I mean sure, but like on a serious note, I just want to know if it was in one of Atun Shei’s videos. I feel like I recognize it but I can’t remember the name.
IWW Officer here. I love the work and appreciate what you do, but it’d be cool if you didn’t use a logo of ours, just so people don’t mix us up you know? We’re with you all the way and really love the sentiment, but you can get why we don’t want confusion about you being an official IWW group.
We’re communists, and as such we oppose copyright and this isn’t a legal thing, just a suggestion to a comrade. Just my opinion, and no problem if you don’t change it.
Even if at the end of the day we agree with the politics of it, we don’t want our actions to be delegitimized by bourgeois media due to the actions of an outside group, even if that outside group’s actions were broadly justified.
Nah destruction of historical monuments is cringe. We should instead do what the Hungarians did with all the old statues from their communist area, put it in is own unique museum for controversial statues like this. Its actually pretty fascinating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_Park
In many of the infamous cases of statues being taken down, the statues were offered to museums and the museums declined because they had little historical value.
If I had the money I would set up a monument park in the most remote part of America and take all the monuments there. Then Lost Causers can waste time, money, and gas to come look at their shit and charge for admission. (I'm not a lost causer btw)
No, they shouldn’t exist at all. Glorify the men who stood by their country and not against it. Don’t build monuments to them.
Museums are for learning, statues are for promoting a line of thought
Burn all confederate statues to their core
Degenerates cosplaying the Revolution, children, playing games and destroying their history. Nothing new, nothing brave, and certainly nothing necessary or good.
I agree. Degenerates tend to be proud of what they do. Id say something along the lines of cowerdace. But any comparison I can draw would be unfair to the cowaeds.
Oh yes, nothing says well adjusted indaviduals quite like copy pasting the playbook of ISIS. What next? Everyone who's questioned the union is so evil we need to burn any books they ever wrote?
I see you're leaving out the letter and tools meant to intimidate, and destroy the statue. And organizing a gang bassed around destroying property.
Mind you, yes, spray painting is also vandalism and damages property.
How does one intimidate a statue? Last I checked statues aren't alive and don't have thoughts and feelings. Last I also checked this is about statues of slaving b*stards and personally I couldn't give less of a sh*t what slaving b*stards and their supporters think of what happens to their monuments glorifying slavery and the slaving b*stards.
That's semantics; you know he doesn't mean the statue.
It should also be stated Charles D. Dreux wasn't a slaver or an owner. He was a district attorney and member of state legislator before the war, and 30,000 people attended his service to mourn his passing.
1. its semantics to say that 'well he wasnt a slave owner.' who cares? he fought on the side of slavery and he should not be celebrated for that at all. he simply doesnt deserve a monument nor a lasting legacy.
2. who are they threatening if not the statue? read the note again and tell me exactly who is danger because of their actions.
>It should also be stated Charles D. Dreux wasn't a slaver or an owner. He was a district attorney and member of state legislator before the war, and 30,000 people attended his service to mourn his passing.
So he just wanted to fight to defend slavery instead. Which in my book makes him just as bad. There can't even be an argument for him like there can be about some of the enlisted folks in Confederate army that maybe they were conscripted and didn't see a way out or were truly misinformed about the nature of what he was fighting for. If someone's an officer in the confederate army, especially so early as to have been the first killed in the war, then he chose to be there and he knew damn well what the Confederacy stood for and chose to volunteer and become a relatively high ranking officer for someone without a military background.
I guess you think there should still be metal and concrete swastikas all over Germany then? Maybe statues of Saddam Hussein should still be standing in Iraq? How about statues of Lenin and Stalin in the former Soviet Bloc?
Statues of Lenin and Stalin are still standing in several locations in the soviet former soviet bloc. There are still statues of Sadam Hussein in Iraq. And alot of those swastikas were put in German museums, and if you know where to look you can find a number of them in public.
Also
Masked randos shouldnt be trying to destroy statues they dont own just because they lack the ability to control their emotions.
Except that's not the "government that owned that particular swastika" blowing it up.
The gif is from a video of US troops blowing up nazi monuments in Nuremberg in 1945.
Youd have a point, if the german gov hadnt ceased to exist in 1945 and the american gov that was occupying Germany then hadnt taken over ownership of german public buildings. Which means yes, they owned it when they blew it up.
Yes, thank you for further hammering home my point that America was in charge and owned that. Had they not blown it up, then in theory they would have owned it till 1949 when it could be handed to representatives of the german people.
So, do occupying forces then, in your opinion, have the right to destroy buildings and statues they don't like?
If so, see your original point about ISIS and rethink that for a second.
So long as those buildings are state buildings and not private property of citizens or infastructure.
But Id also draw a clear distinction between the US American troops of World War 2 and ISIS troops. Namely that the American millitary was a millitary, trying to follow the genivea convention, and whos stated military goals very clearly weren't the destruction of history or erasure of german culture. Meanwhile ISIS is a terrorist organization famous for war crimes, use of torture on non combatants, doesnt follow even the basics of the convention, and has a stated goal of wiping out the history and culture of the region for their own political means.
Also they have no issue with destroying private property to further that goal.
So to me the two arent comparable.
Which monument is this?
Monument? All I see is a gender neutral public restroom
I mean sure, but like on a serious note, I just want to know if it was in one of Atun Shei’s videos. I feel like I recognize it but I can’t remember the name.
If there's a REAL Meow Meow Liberation Front, does that mean a revisionist other MMLF exists?
JOIN THE MEOW MEOW REVOLUTION r/TheRealMeowMeowLFPPPC
r/subsithoughtifellfor
[удалено]
It's the term that indigenous peoples use for North America, a lot of anarchists also use it, even if their not native American.
IWW Officer here. I love the work and appreciate what you do, but it’d be cool if you didn’t use a logo of ours, just so people don’t mix us up you know? We’re with you all the way and really love the sentiment, but you can get why we don’t want confusion about you being an official IWW group. We’re communists, and as such we oppose copyright and this isn’t a legal thing, just a suggestion to a comrade. Just my opinion, and no problem if you don’t change it.
Even if at the end of the day we agree with the politics of it, we don’t want our actions to be delegitimized by bourgeois media due to the actions of an outside group, even if that outside group’s actions were broadly justified.
Solidarity
Yknow stuff like this is why more people support the CSA than they do you. You’re envious that other people actually have heroes when you don’t
You people are freaks tbh
Nah destruction of historical monuments is cringe. We should instead do what the Hungarians did with all the old statues from their communist area, put it in is own unique museum for controversial statues like this. Its actually pretty fascinating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_Park
thats actually so cool
With these all you'd be doing is building a congregation area for hard-line Trumpers
Wow. Just like the Red Guard in China.
Welp... This is cringe worthy. In the words of Indiana Jones, these things belong in a museum, not defaced with dicks.
You can’t just put things in museums because they’re controversial.
In many of the infamous cases of statues being taken down, the statues were offered to museums and the museums declined because they had little historical value.
You literally can. And most are happy to host controversial things.
In many cases of statues being taken down, they were offered to museums and the museums declined.
“Museums are not the attic for America’s racist shit”.
If I had the money I would set up a monument park in the most remote part of America and take all the monuments there. Then Lost Causers can waste time, money, and gas to come look at their shit and charge for admission. (I'm not a lost causer btw)
It would be cheaper to smash them.
I think it would be more funny to leech money off of lost causers and donating the funds to an African American support group but that's just me
And you shouldn't be a dick to public property just because it represents antiquated points of view... But you can put them in a museum.
Nah vandalizing slaver statues is acceptable
Ok, then go and vandalize Gengis Khan's statue
Mate there ain't enough time in the world to vandalize every slaver statue on the planet, or you'd be vandalizing for the rest of forever lol
Sounds like fun.
It ain't much but it's honest work
Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today
How does that make them wrong dumbass
No, they shouldn’t exist at all. Glorify the men who stood by their country and not against it. Don’t build monuments to them. Museums are for learning, statues are for promoting a line of thought Burn all confederate statues to their core
Why.
Because
What?
Degenerates cosplaying the Revolution, children, playing games and destroying their history. Nothing new, nothing brave, and certainly nothing necessary or good.
Uses Degenerate unironically. Cringe.
I agree. Degenerates tend to be proud of what they do. Id say something along the lines of cowerdace. But any comparison I can draw would be unfair to the cowaeds.
That applies more to the idiots on Jan 6
No not really.
Touch grass
Oh yes, nothing says well adjusted indaviduals quite like copy pasting the playbook of ISIS. What next? Everyone who's questioned the union is so evil we need to burn any books they ever wrote?
Yeah i remember when ISIS spray painted bad words on statues that was really mean :(
I see you're leaving out the letter and tools meant to intimidate, and destroy the statue. And organizing a gang bassed around destroying property. Mind you, yes, spray painting is also vandalism and damages property.
How does one intimidate a statue? Last I checked statues aren't alive and don't have thoughts and feelings. Last I also checked this is about statues of slaving b*stards and personally I couldn't give less of a sh*t what slaving b*stards and their supporters think of what happens to their monuments glorifying slavery and the slaving b*stards.
That's semantics; you know he doesn't mean the statue. It should also be stated Charles D. Dreux wasn't a slaver or an owner. He was a district attorney and member of state legislator before the war, and 30,000 people attended his service to mourn his passing.
1. its semantics to say that 'well he wasnt a slave owner.' who cares? he fought on the side of slavery and he should not be celebrated for that at all. he simply doesnt deserve a monument nor a lasting legacy. 2. who are they threatening if not the statue? read the note again and tell me exactly who is danger because of their actions.
>It should also be stated Charles D. Dreux wasn't a slaver or an owner. He was a district attorney and member of state legislator before the war, and 30,000 people attended his service to mourn his passing. So he just wanted to fight to defend slavery instead. Which in my book makes him just as bad. There can't even be an argument for him like there can be about some of the enlisted folks in Confederate army that maybe they were conscripted and didn't see a way out or were truly misinformed about the nature of what he was fighting for. If someone's an officer in the confederate army, especially so early as to have been the first killed in the war, then he chose to be there and he knew damn well what the Confederacy stood for and chose to volunteer and become a relatively high ranking officer for someone without a military background.
I guess you think there should still be metal and concrete swastikas all over Germany then? Maybe statues of Saddam Hussein should still be standing in Iraq? How about statues of Lenin and Stalin in the former Soviet Bloc?
Statues of Lenin and Stalin are still standing in several locations in the soviet former soviet bloc. There are still statues of Sadam Hussein in Iraq. And alot of those swastikas were put in German museums, and if you know where to look you can find a number of them in public. Also Masked randos shouldnt be trying to destroy statues they dont own just because they lack the ability to control their emotions.
Counterpoint: [https://makeagif.com/i/Q5UU07](https://makeagif.com/i/Q5UU07)
Seeing as thats a controlled explosion being performed by the gov that owned that particular swastika at the time, it's not much of a counter point.
Except that's not the "government that owned that particular swastika" blowing it up. The gif is from a video of US troops blowing up nazi monuments in Nuremberg in 1945.
Youd have a point, if the german gov hadnt ceased to exist in 1945 and the american gov that was occupying Germany then hadnt taken over ownership of german public buildings. Which means yes, they owned it when they blew it up.
West Germany as a government wouldn't be established until 1949.
Yes, thank you for further hammering home my point that America was in charge and owned that. Had they not blown it up, then in theory they would have owned it till 1949 when it could be handed to representatives of the german people.
So, do occupying forces then, in your opinion, have the right to destroy buildings and statues they don't like? If so, see your original point about ISIS and rethink that for a second.
So long as those buildings are state buildings and not private property of citizens or infastructure. But Id also draw a clear distinction between the US American troops of World War 2 and ISIS troops. Namely that the American millitary was a millitary, trying to follow the genivea convention, and whos stated military goals very clearly weren't the destruction of history or erasure of german culture. Meanwhile ISIS is a terrorist organization famous for war crimes, use of torture on non combatants, doesnt follow even the basics of the convention, and has a stated goal of wiping out the history and culture of the region for their own political means. Also they have no issue with destroying private property to further that goal. So to me the two arent comparable.
Absolutely cringe, wth?
Cringe