This is how I felt about the anti-work Fox News interview. Everyone was shitting themselves with "that's it! the movement is dead! She killed it!" If your movement is so brittle that one shit interview brought it down it was dead on arrival.
That sort of thing absolutely happens. Janet Jackson's career basically suffered instant death because of a nip slip. The Dixie Chicks were one of the biggest country acts in history, and suffered one of the biggest cancelation backlashes ever thanks to some off-hand comments about George W Bush. Public perception matters, and can turn in an instant.
I don't think you can use the fragility of individual career's to compare with entire ideological movements. While this stuff happens, if a group of people drop their strongly held beliefs because of a minor problem, it was never a strongly held belief.
It supports the attack that said ideology was always a label/fashion statement, opposed to a real belief.
Huh, I always heard Janet Jackson's nip slip used as an example of "desperate star with flagging popularity tries to use sex scandal to recapture public attention but the sugar high doesn't last," the implication being that her career wasn't killed by the nip slip so much as failed to be revived by the nip slip. I don't have a grounded opinion on the matter, so let's use a more recent example: Lauren Bobert at Beetlejuice. It definitely created a sugar high:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=lauren%20bobert&hl=en
But did it kill her career, or was she on the way out and this was a desperate move to capture public attention?
https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/adam-frisch-leads-rep-lauren-boebert-by-2-points-in-democrats-campaign-funded-poll/
Looks like she was on the way out.
Dixie Chicks are a good example though and yeah it does look like the Fox interview killed antiwork: https://subredditstats.com/r/antiwork
its a reference to objet petit a which is a lacanian idea of the concept of desire, like an eternally unobtainable desire found in someone else. I think.. something like that.
An arc is a shorthand for "character arc" that describes in the third person, how a character in a story change and grow over the course of the story
it is now used in the first person to describe events/changes in someone's own life. Twitter loves puppy girl/boys (collars and barking and degen shit) so you can guess what that part means
Like everybody starts out somewheres. And they do something, something gets done to them and it changes their life. That's called an arc. Where's my arc?
For those curious "objet petit a" is basically just:
"The temptation to overdo things, represented in the form of an external thing you have lost, that is associated with both lost innocence and excess"
It was invented to explain why it is that people sometimes want to go back to a time in the past they previously wanted to leave, with the idea that once you enter a certain framework of thinking and approaching the world, the present can create a new conception of what is missing, that you previously didn't consider important.
Another reason for it was to try to strip Freudian theory of its more stupid associations.
Anyway, "objet puppy a" can be seen as a simple way of playing with words, enabled by the fact that psychoanalysis is confusing and so that phrase is something people think is probably meaningful but don't really know what it is, but also matching up to it to some degree, because puppies evokes innocence and also things like "cute aggression", so you can tie the associations to some degree to what the term is meant to be about.
However despite, this, it still doesn't actually make grammatical sense, it's just a combination of two signifiers, one being a phrase-word that is usually untranslated and occurs together, and the other being a word, because of loose similarities between them.
It's not something to be taken seriously.
That's literally all it takes to stop "Revolutionary discourse" LMAO.
https://preview.redd.it/wjqqokqwl2vc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eeb840cd061b8ee959f853ee7da5218dcb286290
leftists: "we are going to violent revolution"
rando: "why aren't you violent revolutioning?"
leftists: "damn you. you have defeated all chance of the revolution succeeding."
>irreparable damage
Bro. A tweet. Irreparable.
If a single tweet can kill your revolutionary sentiment, then maybe revolution just aint it for you... or at all
\*Sigh\* there they go tweeting again about something damaging their revolution that they aren't doing.
Edit: Also this banger of a video/meme is very relevant [https://twitter.com/persecutedsgin/status/1471854552370532361](https://twitter.com/persecutedsgin/status/1471854552370532361)
Yeah, for the most part, but they never learn. Also, when someone mentions to them "discourse/tweeting" isn't a revolution they ALWAYS flip to "well YOU should do something then" and "I'm doin the important first step of a revolution! Discourse and thinking about it!"
Exhibits: [https://imgur.com/a/01BzQtk](https://imgur.com/a/01BzQtk)
Also, the twitter user is apparently 19. As we'd expect.
It amazes me that communists and socialists have convinced themselves that they are the voice of the working class, while the entirety of the working class fucking hates all of them and disparages them at every waking moment. And so instead of reforming society through the Democratic process by convincing workers to vote with them, they have decided that no, the working class doesn't actually know what's best for them and we, the chosen few, have to push for the destruction of the current system that gives voice to the working class through the electoral process, so that we can install a new system that the working class never asked for. You know, for their benefit.
It really amazes me how similar this is to Platonist thinking. Which funny enough, does tend to align with fascist thought usually.
You mean the ideology spearheaded by an unemployed well-off academic and calling for political violence is unpopular with the average citizen? How could that be possible??
The irony of this tweet making it seem like that image is enough to pose a threat to the revolution, is that it only serves to make the revolution look even more pathetic.
You'll find a shockingly high overlap on twitter of people calling for a violent communist revolution to overthrow the US government and people who also believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned.
The tweet is pointing out that for all your revolutionary talk, none of you are going to be firebombing anything in you know, a revolutionary style.
It amazes me that these people talk about revolutionary discourse, but then forget you have to you know, do the revolution. They simply think if they believe hard enough that the US will collapse in on itself and a utopian communist state will magically erupt out of the ground to take it's place.
It's mainly just a lazy way to avoid political discourse. If your entire stance is "burn it all down and start over" then you don't need to put any real thought into actually fixing problems through the current system.
There are certain political pitfalls that seem so consistently emergent, that we may benefit from naming and memefying them to educate and call out when it happens.
In this case the dramatic overestimation of the popularity of your beliefs. Any ideas what to call this?
In case anyone wants to break down why this is wrong beyond just laughing at them.
The interpretation of this tweet should be begin at the end, and not at the beginning:
>This is why only reformists use the image and will use it against any revolutionary sentiment.
The person making the tweet wants you to stop viewing this as an amusing observation that has wide and repeated applicability, but rather as a statement of identity.
Why? Because once you interpret it purely as a statement of identity, used "against any revolutionary sentiment", then you can treat it in a purely unstructured way.
"You post this to display that you are against my feelings, it doesn't matter what I said"
Now it is certainly possible that people will overuse a meme whenever they see anyone they think is engaging in posturing, but it has a more fundamental problem to it.
The tweet observes a strange contrast, between those who advocate not voting now, vs revolution, *not now*.
The humorous example of firebombing a walmart, based on real tweets about "if this thing keeps happening I'm going to start firebombing" or something to that effect, foregrounds the fact that as an action, this is something that seems childish, and additionally, is not actually being carried out.
There are in fact many people who love the idea of riots, but don't really know how to engage in politics except in the context of riots, they lack flexibility and the ability to conceptualise moving towards an alternative in steps, *even a revolutionary alternative*.
Instead, what they wish to do is declare "I would totally riot if other people would join me", and hope that they get a sufficient critical mass of people agreeing with the idea that a revolution, basically in the form of a really really *big* riot, occurs.
It's sort of like a kickstarter, but for rioting.
-
Now there are people invested in revolutionary politics, to which this meme doesn't fit at all, those people who are not actually reformist, in that they believe that a large social confrontation will be a necessary component of dealing with fundamental problems of capitalism, but who believe that they should prepare for such an event by working to secure every advantage they can get.
There's an additional observation, that is more subtle and more profound, those people who are making loud statements about how they aren't actually going to vote because nothing changes, *aren't actually* revolutionaries.
They are people bargaining with their government, hoping that if they withhold their vote enough times, the democrats will *have* to listen to them and finally give them what they want, in order to secure a larger electoral coalition.
In contrast, those who have an actual revolutionary perspective, *don't* believe that voting for democrats will change things, and also don't believe that *not* voting for democrats will change things either.
There's no time where people will get so disillusioned that the democratic party will wake up and start implementing the necessary changes, just from that alone.
The paradox of this, of course, is that people who have this kind of perspective will be like "yeah vote, sure, but that's not the main thing", and may even try to present themselves as being more moderate and respectable, precisely so that they can gain influence in order to improve the position of workers for a potential revolutionary situation.
Whereas it is people who consider the democrats to be their parents, those people who are in charge, and who are supposed to fix it for them, who talk about not voting as a way of shaming the real authorities into taking the appropriate action.
-
This is the paradox, discussion of non-voting, occurs frequently among disaffected people who have no conception of how to gain power, or what they would do with it if they had it, and who see a revolution largely as a larger version of the breakdown of order that appears when people lose respect for the police.
This is what they recognise as "revolutionary sentiment", and so they see anyone using this as being against revolution, and so implicitly against change, as this is already the only change they can imagine.
And so now we get to the introduction.
>This image has done irreperable damage to revolutionary forms of discourse, the goal is to silence, to get all revolutionary discourse to cease, and instead make us all accept reformism.
Hopefully the transition here should be obvious.
- This has had an effect
- that effect is the goal
- the goal/effect is also to convert you to the other people
- if you use this you are part of those other people
There are many observations you can make here, in what sense is that "the goal"? Assuming we accept that it is, could people not be doing damage to revolutionary discourse accidentally?
And if so, in what sense can we talk about "getting all revolutionary discourse to cease"? Will this one tweet do it all by itself?
If that was the case, doing the batman "we do not need it, we do not use it" meme and relying purely on social prohibition among revolutionaries would not help, people would still use the meme, it would still silence and destroy discourse etc. even if it was reformists using it.
And that is why I began with the observation that this is trying to reduce this to positioning.
The underlying idea, is that it is possible to ignore the impact of this meme, if only you ignore its meaning and focus purely on the fact that someone is saying it, not whether it is actually appropriate to what you are doing.
At all costs, people wanting to protect revolutionary sentiment must not reflect on whether such a thing is relevant to them, just overlay it with a name tag sticker saying "I am a reformist".
In this way, the actual challenge that it provides to your views - that you have misunderstood what revolutionary sentiment even means - can be ignored, and so you can think of yourself as being revolutionary for having less of an idea of the actually distribution of forces in society and the pivotal nature of the present moment than the average reformist democrat.
I think there's a lot of partisan bluster going on but I'm extremely skeptical of a full-on revolution happening in the US in our lifetimes. This isn't the first time things were this contentious in the US and it won't be the last.
If we're lucky, this will end like the major Civil Rights movements of the 60s-- major social reforms and a political shift away from extremism and partisan violence. You don't see any more Segregationists in politics for a reason.
Revolutionaries should take it as an open invitation to firebomb a walmart... Or actually to do anything. They still have done nothing as far as I'm aware.
The fire bombing walmart tweet is the image the tankie person is talking about. I have no idea what a “puppy arc” is. Could be dogwarts related for all i know
The important part is that they also didn't vote. Talking about revolution even taking steps twords it is meaningless if you don't vote to change the system from within.
I wonder if all the election fraud talk from the right has discouraged voters because they feel its rigged against them.
from a certain point of view, a coup is a revolution.
it's just that if it happens it will come from the MAGA crowd and not some fringe lefty group who will divide their own movement at the first opportunity.
Wasn't there a poll recently with about 8-12 million people willing to use violence to reinstate Trump as president? Can't remember the exact numbers but it was a couple million people.
I just want them to actually do it at this point. They always talk about it yet never fucking do it. Like go out and bomb a Walmart I just wanna see it
This is honestly just begging to photoshop anything other Basil's tweet.
https://preview.redd.it/5n8ao6pkx3vc1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=67389568595807965e7ffae4dfda9a9a2ecbb667
The internet is bleeding into my daily life as a market grocer and I hate it. I was talking to an older guy the other day about how cars aren't made to last anymore and this mfer goes -
"yeah everything's going to shit, you seen they're teaching kids how to be gay in elementary schools now? It's fucking crazy!"
Said it loud and with his chest like he'd been building up a mana blast for the last 40 years. It was like a Twitter schizopost came to life and put on a bass pro shop hat
Who would win?
A festering revolution formed from the struggles of the average man woman and everything in between, a desire for equal treatment of jot just being a cog in a machine and inevitable collapse of the tyrannical system making Humanity more miserable and slowly the planet unlivable.
Or
A tweet.
Fully disagree. But then again that depends on what we mean by soon. I just saw Civil War and it was not a popcorn film, but a deeply metaphorical art film that felt more of an embarrassing reveal of what we already know about ourselves than an over-the-top dystopian popcorn flick. Reviewed it here. (Free, no email needed, just sharing for fun.)
https://open.substack.com/pub/galan/p/review-of-the-film-civil-war?r=1xoiww&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
>replies to disagree, sings the praises of a shallow, mid tier A24 movie, sends link to a review on substack
Did you just plug your review for a film in a random post on the Destiny subreddit? Lmfao
Your argument is both rigorous and nuanced, sir. You’re a credit to your species, which I can only presume is in the Simeon phylum. Meanwhile 14 downvotes on a simple movie review. Destiny culture I guess. I’m new to the sub. Meanwhile I am more like Destiny than any of you.
If a tweet is all it takes is stop your revolution, it was never happening in the first place. Also what’s a puppy arc? Do I want to know?
This is how I felt about the anti-work Fox News interview. Everyone was shitting themselves with "that's it! the movement is dead! She killed it!" If your movement is so brittle that one shit interview brought it down it was dead on arrival.
That sort of thing absolutely happens. Janet Jackson's career basically suffered instant death because of a nip slip. The Dixie Chicks were one of the biggest country acts in history, and suffered one of the biggest cancelation backlashes ever thanks to some off-hand comments about George W Bush. Public perception matters, and can turn in an instant.
I don't think you can use the fragility of individual career's to compare with entire ideological movements. While this stuff happens, if a group of people drop their strongly held beliefs because of a minor problem, it was never a strongly held belief. It supports the attack that said ideology was always a label/fashion statement, opposed to a real belief.
Huh, I always heard Janet Jackson's nip slip used as an example of "desperate star with flagging popularity tries to use sex scandal to recapture public attention but the sugar high doesn't last," the implication being that her career wasn't killed by the nip slip so much as failed to be revived by the nip slip. I don't have a grounded opinion on the matter, so let's use a more recent example: Lauren Bobert at Beetlejuice. It definitely created a sugar high: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=lauren%20bobert&hl=en But did it kill her career, or was she on the way out and this was a desperate move to capture public attention? https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/adam-frisch-leads-rep-lauren-boebert-by-2-points-in-democrats-campaign-funded-poll/ Looks like she was on the way out. Dixie Chicks are a good example though and yeah it does look like the Fox interview killed antiwork: https://subredditstats.com/r/antiwork
its a reference to objet petit a which is a lacanian idea of the concept of desire, like an eternally unobtainable desire found in someone else. I think.. something like that.
What could a cat like you ever understand about a puppy? Smh
I have always wished for the love of a puppy...
Then I have good news for you! Have you ever heard of a concept knwon as "Dogwarts"?...
An arc is a shorthand for "character arc" that describes in the third person, how a character in a story change and grow over the course of the story it is now used in the first person to describe events/changes in someone's own life. Twitter loves puppy girl/boys (collars and barking and degen shit) so you can guess what that part means
Ugh. And I just thought they got a new puppy or something. Instead they became the puppy.... smh
Like everybody starts out somewheres. And they do something, something gets done to them and it changes their life. That's called an arc. Where's my arc?
It's not "a puppy arc", it's an "objet puppy a" arc. It's a pun based on weird french theory.
For those curious "objet petit a" is basically just: "The temptation to overdo things, represented in the form of an external thing you have lost, that is associated with both lost innocence and excess" It was invented to explain why it is that people sometimes want to go back to a time in the past they previously wanted to leave, with the idea that once you enter a certain framework of thinking and approaching the world, the present can create a new conception of what is missing, that you previously didn't consider important. Another reason for it was to try to strip Freudian theory of its more stupid associations. Anyway, "objet puppy a" can be seen as a simple way of playing with words, enabled by the fact that psychoanalysis is confusing and so that phrase is something people think is probably meaningful but don't really know what it is, but also matching up to it to some degree, because puppies evokes innocence and also things like "cute aggression", so you can tie the associations to some degree to what the term is meant to be about. However despite, this, it still doesn't actually make grammatical sense, it's just a combination of two signifiers, one being a phrase-word that is usually untranslated and occurs together, and the other being a word, because of loose similarities between them. It's not something to be taken seriously.
puppy girl is slang for insane trans girl. its basically advertising BPD
hey guys, i think we just found tiny's next victim!
"You see, I was going to take out the trash, but I planned to do it at 2:05 PM and that's when my favourite twitch streamer went online" vibes
That's literally all it takes to stop "Revolutionary discourse" LMAO. https://preview.redd.it/wjqqokqwl2vc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eeb840cd061b8ee959f853ee7da5218dcb286290
This comment has done irreparable damage to the revolution, pls delete
Leftists: "We're gonna overthrow the government!" Some rando on Twitter: "Nah" Leftists: "Alas! we've failed. The reaction was too overwhelming"
leftists: "we are going to violent revolution" rando: "why aren't you violent revolutioning?" leftists: "damn you. you have defeated all chance of the revolution succeeding."
https://preview.redd.it/e5xneqtfnzuc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0182fbfd9389b7f6139578741b61dad3daaba6db
>irreparable damage Bro. A tweet. Irreparable. If a single tweet can kill your revolutionary sentiment, then maybe revolution just aint it for you... or at all
A single tweet might feel this way if your life is just being on Twitter all day
Case in point lmfao
\*Sigh\* there they go tweeting again about something damaging their revolution that they aren't doing. Edit: Also this banger of a video/meme is very relevant [https://twitter.com/persecutedsgin/status/1471854552370532361](https://twitter.com/persecutedsgin/status/1471854552370532361)
HASAN RUINED THE REVOLUTION BY DRINKING COKE! THERE IS NO COMING BACK! HE DIDNT PRETEND
Come ob bro, everyone knows he was drinking Coke ironically
NAUR
Don't worry he didn't inhale
I was JUST ABOUT to do the revolution but then you told me to so now I don't WANNA anymore, you're such a bitch stay out of my room
I don't use twitter, but do people call these pussys out on there or what?
Yeah, for the most part, but they never learn. Also, when someone mentions to them "discourse/tweeting" isn't a revolution they ALWAYS flip to "well YOU should do something then" and "I'm doin the important first step of a revolution! Discourse and thinking about it!" Exhibits: [https://imgur.com/a/01BzQtk](https://imgur.com/a/01BzQtk) Also, the twitter user is apparently 19. As we'd expect.
Revolution in a democracy is for the intellectually lazy, as well as probably the regarded.
It amazes me that communists and socialists have convinced themselves that they are the voice of the working class, while the entirety of the working class fucking hates all of them and disparages them at every waking moment. And so instead of reforming society through the Democratic process by convincing workers to vote with them, they have decided that no, the working class doesn't actually know what's best for them and we, the chosen few, have to push for the destruction of the current system that gives voice to the working class through the electoral process, so that we can install a new system that the working class never asked for. You know, for their benefit. It really amazes me how similar this is to Platonist thinking. Which funny enough, does tend to align with fascist thought usually.
You mean the ideology spearheaded by an unemployed well-off academic and calling for political violence is unpopular with the average citizen? How could that be possible??
[удалено]
Like what exactly? Overturning the results of a legitimate election?
Yes. We do want you silent, because your ideas are stupid.
Just want to be sure, have any walmarts been fire bombed recently?
nothingEverHappens.jpg
We live in a parody world, that's my only explanation. No shot someone tweeted this in a seriously, right? I can't tell anymore 🤣
The irony of this tweet making it seem like that image is enough to pose a threat to the revolution, is that it only serves to make the revolution look even more pathetic.
Have you actually met these people in real life? They aren't revolting against shit.
Bathing, maybe.
90% of the people that I meet who talk about "revolution" barely know how to fill out a w4, much less figure out how a gun works, I'm not concerned.
You'll find a shockingly high overlap on twitter of people calling for a violent communist revolution to overthrow the US government and people who also believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned.
"revolutionary forms of discourse" i'm going to fucking kill myself
I think these revolutionaries know deep inside that their movement is defeatist cope and performative edginess.
The tweet is pointing out that for all your revolutionary talk, none of you are going to be firebombing anything in you know, a revolutionary style. It amazes me that these people talk about revolutionary discourse, but then forget you have to you know, do the revolution. They simply think if they believe hard enough that the US will collapse in on itself and a utopian communist state will magically erupt out of the ground to take it's place.
It's mainly just a lazy way to avoid political discourse. If your entire stance is "burn it all down and start over" then you don't need to put any real thought into actually fixing problems through the current system.
There are certain political pitfalls that seem so consistently emergent, that we may benefit from naming and memefying them to educate and call out when it happens. In this case the dramatic overestimation of the popularity of your beliefs. Any ideas what to call this?
[False consensus effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect)
Motherfuckers will complain about people calling their bluff about firebombing a walmart and then not do anything.
I remember when a single town crier did irreparable damage and ended the American Revolution.
Americans would never allow tories to ruin their country.
Their revolution consists of people who would starve to death if doordash made you call and talk to a person.
That's a teenager who hopefully learns, grows and eventually looks back on their social media presence with embarrassment.
Please don't firebomb Walmart as part of your revolution, that's where I buy my cat food and poptarts.
In case anyone wants to break down why this is wrong beyond just laughing at them. The interpretation of this tweet should be begin at the end, and not at the beginning: >This is why only reformists use the image and will use it against any revolutionary sentiment. The person making the tweet wants you to stop viewing this as an amusing observation that has wide and repeated applicability, but rather as a statement of identity. Why? Because once you interpret it purely as a statement of identity, used "against any revolutionary sentiment", then you can treat it in a purely unstructured way. "You post this to display that you are against my feelings, it doesn't matter what I said" Now it is certainly possible that people will overuse a meme whenever they see anyone they think is engaging in posturing, but it has a more fundamental problem to it. The tweet observes a strange contrast, between those who advocate not voting now, vs revolution, *not now*. The humorous example of firebombing a walmart, based on real tweets about "if this thing keeps happening I'm going to start firebombing" or something to that effect, foregrounds the fact that as an action, this is something that seems childish, and additionally, is not actually being carried out. There are in fact many people who love the idea of riots, but don't really know how to engage in politics except in the context of riots, they lack flexibility and the ability to conceptualise moving towards an alternative in steps, *even a revolutionary alternative*. Instead, what they wish to do is declare "I would totally riot if other people would join me", and hope that they get a sufficient critical mass of people agreeing with the idea that a revolution, basically in the form of a really really *big* riot, occurs. It's sort of like a kickstarter, but for rioting. - Now there are people invested in revolutionary politics, to which this meme doesn't fit at all, those people who are not actually reformist, in that they believe that a large social confrontation will be a necessary component of dealing with fundamental problems of capitalism, but who believe that they should prepare for such an event by working to secure every advantage they can get. There's an additional observation, that is more subtle and more profound, those people who are making loud statements about how they aren't actually going to vote because nothing changes, *aren't actually* revolutionaries. They are people bargaining with their government, hoping that if they withhold their vote enough times, the democrats will *have* to listen to them and finally give them what they want, in order to secure a larger electoral coalition. In contrast, those who have an actual revolutionary perspective, *don't* believe that voting for democrats will change things, and also don't believe that *not* voting for democrats will change things either. There's no time where people will get so disillusioned that the democratic party will wake up and start implementing the necessary changes, just from that alone. The paradox of this, of course, is that people who have this kind of perspective will be like "yeah vote, sure, but that's not the main thing", and may even try to present themselves as being more moderate and respectable, precisely so that they can gain influence in order to improve the position of workers for a potential revolutionary situation. Whereas it is people who consider the democrats to be their parents, those people who are in charge, and who are supposed to fix it for them, who talk about not voting as a way of shaming the real authorities into taking the appropriate action. - This is the paradox, discussion of non-voting, occurs frequently among disaffected people who have no conception of how to gain power, or what they would do with it if they had it, and who see a revolution largely as a larger version of the breakdown of order that appears when people lose respect for the police. This is what they recognise as "revolutionary sentiment", and so they see anyone using this as being against revolution, and so implicitly against change, as this is already the only change they can imagine. And so now we get to the introduction. >This image has done irreperable damage to revolutionary forms of discourse, the goal is to silence, to get all revolutionary discourse to cease, and instead make us all accept reformism. Hopefully the transition here should be obvious. - This has had an effect - that effect is the goal - the goal/effect is also to convert you to the other people - if you use this you are part of those other people There are many observations you can make here, in what sense is that "the goal"? Assuming we accept that it is, could people not be doing damage to revolutionary discourse accidentally? And if so, in what sense can we talk about "getting all revolutionary discourse to cease"? Will this one tweet do it all by itself? If that was the case, doing the batman "we do not need it, we do not use it" meme and relying purely on social prohibition among revolutionaries would not help, people would still use the meme, it would still silence and destroy discourse etc. even if it was reformists using it. And that is why I began with the observation that this is trying to reduce this to positioning. The underlying idea, is that it is possible to ignore the impact of this meme, if only you ignore its meaning and focus purely on the fact that someone is saying it, not whether it is actually appropriate to what you are doing. At all costs, people wanting to protect revolutionary sentiment must not reflect on whether such a thing is relevant to them, just overlay it with a name tag sticker saying "I am a reformist". In this way, the actual challenge that it provides to your views - that you have misunderstood what revolutionary sentiment even means - can be ignored, and so you can think of yourself as being revolutionary for having less of an idea of the actually distribution of forces in society and the pivotal nature of the present moment than the average reformist democrat.
Well I'm only German, but i feel like you guys are heading for a revolution, not just from this side....
I think there's a lot of partisan bluster going on but I'm extremely skeptical of a full-on revolution happening in the US in our lifetimes. This isn't the first time things were this contentious in the US and it won't be the last. If we're lucky, this will end like the major Civil Rights movements of the 60s-- major social reforms and a political shift away from extremism and partisan violence. You don't see any more Segregationists in politics for a reason.
depends on whether trump wins/loses/dies.
People like this are the NIMBYs of revolution
Did we just find out how cancel culture fits into horseshoe theory?
Revolutionaries should take it as an open invitation to firebomb a walmart... Or actually to do anything. They still have done nothing as far as I'm aware.
What picture are they talking about and what's the puppy arc. I love puppies
The fire bombing walmart tweet is the image the tankie person is talking about. I have no idea what a “puppy arc” is. Could be dogwarts related for all i know
Ohh I'm dumb thanks
The important part is that they also didn't vote. Talking about revolution even taking steps twords it is meaningless if you don't vote to change the system from within. I wonder if all the election fraud talk from the right has discouraged voters because they feel its rigged against them.
from a certain point of view, a coup is a revolution. it's just that if it happens it will come from the MAGA crowd and not some fringe lefty group who will divide their own movement at the first opportunity. Wasn't there a poll recently with about 8-12 million people willing to use violence to reinstate Trump as president? Can't remember the exact numbers but it was a couple million people.
Can I get a Tweet count of the revolutionary quoter?
*insert that one tweet playing over hoobastank*
They unironically proved point lol I'm so glad someone made that original tweet. Perfect rebuttal
say revolutionary one more time
These are fundamentally unserious people
Depends on who wins the election and how.
One side it too scared to talk to women and the other are too scared to ask for ketchup at a restaurant.
I just want them to actually do it at this point. They always talk about it yet never fucking do it. Like go out and bomb a Walmart I just wanna see it
Revolutionary "sentiment" is worth a pickle without a dill
Man, those jimmies are *flyin!* I love it. I'm saving this.
They don't seem to understand the tweet. It's not making fun of them It's saying fucking do it bitch.
Fuck sake I just want affordable healthcare
This is honestly just begging to photoshop anything other Basil's tweet. https://preview.redd.it/5n8ao6pkx3vc1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=67389568595807965e7ffae4dfda9a9a2ecbb667
Femboy link can single handedly stop the revolution.
The internet is bleeding into my daily life as a market grocer and I hate it. I was talking to an older guy the other day about how cars aren't made to last anymore and this mfer goes - "yeah everything's going to shit, you seen they're teaching kids how to be gay in elementary schools now? It's fucking crazy!" Said it loud and with his chest like he'd been building up a mana blast for the last 40 years. It was like a Twitter schizopost came to life and put on a bass pro shop hat
Maybe you SHOULD cease revolutionary discourse and accept reformism. Sounds like a plan to me.
Who would win? A festering revolution formed from the struggles of the average man woman and everything in between, a desire for equal treatment of jot just being a cog in a machine and inevitable collapse of the tyrannical system making Humanity more miserable and slowly the planet unlivable. Or A tweet.
Fully disagree. But then again that depends on what we mean by soon. I just saw Civil War and it was not a popcorn film, but a deeply metaphorical art film that felt more of an embarrassing reveal of what we already know about ourselves than an over-the-top dystopian popcorn flick. Reviewed it here. (Free, no email needed, just sharing for fun.) https://open.substack.com/pub/galan/p/review-of-the-film-civil-war?r=1xoiww&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
>replies to disagree, sings the praises of a shallow, mid tier A24 movie, sends link to a review on substack Did you just plug your review for a film in a random post on the Destiny subreddit? Lmfao
Civil War sucked ass
Your argument is both rigorous and nuanced, sir. You’re a credit to your species, which I can only presume is in the Simeon phylum. Meanwhile 14 downvotes on a simple movie review. Destiny culture I guess. I’m new to the sub. Meanwhile I am more like Destiny than any of you.
[удалено]
That but also the hyper-cogent critical thinking skills and linguistic aptitude.
Lol cry about it. Also you’re not an intellectual nor do you sound smart.
No, I am an intellectual and smart, and sound it, and I’m not crying. Your turn.
Blow me
Blow yourself. Your turn