29
submitted 7 months ago by pjwestin@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world

Seriously though, don't do violence.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

When you crush folks into the ground for decades, ensure there's no legal recourse, and bleed them for every dollar until the money runs red. It's hardly a surprising outcome.

Here's the song that's been playing in my head last couple days, for no related reason: https://youtu.be/o9mJ82x_l-E?si=y7r9kDydchPhNPAp

[-] HeyJoe@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Not sure if you know the reason for the song, but here is the info behind it... the actual footage was brutal as well.

A Song Inspired by an Infamous Suicide

Patrick found the lyrical inspiration for β€œHey Man Nice Shot” from the January 1987 suicide of Pennsylvania State Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer. It occurred on the day Dwyer was to be sentenced for 11 counts of bribery for which he had faced up to 55 years in prison and a $305,000 fine, according to an Associated Press article from the time. No money was said to have exchanged hands. The public official spent 20 minutes on live television proclaiming his innocence, then shot himself to death. The incident shocked family, friends, and political associates, not to mention the viewing audience.

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago

I saw that video when I was in middle school and found out later in my teens that song was about that headshot. It's a good song.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Wasn't that the guy who was later found to be innocent? He tried to fight the charges, got convicted, killed himself, and THEN they figured out he really didn't do it?

[-] Nomad@infosec.pub 2 points 7 months ago

The legislature and violence monopoly are there to ensure all people have legal recourse instead of needing to turn to violence. If you corrupt that system and use it to oppress the masses, they become violent.

I neither agree with, nor condone violence, but it does not surprise me at all. Just surprised that it took so long.

[-] bluewing@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Violence from the masses requires the masses to feel like they are starving, sick, and dying with no way out except death. We have been slowly accelerating towards that violence for a while now.

Watch for an increase for those CEO's, (at least insurance and pharmaceutical CEOs), to have much increased budget for private security measures. Both in surveillance and personnel. I think we will start to see more 'black limo caravans' like the the POTUS moves around in. And being surrounded by people in black suits with guns openly visible. They will do whatever it takes to stay alive and be evil.

The next question is: how long before politicians start becoming targets?

[-] devfuuu@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

If it works it works. Humans have been using as an effective way to accomplish things for millennia.

The current capitalism overlords may not be happy when it's used the other way around to what they are used to.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

"Violence is a precipitation of two sides unwilling to compromise."

  • Sun Tzu The Art of War
[-] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Denying healthcare = violence

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I was really hoping we would avoid violence by electing people like Bernie Sanders. Instead it looks like the class warfare will come to violence.

[-] m4xie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 months ago

πŸŒπŸ‘¨β€πŸš€πŸ”«πŸ‘¨β€πŸš€

[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 points 7 months ago

We really have no other option left

[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It is bad if used as the first approach.

It is fine when used in self defense or when all peaceful approaches have been exhausted in response to oppression and other malicious actions. It does matter when and why it is used.

[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Agreed. This happened because both parties are bought and paid for by big corpo. Our vote is only on how to address some of the social issue symptoms, if at all, of our crony capitalist economy, and only if they don't meaningfully effect corpo profits.

Example "please leftwing Obama, save us from this for profit healthcare hell!" proceeds to further enshrine for profit insurer leeches in a plan made from the heritage foundation because big corpo demand line go up.

The people don't get a vote on the crony capitalist economy.

When we wish to protest, we're now sent to designated protest zones out of the eyelines and profit operations of those we protest, making such "protests" as effective as masturbation in creating change.

This is happening because they have made us this desperate,and taken away/castrated our non-violent options. Some are apparently finally realizing that our votes and our protest have been manipulated by the capitalists that know they're doing us harm into still technically existing, but no longer mattering.

Gotta hand it to them, it's far more insidious than overt slavery with chains.

[-] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

correlation is not causation.

repeat the experiment.

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Hmmmm... I wonder what would cause pharmaceutical prices mysteriously drop?

[-] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Without 25 observations at least we cannot draw conclusions

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Depends on your dataset, confidence, and margin of error.

Assuming that 95% of billionaires will act similarly and 750-ish total billionaires in the US, if you want to have 99% confidence and 1% margin of error, you'll need a minimum sample size of around 600.

We really should be thorough. For science.

[-] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Usually I would nit pick the hypothesis you want to confirm and the math you used, but for some reason 600 sounds right.

[-] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 1 points 7 months ago

Seriously though, don't do violence.

Why not? It's a perfectly fair response to the violence perpetuated upon millions of "customers" annually, made "legitimate" by paid off lawmakers. Why should we not be allowed to respond in kind when they're allowed to kill us - just because it's in a more roundabout method? Fuck 'em. I've never been a gun type, but right-wingers have really been getting me to rethink that stance.

[-] UnkTheUnk@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago

murder is in general bad, fed-posting is inadvisable

also there's a broader boring argument about the dangers of violence being normalized as means of political change, but those arguments are boring

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Demdaru@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago
  1. If you are USA citizen, you have the right to bear arms in case goverment turns evil
  2. While yiur giv turned incompeten/insensitive instead, it also soldd itself out to corporations.
  3. Thus, corporations = gov
  4. Thus, you have right to bear arms in case corporations turn evil
[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I'm mostly saying it because I don't know the mods on this sub or if/when they're gonna start nuking posts and comments like the News mods did. But also, I don't want to be responsible (or at least feel responsible) in the unlikely event that an unhinged person sees this and does something stupid.

Like...look, am I weeping because a man who profited by denying people healthcare is dead? No. Am I happy to see billionaires suddenly afraid of the people they're exploiting? Yes. But does that mean I want people who see this meme to start gunning people down in the street? In all seriousness, no, don't take this as a call to violence.

I know there's some hypocrisy in that statement, but that's kinda the point I was getting at with the post: "I can't condone this action, but damn, it appears to have been very effective at enacting change."

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I couldn't have said it better, tho we have yet to see if it's effective at change. It's really too early to tell.

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 0 points 7 months ago

Violence towards the evil power can be good. See the French Revolution.

[-] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

The French Revolution ate the nobles, sure, but then it ate itself, then went on to try to eat the rest of Europe. It was a loooong time before it had positive results.

[-] bitwaba@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

For the most part, the French revolution really only took down the royal family. A large portion of land owners and business people made it out perfectly fine with both their assets and heads.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
29 points (100.0% liked)

memes

16503 readers
1527 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS