situation.

In the (supposed) words of Al Capone

You get a lot more from a kind word and a gun than from a kind word alone.

Critically however, a gun without the kind word is also far less effective. They are like the tip and shaft of a spear. The shaft has the range, but lacks the punch. The tip has the punch, but lacks the range. Together they are far more than the sum of their parts.

In terms of protest. A peaceful protest is like the kind word. It's a polite but forceful delivery of a message. Radical action and violence are the gun. They work best as an implied threat. The target much know that you are willing to escalate, if required.

Too much violence, and you have a riot. These can be put down with force, and have little to no public backlash. (This is what trump currently wants to happen).

Too little violence, and the protest can be safely ignored.

The perfect balance has enough to keep the government on their toes, but not so much as to drive away supporters, and burn off the anger powering things.

Currently, Trump and co are trying to goad people into over reacting and justifying an aggressive crackdown. In light of that, a message of don't take the bait, err towards passive over violence isn't so bad.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This liberal will be fucking armed and on target tomorrow. Do with that information what you will.

[–] GeraldOfHillwood@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

Americans kill nazis.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 17 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (4 children)

I agree that we have reached a point where things will only continue to get much, much worse without widespread and overwhelming violence against the authoritarians. Both those in power and those following them.

The problem is that authoritarians are primarily motivated by the irrational fear of violence. This fear justifies their violence, but nobody else’s. And they currently control the government, military, etc and therefore overwhelmingly more violent force than any resistance is likely to muster. On the other hand, authoritarian followers are predisposed to accept what they are told by the leaders of their in-groups, so when peaceful protests are called “violent riots” they will believe it unquestioningly and nothing whatsoever can or will change their minds. Hence, peaceful protest is no defense against the accusation of violence and subsequent right-wing violence. This is why abortion is such an easy topic for social dominators to leverage when inciting their authoritarian followers: it’s “evidence” that their opponents are inherently violent, against babies.

And again, reason and rationality have no part in this. The followers want to believe their out-group is violent and evil, they fear violence, so they will believe it because it reinforces their existing beliefs (a fear of violence, etc).

BTW, Democratic politicians in Missouri were assassinated this morning, and it’s not currently being widely covered by the news. So that take that how you like.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PlagueShip@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

Democrats drove away all the fighters by attacking anyone who was the slightest bit controversial or politically incorrect for the last 40 years. Basically the party was taken over by fools and cowards. This is our opposition party, and this is why we're screwed. Ban Fox News.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 14 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Non Violence only protects the state and state approved protest means nothing. The most violent people are police at protests. Dr. King's character is always stripped down to the peaceful Black leader, and look how that went for him. He was still assassinated.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] slingstone@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

God, I can hear these guys having this conversation in that lilting Kiwi accent. This is exactly the sort of absurdity they used to lampoon.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 13 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So much energy expended on discussions of violence. Do not worry about if you should or should not do violence. Violence is merely a question of who has the power to allow or forbid it. And if you protest long enough to make political progress, violence will find you, doesn't matter one bit how you personally feel about it.

load more comments (1 replies)

Guys please, whatever you do, do NOT throw water balloons filled with liquid ass at ICE, that would be a REALLY bad idea...

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 11 points 11 hours ago (7 children)

question

I've been thinking today.

it's illegal to block the road, you can get in trouble for a sit in, or by parking on the road.

but how about just driving on a road and respecting the speed limit?

how many drivers do you need to all agree to drive on a specific road, in circles to congest it and create a nightmarish traffic jam.

it's better to be strategic and do so during rush hours. 50 protesters could easily halt the traffic of some main arteries. and really hurt the economy.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] DeusUmbra@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (7 children)

I'm just waiting for the moment that shots are fired by one side or the other, because once that line is crossed we can finally get real change.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
[–] greenbit@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Aren't the libs fighting back now in LA

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›