Those non-violent protests shook them so bad they wanted to charge non-violent Quaker protestors with terrorism.
Individual, spontaneous acts alone are not sufficient either. This is adventurism, which is fun to celebrate but does not actually change the equation. The answer is neither peaceful organizing nor individual aggression, but mass, millitant organizing! Throughout all of history, there have been no successful changes in the status quo without a mass, organized movement. Read theory and get organized. If you need a place to start, I suggest my introductory Marxist reading list.
The answer is neither peaceful organizing nor individual aggression, but mass, millitant organizing!
This is true, but also extremely difficult, especially in an era of mass media induced paranoia and alienation. Mass militant organizing requires a large cohesive social class that has a center of gravity - a church house or a social club or a workhouse floor - that increasingly no longer exists.
Social media was supposed to be the new venue for mass mobilization, and we saw the beginnings of it in the early '00s. But media consolidation, saturation from automated marketing accounts, and counter-programming have largely washed it out.
Read theory and get organized.
One is significantly easier than the other.
That said… go look for local unions in your town or neighborhood. Look for chapters of the DSA or the PSL or other labor-friendly organizing groups. Go to your local PTA meetings and city council meetings when you can, and get to know the people who show up there regularly. Get out of the house and meet people where they are.
That’s all good advice. But its also hard, exhausting work. And its done in the face of enormous headwinds. Don’t mistake the failure of leftism as a simple failure of “human nature” or whatever. We’re in an entrenched system and attempting a Herculean feat to change it.
Revolution, rather than being easy or impossible, is simply and truthfully hard. I agree, and that’s why it is important to start building that and contribute to those who have already started.
If enough individuals do it, it will be collective.
I disagree that that would accomplish anything. Assassinations do not “transfer power” as the SRs once claimed, but create a void that is filled by the next in line, always bourgeois or bourgeois adjacent. What is required is revolution, but through organization, so that there can be dominance over this sphere entirely, and the working class wrest its Capital permanently and gradually.
One observation several have made is that audiences are defying their conservative influencers over this issue.
Maybe it’s not individually important, but I think it could be a “start” that finally gets through to so many otherwise impenetrable minds and captive audiences.
I agree, I came to the same conclusion. However, that only further necessitates taking advantage and striking while the iron is hot by pressing a correct line, there’s no benefit to letting this end in celebration alone.
politics is not about morality. it’s about power & control.
🌍🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
Is true.
That is why so soooo many headlines everywhere are preaching how this should have been done through voting & protests or whatever.
Iirc majority of Murikans want public healthcare for at least two decades now, yet nothing has changed (except living generations).
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”
But taxes!!!
Said anyone who doesn’t know that minus $600/month that only covers the basics plus $300? in taxes that covers a lot more is a net savings.
Lol, “voting”.
Peaceful protest, electoralism, those are spooks. If you want to stop something, try physical destruction.
Not opposing your comment at all, more of a rare occurrence fun fact: Even an actual (ie financially or personality effective) show of power is enough sometimes.
Eg unions in USA haven’t killed any tycoons for the longest time. But they do get a loaf of bread per week more in wages when they stop working for a few days.
Not all revolutions need to be as complete as the French or Russian (tho that works, but also costs a few years of instability & political power struggles), 10% of the elite de-elited (eg losing their wealth bcs of direct demos actions) would send a big message in USAs case.
Even just for something as mundane as protected bike lanes, I’ve found through personal experience that just a couple instances of direct action against motorists who tried to park in them was infinitely more effective than years of begging peacefully for barriers.
Lol, yes, exactly.
That strategy is spreading, BTW: https://momentummag.com/vision-zero-campaign-bricks-vancouver/
I’m also a big fan of:
Haha, the crossing is funny.
I’ve seen the other two & I just wish some laws would be passed making it legal to damage cars in a bike lane.
To circle back to the main topic - Americans should be required by law to disclose how likely they are to murder anyone involved when writing a claim to their insurer. Same thought process as the crossing with a brick.
Especially so in a system like in the USA
And thats why they tell you its not the answer. Now to be clear, it isn’t always the answer, but we’ve been calling on deaf ears for as long as I can remember, and as I’ve heard from the Older Guard, its been twice as long as that at least.
Well, and as I’m trying to make clear, being non-violent doesn’t make you not a target. The US government was busy trying to target the most non-violent group that exists in the US as terrorists. Violence is so antithetical to their religion they cannot be drafted into the US military, due to freedom of religion. The real name of their religion isn’t Quakers it’s “The Religious Society of Friends.”
The more non-violent you are, the more likely these freaks are willing to view you as easy to take down and remove from the conversation.
It’s just like… the first Gay Pride demonstration was literally a riot.
Like I said in another thread too, every state (as in nation, not US states), uses violence as an answer all the time. Police violence against criminals or protesters, military violence against other states, death penalties against those deemed too dangerous to live, prisons in general. So what is it about state sanctioned violence that is considered moral by most people who would also decry individual violence as immoral? Even Brian Thompson oversaw an increase in claim denials from ~10% to ~30%. How many people did that kill, or torture, or cause suffering? Obviously a lot of people have already talked about social murder, but again, why is social murder more justified? Just because it’s legal and allowed by the state?
Laws aren’t some inherent measure of morality, and states don’t have some inherent sense of justice that is superior to that of their people. Just look at slavery, it was fully legal and rescuing slaves was a crime. That didn’t make it moral, or the abolitionists who ran the underground railroad immoral. Or look at prohibition, or the current version we have with the war on drugs. What makes someone indulging in a vice like weed, or mushrooms, or honestly even something more addictive like cocaine be guilty of a crime, when someone indulging in alcohol, or cigarettes, or caffeine, or sugar isn’t? And what makes someone doing that on their own, assuming they don’t harm others because of it, worse in the eyes of the law than someone who gambles?
In order to see the imbalance of power and violence, you only need to look at the recourse each party has for violence by the other. Look at what happened when an individual committed violence against UHC by killing the CEO. There was a national manhunt, tens of thousands of dollars offered in rewards for finding them, and once a suspect was arrested they were humiliated by the police, put in jail to be held until trial, and are likely facing life in prison if they are convicted. None of that would happen to any of those responsible for a wrongful death due to an illegally denied claim. In that case, in order to get recourse, the family would need to sue the company, which takes a crazy amount of time, money, and effort. And if by the end of it they win, what punishment would UHC face? The CEO wouldn’t be given jail time for murder or manslaughter. The company wouldn’t be broken up or shut down. At most you’d get some money, and they’d maybe have to pay a fine to the government. During the lawsuit the CEO and board would be free to continue business as normal, killing or hurting who knows how many people while doing so.
So obviously the government, corporations, politicians, and billionaires will denounce this as a “tragedy”, a “horrible act of violence”. Those celebrating in it are “advocating violence” or simply the minority, existing in “dark corners of the internet”. Because admitting that violence is an acceptable strategy means they’d accept it turned upon them, instead of being the sole group allowed to use it as they see fit.
This isn’t necessarily me advocating for violence either, as I think in general neither one should be accepted, no matter if it’s done by an individual or a state. But the legality of that violence is also not what should determine its morality, and there are exceptions to every rule. Personally I consider myself a pacifist. I’m vegan, I would go to jail before being drafted because I would never want to serve in a war, and obviously like most people I would always prefer a non violent answer to a conflict if possible. But things don’t always work out that way, and it’s nonsensical that anyone would consider Brian Thompson, or any other CEO of a major company, better or more morally acceptable than the one who killed him. State approved violence, legal violence, is not and should not be seen as any more acceptable or moral.
The Daniel Penny verdict couldn’t have come at a better time to show all this to be true.
Kill a CEO? You’re a horrific monster!
Kill a homeless person broken by the system we live in? You’re just protecting yourself!
The best part it does not matter how you feel about Penny… media coverage is what really exposes the hypocrisy.
Yeah. And how is it that corporations, or big businesses in general, have elevated themselves to an almost holy status? Why is it murder when Blackrock kills 17 civilians in Iraq (Nisour Square), but not when an insurance company denies an operation that a doctor who’s at the top of their field says could save your life? And the hospital helpfully tells you it will cost over a million dollars. For all the non-Americans, that’s not an exaggeration.
And even with Blackwater, it was only the individual employees who got convicted. The company just kept going under a different name. And the employees got pardoned later.
deleted by creator
The protests were amazing, nothing like it before or since. The media suppressed coverage of them as best they could. They couldn’t totally ignore them but gave almost 0 coverage. Masses and masses of people packing the streets. Wish we’d had drones back then to get some good aerial footage.
I wish they had come armed. I wish Jan 6 happened to Bush. So many children’s lives could have been spared across the years and borders.
This is why peaceful protest is legal, it accomplishes nothing.
Then why do peaceful protestors get arrested and brutalised by cops all the time?
Target practice. Did you see the video where they shot the teenager standing still on a hill doing nothing? The shot him in the head with a rubber bullet, causing concussion and permanent damage. The officer high fives another officer right after.
The kid was literally just standing there doing nothing. A fucking child was used as target practice by adult civil servants.
Okay, that makes sense.
Only liberal protesters get harassed. If you have a gun, they hand you a bottle of water.
Easy targets.
There isnt a secret group of evil lizard people planning out society. The evil in our society comes from the ways our oppressive systems shape people.
Our culture and systems believe(or at least act like) it is perfectly fine for a police officer/rich person to do murder/social murder.
So many people base their morals on what is legal/what the state penalizes, meaning if a police officer’s or ceo’s actions result in the death of innocent people, it is perfectly okay because they never get in any real trouble. This normalization of violent/oppressive acts done by the state and the rich means that more police (and more rich people) are going to feel okay doing shitty things.
Funsies.
Gandhi disagrees
(Unless he’s playing Civ)
FYI, the supposed “Nuclear Gandhi” bug is not a real thing:
One of the funniest programing bugs ever. Gandhi’s code was meant to be the least aggressive AI in the game, but if something made Ghandi become even less aggressive it could overflow backwards and set his aggressiveness to max. This creating a Gandhi that wanted to always be at war.
This is a myth, no such bug ever existed. There’s a whole Wikipedia page about it:
Thats not true. As much as I see the need for violent protest sometimes, peaceful protest can change things. See the fall of the berlin wall.
Yes, but also no. The GDR and the Soviet Union who supported it and supplied it were both almost bankrupt and economically broken. Infrastructure was falling apart because the state couldn’t afford to fix it.
The potests sure helped, but the government of the GDR was also in a state where it would accept the demands as a way out. The protests probably did accelerate the downfall a bit, but it would have happened either way.
Similar protests years before were leading nowhere.
Nonviolent action has accomplished many things, it is just that nowdays the ruling class is mostly desensitized to protest. If you want to change society through nonviolent action, your action needs to convince others to support you. You need to convice the ruling class and all who help them to give in to your demands.
Modern day peaceful protests do nothing because they dont have any credibility. The rich rightfully believe that they can ignore you and nothing else will happen. Nonviolent protests are just one way to send a message, and I think the most important thing this ceo killing has done for us is that it sent message.
Not in the USA in recent years. Peaceful protestation is one way to push back, but if it still doesn’t work, it’s not the last resort.
deleted by creator
So you’re saying that Gandhi accomplished nothing but leading the most significant and largest non-violent struggle in all of history? To each their own I suppose.
He just didn’t sit with placards, he refused to co-operate with the British establishment, and when millions followed him, they couldn’t just arrest them all. He got India independence through a non-violent struggle, the basis of which lied in subjugating the British trade and administration.
They could arrest Gandhi and Congress leaders all they wanted to, but the movement they inspired couldn’t be stopped.
This might just be the American train of thought, but you’re wrong here. When millions follow you, and refuse to cooperate, the ruling class will suffer, because they’re dependent on you for power. Checkmate.
I think it’s not really fair to compare 1940s India with current American politics.
It feels somewhat like saying “the Mongolian army took over half of Eurasia with mounted archers, Ukraine should just use those against Russia!”
It’s just not comparable, different cultures, different opponents, and wildly different technology. And this isn’t just the US, it is a worldwide class war. Organized resistance on that scale, especially when the ruling elite can monitor nearly 100% of all communication, just isn’t something that’s going to happen, even with a charismatic figurehead.
Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
~ M. Gandhi
Something often missed about Gandhi’s efforts was that it was still more about what he did do than what he didn’t (violence). He still used resistance and force, including illegal actions that he believed were just, and massively hurt Great Britain’s bottom line and sense of control.
The trick is to locate efforts that aim to accomplish that in modern US politics.
That’s an american matter and I couldn’t be bothered less.
A protest has to have teeth. If the teeth are economic, then that’s ok. If the teeth is violence, then that can be ok. Martin Luther King was successful in part because the threat of violence of Malcom X.
Protests do nothing if they can be ignored. If they can be ignored, they WILL be ignored.
Not American. Ghandi’s mission was to give “untouchables” caste some human equality. Technically, women’s/lgbtq movements were peaceful. Unlike US/Israel first oligarchy, there is complete/absolute media loyalty for it, in a way that the British Empire is harder to defend as benevolent to Indians. The support for oligarchy’s wars and supremacy is unconditional. If we don’t give them everything we have then China, Russia and Iran will win, and you all nod along.
So you’re saying that Gandhi accomplished nothing
Gandhi achieved a socio-economic mass mobilization. Boycotts, work stoppages, supply chain failures caused by mass mobilization. It wasn’t just people parading through the streets. They inflicted real economic damage on the British Imperial State.
when millions followed him, they couldn’t just arrest them all
Thousands were killed by British-aligned police. Millions more were impoverished in retaliatory trade sanctions, embargoes, and other economic retaliations. The Indian state was set back decades by the English response to independence - not unlike how Cuba and Haiti have been deliberately impoverished in retaliation for bucking the American and French former overlords.
They could arrest Gandhi and Congress leaders all they wanted to, but the movement they inspired couldn’t be stopped.
The current Modi government is a stark reversal of policy from the Gandhian Indian socialist state. They’ve embraced a very western-oriented capitalist-friendly militant hierarchy that has fully rebutted the movement Gandhi lead. That is, in large part, through continuously aggravating tensions between caste cohorts and between Hindu and Muslim regional populations.
When millions follow you, and refuse to cooperate, the ruling class will suffer
Mobilizing and orienting millions of people requires a large, cohesive popular media campaign. Gandhi was able to tap into a huge underground of anti-British opposition. But even that wasn’t able to overcome the base anti-Muslim sentiment that the Brits had fostered for centuries. Gandhi himself was the victim of this unfettered hatred, when he was assassinated at age 78 by an anti-Muslim fanatic during an interfaith prayer meeting in 1948.
Assassination of leading civil rights activists and organizers by hyper-partisan radicals has consistently worked dismantle national movements. From the slaying of US civil rights leaders in the 1960s to the bombings and assassinations of Latin American, African, and Pacific Island socialist organizers in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we’ve seen the ruling class triumph through a persistent campaign of organized violence and stochastic terrorism.
As someone that was at the protest, at no point did I think it would result in the war stopping. It was still worthwhile, however. In retrospect, the war was so much worse than any of us knew at the time and also based on flimsy and/or no evidence of WMD. Business as usual in America. We’d do it all over again today, I have no doubt.
They knew there weren’t WMDs and used the fear of 9/11 attacks to push the war. They had OpEd pieces published to further push the idea of WMDs.
IIRC, Biden championed that, right?
No, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and a bunch of others in the administration championed it. Biden et al supported it. Subtle.
Congress basically believed what they were told by the warmongers.
Huh, I thought he was critical in making the case. I’m no political historian tho.
Barbara Lee did NOT support it
I would say it laid the ground work for OccupyWallstreet, which laid the ground work for modern progressive movement.
What change was accomplished by OccupyWallstreet?
They were angry about economic inequality – it’s worse today than in 2011.
They wanted an end to corporate personhood – still totally cookin’ in 2024 with no end in sight
More regulation of the financial sector – we are more deregulated than ever today
I had to admire their aims, but as a movement it was profoundly ineffective…
I think it absolutely laid down the base for the modern progressive movement - mistakenly believing protests do anything on their own
Occupy was huge, it was global and persisted for a long time, but it didn’t have any teeth - people just stopped paying attention and eventually police cleared people out
No one (rich) was losing money, no one (rich) felt threatened or inconvenienced in any way. They made their feelings known… But most people had no idea why or what they wanted, and politicians don’t actually care what you want. They didn’t even organize enough to be a voting block or clearly communicate their message
No, not today, but give it a couple of years.
“Two more weeks”
I wish there was a prediction market about this outcome, as I would gladly bet against it. I don’t see America suddenly growing a spine. As long as there is (fast) food available and the electricity and football games are flowing, 99.999% aren’t picking up that pistol.
What’s that old JFK quote? Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable?
The state draws its legitimacy from the social contract. When people no longer feel like the social contract is beneficial to them or to society - ie as one might feel with a healthcare system that is 100+ years out of date and has received one (1) bandaid for normal folk in the past 50 years - the state can no longer expect individuals to uphold their end of the social contract (adherence to laws, norms, and peaceable conduct).
This doesn’t mean “the overthrow of the government is coming tomorrow”, but rather means that the social contract is beginning to fray, and a failure of those in power to recognize and accede to that fact (by making major concessions) will result in this sort of incident continually intensifying until… well, until the social contract is gone to a large swathe of people, and then at that point, the overthrow of the government will be imminent, for better or worse.
All interactions between state and citizen are implicitly negotiated. Negotiations require leverage. Violence has always been a form of leverage. But assassinations are far more powerful leverage than riots.
Even if you want a peaceful protest, the state security apparatus will turn into a riot when they need to discredit the protester, ie Floyd Protests is recent example.
Then older people start pearl clutching over “black youth” “looting” a corporate location! The horror!
Liberals will bring some generic race arguments etc
Now we got a proper circle jerk and discussion about police brutality is third order of operation.
its afraid.jpeg because we have not seen such class unity in modern history.
Good.
This last election made me into an anarchist for now. I do not believe there is any way to salvage this system we have in any meaningful way. I’m not a violent person so I can’t see myself doing anything like Luigi, but Democrats aren’t going to save anyone and are just one part of the problem.
I think Donald could be the death blow to our country as more and more of our social contract is upended, especially with talks of killing the ACA and other popular programs.
I don’t think John F Kennedy said that.
Receipts! 🧾
“we can shoot them?”
“yeah apparently you can just shoot them”
Indeed and wait until Mango Fucking Mussolini decides to invade Iran. That will be one hell of a protest.
as much as i dislike war, and while on the topic, do you think iran should have its own nukes?
From a neutral viewpoint, nukes are an excellent deterrent. Bottom line, nobody should have nukes and wars should be a thing of the past and continually fail to learn. Perhaps Japan learned, they have not fired a shot in anger since August 1945.
Why not? I assume they too would be subject to MAD.
interesting. i don’t like the current regime in iran, but yes you are correct.
It was also preceded by a violent act of terrorism that made people support whatever the president wanted to do in the middle east.
It was also preceded by a violent act of terrorism
Its so easy for people to forget the decades of violent acts committed in and around the Saudi Peninsula, and fixate instead on a handful of retaliatory strikes against US interests. The Battle of Mogadeshu, which involved Black Hawk helicopters obliterating Somali mosques with hellfire missiles. The brutal occupation of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, from 1992 to 2001 as a US-backed narco-state. The entire Iran-Iraq War, sponsored by US arms dealers and double-dealing diplomats, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arab and Persian young people. The occupation of Saudi Arabia by a western-backed military dictatorship going back nearly a century. The violent overthrow of democracies from Indonesia to Egypt in pursuit of neoliberal international trade policy.
9/11 didn’t happen in a vacuum any more than the Brian Thompson assassination or the aborted coup in South Korea. These have long historical tails that trace back to a geopolitical policy that’s racked up a staggering death toll.
To quote Mark Twain:
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Let them cook.
Jesus fucking Christ. Utterly unhinged.
Old underpantsweevil’s hinges are certainly quite wobbly, but in this particular comment they’re simply providing some historical context for the 9/11 attacks. I don’t know how fair it is to describe the NA regime as brutal, relative to Afghanistan’s current and former governments, but that’s a pretty minor quibble.
They’ve stopped short of claiming that the attacks were justified, and the assertions made are broadly true. What in particular do you find objectionable, if I may ask?
and fixate instead on a handful of retaliatory strikes against US interests.
Downplaying 9/11 as one of ‘a handful of retaliatory strikes against US interests.’
The Battle of Mogadeshu, which involved Black Hawk helicopters obliterating Somali mosques with hellfire missiles.
Not even vaguely what fucking happened.
The brutal occupation of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, from 1992 to 2001 as a US-backed narco-state.
Fucking all of this.
The entire Iran-Iraq War, sponsored by US arms dealers and double-dealing diplomats, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arab and Persian young people.
That we sold to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War is undeniable; the idea that the war itself was our fault and that 9/11 is just ‘blowback’ for that is fucking insane.
The occupation of Saudi Arabia by a western-backed military dictatorship going back nearly a century.
Christ, I don’t even know where to begin.
The violent overthrow of democracies from Indonesia to Egypt in pursuit of neoliberal international trade policy.
We were involved in the violent overthrow of many democracies throughout the years, this I agree on. But funny enough, Egypt isn’t one of them. So this had potential to be a good point, but failed by being posted by someone utterly detached from reality.
9/11 didn’t happen in a vacuum any more than the Brian Thompson assassination or the aborted coup in South Korea. These have long historical tails that trace back to a geopolitical policy that’s racked up a staggering death toll.
'Whatabout’ing 9/11 by implicitly arguing against it as a ‘violent act of terrorism’ as originally quoted, and then trying to justify it by the implicit comparison of 9/11 with the French fucking Revolution of the oppressed lower classes finally striking back against their oppressor.
Do you really not see any of these as objectionable.
Downplaying 9/11 as one of ‘a handful of retaliatory strikes against US interests.’
The language is provocative, but factually accurate.
Not even vaguely what fucking happened.
Yeah, it seemed plausible, but I couldn’t find any evidence at all that this took place. Fair enough.
Fucking all of this.
Yeah, it’s some real tanky-tonk incendiary language. And the timeline’s all wrong. The US-backed regime started in 2001, and lasted until 2021. Seems like they just grabbed the first couple of years from the wikipedia article.
That we sold to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War is undeniable; the idea that the war itself was our fault and that 9/11 is just ‘blowback’ for that is fucking insane.
It does appear that the current historical consensus is that the Carter administration did not give Saddam the proverbial green light for the invasion. However, there are more than enough contemporaneous claims to the contrary to convince anyone who’d rather believe that they did.
Christ, I don’t even know where to begin.
I mean, fuck the house of saud. And the US does share responsibility for all their depredations, just as it shares fucking bibi’s.
We were involved in the violent overthrow of many democracies throughout the years, this I agree on. But funny enough, Egypt isn’t one of them. So this had potential to be a good point, but failed by being posted by someone utterly detached from reality.
Yeah, the CIA may have helped coordinate the 1952 coup against the Egyptian monarchy, but doesn’t appear to have precipitated the 2011 overthrow of Mubarak. Happily, this gets me out of diving into whether or not Mubarak’s government could plausibly be called a democracy. Plenty of truth there, otherwise; a misstep, as you say.
'Whatabout’ing 9/11 by implicitly arguing against it as a ‘violent act of terrorism’ as originally quoted, and then trying to justify it by the implicit comparison of 9/11 with the French fucking Revolution of the oppressed lower classes finally striking back against their oppressor.
Yeah, the French Revolution parallel is a real stretch.
Do you really not see any of these as objectionable.
Oh, of course I do. I just have really low expectations when it comes to the veracity of claims made by lemmy tankies in general, inclusive of underpantsweevil. I don’t disagree with you—I was just mildly surprised to see your response, given the average factual content of any of their posts.
Thank you for taking the time to respond! I hadn’t read about some of this stuff for a while, and wouldn’t have otherwise. Best of luck to you.
Oh yeah because I forgot they totally proved Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were secretly the same person.
Iraq had zero to do with that terror attack but was used as a pretext for war based on the lie that the two were connected somehow.
Very large* act of violent terrorism.
American problems require American solutions
Partially because “peaceful” and the definition of what would or would not be accepted as valid protest became co-opted by the management/ ivy league class.
Compare the Seattle WTO protests to the 2003-2005 Iraq protests.
Cool sticker on your cybertruck!
Cybertrain*
I remember huge student protests for weeks on end. Then, over spring break when all the students were off elsewhere - the bombs began to drop.
And the gun was 3d printed. They will not stop at making 3d printing illegal.
honestly if you can 3d print something you can make something almost as strong out of wood, it just takes more effort
one could also easily make a disposable mold for a low-melting-point metal alloy, those are much stronger than 3d prints and many can be melted on a normal stove
I think the problem is more that information on how to make guns is now easily available, rather than the specific usefulness of 3d printing as a manufacturing technique
Shinzo Abe was assassinated.with a doohickey made out of a wood board and metal conduit pipes wrapped up in electrical tape
It’s gonna suck to burn to death.
