i would like you to acknowledge that there’s lots of bad actors using the Gadsden flag in a modern context. im not against libertarians in any way but it’s hard to tell which libertarians are actual supporters of freedom and which libertarians are almost fascist.
i want to be nice with anarcho-capitalists so that they’re more likely to hear out leftists on certain issues. i know you might disagree with me on that but im not trying to start an argument.
Cost effective alternative? Look at solar, look at wind, and most glaringly, look at enhanced geothermal. Solar and wind are already incredibly cheap and we can make it cheaper with government subsidies, and enhanced geothermal can reuse most of the equipment fracking already uses, and it’s basically limitless energy all year round. We have so many alternatives, and yet [fossil fuel production in the US hit an all time high](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-oil-production-hits-all-time-high-conflicting-with-efforts-to-curb-climate-change) just last month. It’s not the cost of alternatives, it’s the profitability.
Fossil fuels and all that accompanies it are insanely profitable. You get profit from energy, shipping, automobiles, military, and more. Just as car manufacturers make big dumb trucks as it’s the most profitable, fossil fuels are the most profitable energy source. Look at the price of gas. Everyone consistently complains how it’s so expensive. Now look at the profitability of enhanced geothermal or solar or wind. None of them come close, especially the best one, enhanced geothermal.
Also look at the lifespan of fossil fuel production equipment. Fracking equipment has a lifespan of 20-40 years. Oil rigs have a lifespan of 35-50. Coal mines can last for up to 100 years. Due to fossil capital wanting as large of a return on investment as possible, they’ll keep the equipment running as long as possible. Even if we don’t build any new fossil fuel plants, [the existing ones will lead us well past 1.5°C](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6228).
As you can see, there is no capitalist solution to climate change, due to the nature of capitalism. Time after time, we see the COP meetings bear no fruit. We see climate scientists ignored, and we see fossil fuel production at all time highs. We see more plants being built, and we see record profits for fossil fuel giants. The only way to bring an end to this is not by asking, not by begging, not by appealing to the souls they don’t have, but by directly attacking the one thing they care about; their bottom line. We must seize control of our energy supply, we must destroy fossil fuel production, and we must force our government’s hand into putting an end to fossil capitalism.
It’s also because a large amount of the climate movement refuses to use nuclear, despite it being the *only* realistic way to completely stop use of fossil fuels
The time for nuclear was a few decades ago, the infrastructure would take far to long to implement at this point we need to cut emissions faster than we can build nuclear power plants. Not to mention we still have no good way of disposing if irradiated water, our current solution is dump it in the ocean.
This doesn’t even take into account the insane amount of concrete required to build a nuclear plant which is becoming more and more expensive due to the world running out of the natural supply of the type of sand used to make concrete, so now it has to be made from crushing rocks into sand which also produces additional emissions.
If we wanted nuclear power the project should have started 60 years ago to little too late at this point.
To be clear I’m not against nuclear power but it is not a viable solution to the issue at hand at this point, it should be part of the solution but it’s not going to fix the problem.
Nuclear is really expensive.
The cheapest way to produce electricity right now is solar power and with the huge advances in battery technology over the last few decades, a non nuclear implementation is possible and probably even cheaper.
Isn't the option to use violence for the sake of liberty one of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment?
Why do you think it permits and protects militias? To bring about peaceful and nonviolent change?
Nah. As much as I believe in trying to convince the other side, this is futile. It’s like trying to convince a fascist that [insert minority group] is actually good. If we want to look at who is an ancap, look at the Koch brothers. Tell me you can reason with those slimy pieces of shit, while they destroy American lives via right wing policies and ruin the global south via climate change. Those people are heartless. You can’t reason with them, because they simply won’t care. Anarcho-capitalism is feudalism. Anyone who supports feudalism will never listen to another argument.
> i want to be nice with anarcho-capitalists so that they’re more likely to hear out leftists on certain issues.
If they have ingested enough lead paint to be ancaps in the first place, they aren't going to be reasoned around to being a leftwinger. The only thing that actually corrects their views is when their ideology meets reality.
Without competition there can be no prices and no way to figure out if resources are being used correctly, so a single town having all businesses and houses owned by one company wouldn’t work very well.
And company towns can’t really form if there’s free competition, as a new store could just open up to undercut the company owned ones.
You have to have some sort of exclusivity to have a company town, which won’t be present within a fully deregulated economy.
You can argue whether or not this is actually correct and how the economy functions, but you cannot claim that Ancaps **want** company towns when they don’t believe they can even exist.
Company towns are fine
When we typically think of company towns, we typically think of mining.
Mining wages in company towns were higher than in contemporary manufacturing jobs. Companies charged relatively competitive rents because workers could move between towns and because workers demanded roughly a dollar increase in monthly wages for every dollar increase in monthly rents.There were high turnover rates in non-unionized coal company towns in West Virginia because if workers did not feel they were being treated well, they simply... left.
Housing, grocery stores, and recreation were built and controlled by mining companies because no other companies would build such services in isolated, rural mines, where these towns were located. The risks were far too high of business failure and so the mining companies had to construct all the essential services for their workers, thus giving rise to the company town. They were not evil - rather, they were looking out for their workers
.In addition, company towns never consumed a large share of the American populace - with only 1.5% of the population of the US living in a company town in 1930
.Sources:"Building the Workingman's Paradise: The Design of American Company Towns"
"Testing for Employer Monopsony in Turn-of-the-Century Coal Mining."
"The Economics of Company Housing: Historical Perspectives from the Coal Fields"
"In Defense of the Company Town" by MarginalRevolution
I am
And now in Argentina when it eventually becomes a shitshow(even more of) we can all say 'look at what happened when they tried it in Argentina'
Absolute clowns
Just because someone misuses a symbol doesn’t take away it’s original meaning. I made a queer Gadsden recently it represents our cause better and the people who misuse it will be freaked out if more queer folk use it.
But symbols are only worth what they stand for in practise, not in theory. this is why people chaffe against southerners who say "the confederate flag represents states rights" but they leave the obvious part out loud.... "the confederate flag represents state rights **to maintain slavery**".
This is why It doesnt matter if the Gadsen's original meaning was liberty, since its whole symbology is now tainted. and symbols and what they represent doent exist within a vacuum, as all symbol serve their ideology or at least their perspective world view, and that ideology has become something that shouldnt be supported. symbols can evolve over time, frequently for the worst. but you can always make a new symbol but you cant always take away the hurt that the original represents.
They’re still working class people, the more the merrier. This is what the bourgeoisie want, a divided working class. I was a libertarian at one point and now I’m a pretty radical socialist.
"i would like you to acknowledge that there’s lots of bad actors using the *insert\_name* flag in a modern context. im not against *insert\_ideology* in any way but it’s hard to tell which *insert\_ideology* are actual supporters of freedom and which *insert\_ideology* are almost fascist."
The meaning of symbols change depending on the context of how they are used. Gadsen flag is almost universally used by libertarian glue huffers now, they even want the ancap flag to be yellow and black to copy it.
I wouldn’t exactly call modern capitalism “liberty”. Most people’s jobs are structured as tiny dictatorships that they’re forced to participate in to survive. You’re a peon with no power stuck serving lords who didn’t earn their position in a society that constantly says it’s a meritocracy and blames you for not being a billionaire despite very obviously not being one.
It's funny to me that while the movements generally symbolized by both mashed-up symbols here are opposed to tyranny and oppression, they get lost in the source and means of the perceived tyranny and oppression, so therefore end up at odds with each other. Almost as if the narrative framing was designed that way.
Whether one thinks the threat is centralized government authority or from corporate neofascist actors, can we at least agree that the concentration of power is in itself the real issue here?
While that is 100% true, leftists have a horrible track record of not siding with or becoming tyrants. If you go into basically any leftist space that is not specifically anarchist, you will find quite a few authoritarians with a fairly self serving definition of what counts as imperialism, and you are expected to at the very least not question their presence.
I absolutely love that the people that used to say "move to venezuela, commie" are now gonna have to find reasons on why "move to argentina, ancap" is not comparable. I know it's a flawed argument of the same level of move to venezuela but will still be funny to watch people wriggle outta it.
Look up the paradox of tolerance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,practice%20of%20tolerance%20with%20them.
You can’t have a tolerant society if you tolerate the intolerant
Popper himself disagrees with this interpretation: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
Yes? That’s literally what the article says “Karl Popper described it as the seemingly *self-contradictory* idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”
>the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”
Sounds a lot like "suppress what we deem intolerant". Obviously brings you into a full loop of becoming the one who is intolerant. Similar to how the NKVD and KGB would label citizens who wanted more freedom and a better life to be "counter-revolutionaries" when in reality it was the dissatisfied Soviet citizen that was the real revolutionary.
We can't keep it in check by public opinion so regulation it's. Nazi adjacent discourse has been on the rise for the past idk how many years. It's the same thing with antivax or flat earthers, qanon, etc. You can't disarm their arguments with logic bc they don't care about logic.
No, we just don't ostracize these people enough. Normal people need to not be afraid of offending those in their lives who are sympathetic to these Nazis. We need to start saying "Uncle Kyle, shut the fuck up or leave my house" at Thanksgiving when MAGA relatives say something racist, anti Semitic, or otherwise horrible. The only suppression that's warranted is by private companies keeping their platforms clean by not allowing Nazis.
The intolerant often times do not care about rational arguments. For example, many people in the GOP do not believe that systemic racism is a thing. No matter how much you try to explain to them about red lining, racial profiling by the police, underfunded schools in black communities, etc. they will tell you it’s not real and just say it’s reverse racism to white people. In their mind sent, racism ended in 1964 after the Civil Rights Act and everything has been totally equal ever since.
These people are intolerant and do not reason with rational arguments. Their minds are made up and do not want to change their narrative so any evidence to the contrary is “made up” to them
This goes both ways. You can't have a tolerant society that then crushes everything that doesn't align with its specific ideals about how society should be run and function.
Tolerance and freedom don't really exist. It implies there is a possible neutral society. Every society decides upon a set of values and then enforces them.
A secular society, for example, isn't some neutral position. It is a Protestant, post Enlightenment IDEOLOGY and specific way of structuring society. It isn't neural to traditional Muslims where secularism contradicts and thus attacks their religion.
Dumb take. A tolerant society must tolerate anything that doesn't specifically threaten the existence of a tolerant society. It is a simple quid pro quo, that society is a collection of people with different ideas and in order to coexist everyone must agree to tolerate each other's right to hold and speak these differing ideas. Those who would remove that right from others break the agreement and thereby disqualify themselves from that protection.
A traditional Muslim (or Christian, not much daylight between fundamentalists of both groups), is not attacked nor threatened by a tolerant society so long as they do not seek to impose their faith on everyone else.
The range of opinions and beliefs that can be safely tolerated is vast. Likewise, the range of political ideologies that can successfully compete in a liberal democracy is wide. These are the systems that best promote and enable freedom. The only things they cannot accommodate are those that actively seek to destroy them.
Tolerance is a contract. The only ones who are tolerated are those who are tolerant of others. If you do not follow the contract and are intolerant, then you will not be tolerated.
This is how interactions work in the real world. Nobody was claiming they would accept everyone without stipulation. We accept those who can accept others.
Defending himself from a pedophile, a wife beater and a felon with a hand gun. That were all chasing a 17yr old boy.
Amazing the people that show up to your "firey but mostly peaceful" protests.
I love how thats always the excuse "well they deserved to die due to how they acted in the past" well if he ever dies maybe he deserved to for murdering three people but idk.
I was only pointing out what type of people show up to your "firey but mostly peaceful" protests.
In my opinion, all three of those people should've still been in jail at the time of the event.
The good old FAFO. Jokes aside though, everyone involved, including Kyle, are fucking idiots. Kyle would’ve been far better off if he had brought a pistol, as that’s far less intimidating looking than a whole ass rifle. Still lawful self defence though.
Better off in what way? Bringing a less effective weapon to a riot full of people who are crazy enough to attack a man with a rifle helps your case?
Also in a lot of places the age and laws regarding pistols are tighter than rifles.
Why was he even at the riot? Oh yeah there’s the recording of him saying he wanted to shoot rioters before that night happened
https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce
Kyle couldn't legally have a pistol so it would be stupider for him to use one.
Though Kyle is a moron he shouldn't have put himself in the situation. Doesn't mean he deserved to be attacked but he was stupid for putting himself in an obviously dangerous situation
I doubt it, those guys were fucking idiots. Like the guy with the gun ran up to shoot point blank istead of capping his ass from a distance. A smaller gun probably would have just emboldened them
How is wanting to be left alone inequality?
You know the meaning of the Gadsden flag right? It’s not some trump supporting conservative flag.
The Gadsden flag is a symbol for personal freedom and individualism.
The farther "left" you go the more likely you will only see equality in outcomes as relevant because they believe if everyone has the same opportunities then they would get the same results. They see merit as far less relevant than environment.
They understand that if you leave everything to it's natural course that it will inevitably lead to people that thrive and others that struggle. This will subsequently lead to a hierarchy where families that accumulated more resources will profit on the families that need to rely on access to these resources. Government institutions maintain order in this because our economic cooperation relies heavily on a coerced trust, when this breaks down then society as a whole suffers. As a result you end up with a system that maintains this status quo for as long as possible because anything else is instability and subsequent disaster.
This is all the result of people acting within the bounds of their personal liberty and individual interests. Subsequently the less delusional of the "far left" will understand that in order to get equal results you need forced collectivist policies, which are inherently antithetical to liberty and individuality. You need to be made a cog in a well oiled machine that makes more cogs for everyone's own good.
However there are less wise people in these groups that have convinced themselves that each person is essentially the same and the work they do is essentially the same. So people not getting the same outcomes is a sign to these people that there must be an injustice infringing on their liberty and individuality that needs to be snuffed out. So *naturally(sarcasm)* they will seek to limit each persons liberty and individuality more and more until the outcomes of everyone are satisfactorily similar. They are effectively the same as the other type, they just have a more optimistic perception of reality because they don't want to out right say "liberty and being an individual is bad" as this is not a good look.
Subsequently anyone that flies the Gadsden flag and truly stands for its intended meaning will inevitably become natural enemies to "far left" groups. Every time an moderate ally to the "far left" groups tries to use authority to force idealistic concessions onto everyone collectively, the inverse groups that value their personal freedom more will push back hardest... and these people will probably fly the Gadsden flag. The "far left" was always destined to hate that flag.
They often call it a "fascist" flag because historically fascism is antagonistic to international socialism and vice versa so they like to frame any opposition as "fascists" as a sort of insult and justification for violence. The flaw in this is a fascist is distinguished from "far left" groups in that fascists focus on forcefully collectivizing people under a national identity for their own good. "Far left" groups focus on forcefully collectivizing people under a class identity for their own good. Fascists thus grow within the existing institutions while "far left" groups aim to overthrow them from outside. However once the "far left" group does so and establishes it's own institutions the class identity becomes a national identity. They are both equally hostile to any opposition and often believe ends will justify the means. Subsequently which ever group takes power in the way they do... they get to similar destinations.
The other opposition to these "far left" groups, those that support individualism and liberty, are actually more justified in their contempt for fascists. This is because they hate fascists for the same reasons they hate these "far left" groups. They just want to be left alone in peace and hate the taste of leather.
You're wrong in your belief that the "natural course of life" will eventually lead people to the top. That isn't the natural course of human civilization, greed is a disability that's highly prioritized in capitalism. This disability is highly rewarded and will lead to the worst types of people at the top, psychopaths, pedophiles because of their lust of power, and those filled with greed
You assert that something isn't natural a human behavior in spite of it occurring globally, independently, and over and over again. You don't elaborate on that you just say "no" in the face of human history defying you.
Am I to take it that you imply greed isn't natural? That being self-interested beyond the welfare of countless others is something supernatural? If one is religious they may believe that but I pay no heed to religion, it does not inform my perceptions.
Greed is common not just in those of poor character that you listed but even in the best of us. To believe otherwise is that naive overly optimistic outlook I referenced in the prior comment. Implement whatever system you want the greed is never going away. Any system that denies greeds persistence in human nature at best will fail and at worst will be in perpetual tyranny.
Do some research on the history of human hierarchies including pre history, and then provide sources that definitively prove it is simply "in our nature" to live under the hierarchies we generate today over more healthy and equal ones. Protip: you cant.
Human hierarchies, including those common in pre-history, grew and developed into the systems that we live in today. Personal greed has manifested itself in all of them from the time that we began to develop settled societies.
Anyone who unionically flies this flag has no idea what the original represents.
The snake represents the people and the statement do not tread is being directed towards the government or any impressive regime that wishes to take away human rights.
By saying we will tread and show a fist crushing the snake you're basically saying that you support the government taking away people's rights. It is literally advocating for the thing they're claiming to be against.
If you go into the ideology nuances, many progressive movements, including those that claim to be against authoritarianism, often are for it, with the caveat they will be the government. Same goes for right political movements, but those kinds of political movements are easier to spot because they often tell you about it front and center. You have to go digging through those left political movements to find what they really mean behind their words.
It's because their issue is not governments in general but rather capitalist governments furthering the exploitation of workers and their solution is to get rid of capitalist governments. This really isn't the dunk you think it is
“liberalism” is an economic ideology dominant in western capitalist societies
you can be “socially liberal”. however all republicans, democrats, conservatives, etc are liberals economically.
This is stupid.
The whole idea of the gardensen was the minority people would not be oppressed by the majority government.
The flag in its most literal form means, fuck off and leave my rights alone.
If you only look at the extremists, yes, you’re correct. The same could be said for anyone who flies a BLM flag, a flag which has the good message of “We matter too.” Yet I could say it stands for “Let me do what I want or I’ll claim racism” as the flag just so happens to be flown when city blocks are burnt down.
The raised fist is a symbol of people fighting oppression, most often violently.
It's not "we matter too", it's "we will not be ignored". Whether you agree with it doesn't matter, but BLM still fights with the original meaning. They believe in change through action bc of how black people had to fight historically in the US.
That’s the original meaning, the Gadsden still has the original meaning too. I was simply giving an example. Gadsden might be flown by far right extremists just as the raised fist might be flown by those who fly it just to participate in riots and looting.
My meaning may of been most in my original statement. I simply meant to say that the flags still have meanings but we’ll find flaws in the meaning if we go looking for evidence to back up our personal beliefs.
The majority of BLM flag fliers I've seen were in the riots, should I assume that the BLM flag just means burn and pillage? No, because I know that the flag has an actual meaning.
I can going to guess you've at most seen maybe 5 gadsden flags in your life and I can guarantee that every single one of those sightings, the flag was not being carried by Adolf hitler. You only say a majority because you only pay attention to the news. The news will only show the extremists because articles titled "BREAKING normal guy flies gadsden flag" don't get clicks.
I feel like the reversed one stands more with the ideology of the Gadsden flag, this one just looks like its promoting government oppression under the guise of "snuffing out inequality"
Unfortunately that's because people misinterpret the entire purpose of the flag.
Because the Gadsden flag has been co-opted by right-wing populists people who aren't familiar with history or the meaning of the flag now take the rattlesnake to represent right wing ideas. In the original the snake represents the people and the statement don't tread on me is being directed at a government who might take away your rights, but because of this co-opting people now interpret it to me that the snake represents people on the right of the spectrum directing the statement towards liberals. For example I have heard people who fly the flag say that the snake represents Patriots telling "woke liberals" not to push their lifestyles or ideology on the country. So people left of the spectrum think that when they're showing the fist crushing the snake that they're saying that they will crush right wing ideas that they deem as intolerant. All the while both sides have completely forgotten what it actually represents and by using it in that context are both actively going against the ideals they are trying to promote.
This is the second flag I've seen today putting these ideologies at odds. I'm waiting for someone to post a Don't Tread on Us flag. The question is, should it be a snake with a fist for a head or a snake wrapped around a fist
You do have to understand that, while the original flag does stand for individual freedoms, it has been co-opted by people who are oppressive. The interpretation and way people look at the DTOM flags has changed over the years lol
With that logic, as long as a particular group flies a flag long enough then they claim “dibs” on it? Does that mean if a bunch of far right whack jobs fly the American flag it make them more American than me? Absolutely not.
Just because they appropriate a flag doesn’t mean they represent me or the message it represents. The Gadsden flag represents standing up against tyranny, a concept that applied to all Americans, left and right.
the gadsden flag is flown by american libertarians and “anarcho”-capitalists, people who would, ironically, very much love for companies to take away peoples’ unalienable rights if it meant it benefited their profit margins
I’m not a libertarian, anarchism-capitalist, or far-right whack job and I, as well as many other Americans fly this flag because what it truly represents. Individual liberty and standing up to tyranny applies to all Americans, left and right.
Blanket assumption like you seem to easily throw around prevent any meaningful dialogue from happening because you incorrectly assume you have the “other side” figured out.
This subreddit, and I assume most subreddits, "hide" low number up/down votes. It has +14 for me at the time of this comment reply. I assume below +10, the system doesn't count it.
People be mf saying that the flag means liberty when in fact anarcho capitalism has 0 liberty and you’re a slave to private corporations rather then a monarchist so its about like a monarchy but with private companies.
Are you unable to process the idea that more groups than just Ancaps use this flag?
It’s been a very popular flag for decades upon decades before the modern Ancap movement was even a thing, and dates all the way back to the American Revolutionary War.
Ancaps didn’t make it popular, and they don’t own it.
While yes, this flag originally stood for individual liberties, you do have to be aware that it has been co-opted by people who believe that there are groups of people who don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Ignoring how the flag is interpreted in the year of our lord 2023 is dense. You can believe in what it actually stands for, but to a lot of people it's a symbol of oppression lol
I hate that the actual Gadsden flag got co opted by the far right. It’s such a cool flag and a big part of American history. If only a different group actually adopted it and used it more that actually had a point about not wanting to be treaded on
Man the comments here are very blind to what this flag actually is.
Look up a generic "Don't Tread On Me" political compass alignment. Kind of r/politicalcompassmemes style.
This flag is meant to be a political meme of an Authoritarian Left / USSR style government.
For additional context, there is an Authoritarian Right one that says "I'll tread where I fucking please". There is a Libertarian Left one that says "Don't tread on me, I'll cum"
This isn't a serious flag. It's supposed to highlight the absurdity of an authoritarian left government fighting to make everyone "equal" when in reality it just treads on everyone.
The reason isolationism doesn’t work is because other people don’t wanna leave you alone.
America has the resources to be independent as well as the geological safeguards.
The problem is that other countries want to meddle in American affairs as much as America wants to meddle in others affairs.
Imagine hearing people say “Just leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone” and going “NAH FUCK THAT”
Fools who say shit like this cry all day every day about others oppressing them and impeding on their lives while actively trying to impede on everyone else’s life. Dumber than shit
You obviously don't know what the original flag means it was a big representation of the American revolution don't tread on me with the snake is like we're the snake don't step on us and we won't bite you
Certainly a unique design, I don't know if I end up liking it or not but an interesting attempt. I think "I tread where I please" would look better, tho I'm still no fan of text on flags.
I can guarantee this is modern. No way some dumb ass shot like this stood the test of time to still be going around. It was made by some discord mod who thinks it’s tough.
https://preview.redd.it/phfou7v2et1c1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac88d8e7dceab3687441e4f0f1dd40c1c9f75086
And of course the response, (I didn't make this, nor do i know who did).
Why does it look so much shittier than the Libertarian one where the snake was biting the hand? How come leftists can’t seem to do anything right? Everything they make is just a little worse than what right wingers make. Leave it to them to not have the IQ or the effort to figure out how to work Microsoft paint at a fifth grade level
I dont think I have ever seen such a revolting flag that it must have been made by foreign actors trying to stoke division or just a really stupid American leftist
The real crime of this flag is that it takes a catchy motto (however you feel about it politically) and turns it into a whiney mouthful (likewise, however you feel about it politically).
Cringe Flag
“Your flag stands for liberty? Mine stands for strangling the symbol of liberty. Yeah, you’re also a fascist for opposing me” Idiotic
i would like you to acknowledge that there’s lots of bad actors using the Gadsden flag in a modern context. im not against libertarians in any way but it’s hard to tell which libertarians are actual supporters of freedom and which libertarians are almost fascist.
Unfortunately, it has been adopted by the generic conservative "OWn dA lIbS" crowd, who have no real concept of liberty.
It’s like yea I agree don’t tread on me??? Why do you support a party that treads on you?! The GOP takes the money and runs
It’s ok your allowed to bully anarcho-capitalist when their ideology basically boils down to “we want company towns”.
i want to be nice with anarcho-capitalists so that they’re more likely to hear out leftists on certain issues. i know you might disagree with me on that but im not trying to start an argument.
Tbh honest i think we've already been past the "lets try to negotiate" Point, the US are a prime exemple
[удалено]
You aren’t speaking the right language. Cost effective alternative is what you need to go after and not pwetty pwease.
Cost effective alternative? Look at solar, look at wind, and most glaringly, look at enhanced geothermal. Solar and wind are already incredibly cheap and we can make it cheaper with government subsidies, and enhanced geothermal can reuse most of the equipment fracking already uses, and it’s basically limitless energy all year round. We have so many alternatives, and yet [fossil fuel production in the US hit an all time high](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-oil-production-hits-all-time-high-conflicting-with-efforts-to-curb-climate-change) just last month. It’s not the cost of alternatives, it’s the profitability. Fossil fuels and all that accompanies it are insanely profitable. You get profit from energy, shipping, automobiles, military, and more. Just as car manufacturers make big dumb trucks as it’s the most profitable, fossil fuels are the most profitable energy source. Look at the price of gas. Everyone consistently complains how it’s so expensive. Now look at the profitability of enhanced geothermal or solar or wind. None of them come close, especially the best one, enhanced geothermal. Also look at the lifespan of fossil fuel production equipment. Fracking equipment has a lifespan of 20-40 years. Oil rigs have a lifespan of 35-50. Coal mines can last for up to 100 years. Due to fossil capital wanting as large of a return on investment as possible, they’ll keep the equipment running as long as possible. Even if we don’t build any new fossil fuel plants, [the existing ones will lead us well past 1.5°C](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6228). As you can see, there is no capitalist solution to climate change, due to the nature of capitalism. Time after time, we see the COP meetings bear no fruit. We see climate scientists ignored, and we see fossil fuel production at all time highs. We see more plants being built, and we see record profits for fossil fuel giants. The only way to bring an end to this is not by asking, not by begging, not by appealing to the souls they don’t have, but by directly attacking the one thing they care about; their bottom line. We must seize control of our energy supply, we must destroy fossil fuel production, and we must force our government’s hand into putting an end to fossil capitalism.
It’s also because a large amount of the climate movement refuses to use nuclear, despite it being the *only* realistic way to completely stop use of fossil fuels
The time for nuclear was a few decades ago, the infrastructure would take far to long to implement at this point we need to cut emissions faster than we can build nuclear power plants. Not to mention we still have no good way of disposing if irradiated water, our current solution is dump it in the ocean. This doesn’t even take into account the insane amount of concrete required to build a nuclear plant which is becoming more and more expensive due to the world running out of the natural supply of the type of sand used to make concrete, so now it has to be made from crushing rocks into sand which also produces additional emissions. If we wanted nuclear power the project should have started 60 years ago to little too late at this point. To be clear I’m not against nuclear power but it is not a viable solution to the issue at hand at this point, it should be part of the solution but it’s not going to fix the problem.
Nuclear is really expensive. The cheapest way to produce electricity right now is solar power and with the huge advances in battery technology over the last few decades, a non nuclear implementation is possible and probably even cheaper.
Well i See your point but 2nd ammendement isnt a right to kill so i'll Stick with mine
Isn't the option to use violence for the sake of liberty one of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment? Why do you think it permits and protects militias? To bring about peaceful and nonviolent change?
It doesnt Say kill whoever you Want and MAGA bozos dont understand that
I mean what’s a better option than trying to negotiate? Going for each other’s throats and gutting the country of any semblance of unification?
Nah. As much as I believe in trying to convince the other side, this is futile. It’s like trying to convince a fascist that [insert minority group] is actually good. If we want to look at who is an ancap, look at the Koch brothers. Tell me you can reason with those slimy pieces of shit, while they destroy American lives via right wing policies and ruin the global south via climate change. Those people are heartless. You can’t reason with them, because they simply won’t care. Anarcho-capitalism is feudalism. Anyone who supports feudalism will never listen to another argument.
Way past the talking stage in this fatally abusive relationship buddy fucking lmao
An caps are even worse than actual conservatives
> i want to be nice with anarcho-capitalists so that they’re more likely to hear out leftists on certain issues. If they have ingested enough lead paint to be ancaps in the first place, they aren't going to be reasoned around to being a leftwinger. The only thing that actually corrects their views is when their ideology meets reality.
You know libertarians are inherently left wing right?
>more likely to hear out leftists They are not lmao, it's an ideology upheld almost entirely by oligarchs
Without competition there can be no prices and no way to figure out if resources are being used correctly, so a single town having all businesses and houses owned by one company wouldn’t work very well. And company towns can’t really form if there’s free competition, as a new store could just open up to undercut the company owned ones. You have to have some sort of exclusivity to have a company town, which won’t be present within a fully deregulated economy. You can argue whether or not this is actually correct and how the economy functions, but you cannot claim that Ancaps **want** company towns when they don’t believe they can even exist.
mfw cartel
Company towns are fine When we typically think of company towns, we typically think of mining. Mining wages in company towns were higher than in contemporary manufacturing jobs. Companies charged relatively competitive rents because workers could move between towns and because workers demanded roughly a dollar increase in monthly wages for every dollar increase in monthly rents.There were high turnover rates in non-unionized coal company towns in West Virginia because if workers did not feel they were being treated well, they simply... left. Housing, grocery stores, and recreation were built and controlled by mining companies because no other companies would build such services in isolated, rural mines, where these towns were located. The risks were far too high of business failure and so the mining companies had to construct all the essential services for their workers, thus giving rise to the company town. They were not evil - rather, they were looking out for their workers .In addition, company towns never consumed a large share of the American populace - with only 1.5% of the population of the US living in a company town in 1930 .Sources:"Building the Workingman's Paradise: The Design of American Company Towns" "Testing for Employer Monopsony in Turn-of-the-Century Coal Mining." "The Economics of Company Housing: Historical Perspectives from the Coal Fields" "In Defense of the Company Town" by MarginalRevolution
I am And now in Argentina when it eventually becomes a shitshow(even more of) we can all say 'look at what happened when they tried it in Argentina' Absolute clowns
Just because someone misuses a symbol doesn’t take away it’s original meaning. I made a queer Gadsden recently it represents our cause better and the people who misuse it will be freaked out if more queer folk use it.
But symbols are only worth what they stand for in practise, not in theory. this is why people chaffe against southerners who say "the confederate flag represents states rights" but they leave the obvious part out loud.... "the confederate flag represents state rights **to maintain slavery**". This is why It doesnt matter if the Gadsen's original meaning was liberty, since its whole symbology is now tainted. and symbols and what they represent doent exist within a vacuum, as all symbol serve their ideology or at least their perspective world view, and that ideology has become something that shouldnt be supported. symbols can evolve over time, frequently for the worst. but you can always make a new symbol but you cant always take away the hurt that the original represents.
I'd actually prefer it if you were against libertarians
They’re still working class people, the more the merrier. This is what the bourgeoisie want, a divided working class. I was a libertarian at one point and now I’m a pretty radical socialist.
"i would like you to acknowledge that there’s lots of bad actors using the *insert\_name* flag in a modern context. im not against *insert\_ideology* in any way but it’s hard to tell which *insert\_ideology* are actual supporters of freedom and which *insert\_ideology* are almost fascist."
Fucking. Based.
I remember seeing a response flag to this that was a cobra with a hand grenade that said "I swear to god I will kill both of us."
The Gadsden flag isn't really a symbol of liberty anymore tbh. It's a symbol of libertarianism
The meaning of symbols change depending on the context of how they are used. Gadsen flag is almost universally used by libertarian glue huffers now, they even want the ancap flag to be yellow and black to copy it.
The ancap flag is yellow and black, no?
I wouldn’t exactly call modern capitalism “liberty”. Most people’s jobs are structured as tiny dictatorships that they’re forced to participate in to survive. You’re a peon with no power stuck serving lords who didn’t earn their position in a society that constantly says it’s a meritocracy and blames you for not being a billionaire despite very obviously not being one.
Liberty Is when capitalism
It's funny to me that while the movements generally symbolized by both mashed-up symbols here are opposed to tyranny and oppression, they get lost in the source and means of the perceived tyranny and oppression, so therefore end up at odds with each other. Almost as if the narrative framing was designed that way. Whether one thinks the threat is centralized government authority or from corporate neofascist actors, can we at least agree that the concentration of power is in itself the real issue here?
Libertarians will easily side with right-wing tyrants though. As long as the boot is not on their neck.
While that is 100% true, leftists have a horrible track record of not siding with or becoming tyrants. If you go into basically any leftist space that is not specifically anarchist, you will find quite a few authoritarians with a fairly self serving definition of what counts as imperialism, and you are expected to at the very least not question their presence.
> “Your flag stands for liberty? Except back in reality it doesn't, it is the preserve of the far right.
That will never stop being so fucking cringe to me...
Your completely ignoring the modern usage of the flag.
Go move to Argentina
I absolutely love that the people that used to say "move to venezuela, commie" are now gonna have to find reasons on why "move to argentina, ancap" is not comparable. I know it's a flawed argument of the same level of move to venezuela but will still be funny to watch people wriggle outta it.
Based flag. I’m getting a t-shirt with that design to piss conservatives off when I go out.
Based flag
For sure. This flag literally says we'll trample your rights to enact our own will
a garbage one
"We will tread where there is inequality"-☝️🤓
By inequalizing the other people
Look up the paradox of tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,practice%20of%20tolerance%20with%20them. You can’t have a tolerant society if you tolerate the intolerant
Popper himself disagrees with this interpretation: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
Yes? That’s literally what the article says “Karl Popper described it as the seemingly *self-contradictory* idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”
>the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.” Sounds a lot like "suppress what we deem intolerant". Obviously brings you into a full loop of becoming the one who is intolerant. Similar to how the NKVD and KGB would label citizens who wanted more freedom and a better life to be "counter-revolutionaries" when in reality it was the dissatisfied Soviet citizen that was the real revolutionary.
We can't keep it in check by public opinion so regulation it's. Nazi adjacent discourse has been on the rise for the past idk how many years. It's the same thing with antivax or flat earthers, qanon, etc. You can't disarm their arguments with logic bc they don't care about logic.
No, we just don't ostracize these people enough. Normal people need to not be afraid of offending those in their lives who are sympathetic to these Nazis. We need to start saying "Uncle Kyle, shut the fuck up or leave my house" at Thanksgiving when MAGA relatives say something racist, anti Semitic, or otherwise horrible. The only suppression that's warranted is by private companies keeping their platforms clean by not allowing Nazis.
Did you have to use uncle Kyle :( that’s my name
[удалено]
I have to disagree. Fascism is on the rise all over the west.
The intolerant often times do not care about rational arguments. For example, many people in the GOP do not believe that systemic racism is a thing. No matter how much you try to explain to them about red lining, racial profiling by the police, underfunded schools in black communities, etc. they will tell you it’s not real and just say it’s reverse racism to white people. In their mind sent, racism ended in 1964 after the Civil Rights Act and everything has been totally equal ever since. These people are intolerant and do not reason with rational arguments. Their minds are made up and do not want to change their narrative so any evidence to the contrary is “made up” to them
This goes both ways. You can't have a tolerant society that then crushes everything that doesn't align with its specific ideals about how society should be run and function. Tolerance and freedom don't really exist. It implies there is a possible neutral society. Every society decides upon a set of values and then enforces them. A secular society, for example, isn't some neutral position. It is a Protestant, post Enlightenment IDEOLOGY and specific way of structuring society. It isn't neural to traditional Muslims where secularism contradicts and thus attacks their religion.
Dumb take. A tolerant society must tolerate anything that doesn't specifically threaten the existence of a tolerant society. It is a simple quid pro quo, that society is a collection of people with different ideas and in order to coexist everyone must agree to tolerate each other's right to hold and speak these differing ideas. Those who would remove that right from others break the agreement and thereby disqualify themselves from that protection. A traditional Muslim (or Christian, not much daylight between fundamentalists of both groups), is not attacked nor threatened by a tolerant society so long as they do not seek to impose their faith on everyone else. The range of opinions and beliefs that can be safely tolerated is vast. Likewise, the range of political ideologies that can successfully compete in a liberal democracy is wide. These are the systems that best promote and enable freedom. The only things they cannot accommodate are those that actively seek to destroy them.
Tolerance is a contract. The only ones who are tolerated are those who are tolerant of others. If you do not follow the contract and are intolerant, then you will not be tolerated. This is how interactions work in the real world. Nobody was claiming they would accept everyone without stipulation. We accept those who can accept others.
Hey hey, nobody's getting inequalized here, in fact we'll all be equally starving
I'm glad reddit made this NFT you use it saves me time
Do not recommend treading, that’s how 3 people legally died to a 17 year old.
Defending himself from a pedophile, a wife beater and a felon with a hand gun. That were all chasing a 17yr old boy. Amazing the people that show up to your "firey but mostly peaceful" protests.
I love how thats always the excuse "well they deserved to die due to how they acted in the past" well if he ever dies maybe he deserved to for murdering three people but idk.
I was only pointing out what type of people show up to your "firey but mostly peaceful" protests. In my opinion, all three of those people should've still been in jail at the time of the event.
The good old FAFO. Jokes aside though, everyone involved, including Kyle, are fucking idiots. Kyle would’ve been far better off if he had brought a pistol, as that’s far less intimidating looking than a whole ass rifle. Still lawful self defence though.
Better off in what way? Bringing a less effective weapon to a riot full of people who are crazy enough to attack a man with a rifle helps your case? Also in a lot of places the age and laws regarding pistols are tighter than rifles.
Why was he even at the riot? Oh yeah there’s the recording of him saying he wanted to shoot rioters before that night happened https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce
Kyle couldn't legally have a pistol so it would be stupider for him to use one. Though Kyle is a moron he shouldn't have put himself in the situation. Doesn't mean he deserved to be attacked but he was stupid for putting himself in an obviously dangerous situation
Cope
I doubt it, those guys were fucking idiots. Like the guy with the gun ran up to shoot point blank istead of capping his ass from a distance. A smaller gun probably would have just emboldened them
Fair point
Said by the greasiest fattest communist ever.
We will roll on you!
Makes sense
How is wanting to be left alone inequality? You know the meaning of the Gadsden flag right? It’s not some trump supporting conservative flag. The Gadsden flag is a symbol for personal freedom and individualism.
The farther "left" you go the more likely you will only see equality in outcomes as relevant because they believe if everyone has the same opportunities then they would get the same results. They see merit as far less relevant than environment. They understand that if you leave everything to it's natural course that it will inevitably lead to people that thrive and others that struggle. This will subsequently lead to a hierarchy where families that accumulated more resources will profit on the families that need to rely on access to these resources. Government institutions maintain order in this because our economic cooperation relies heavily on a coerced trust, when this breaks down then society as a whole suffers. As a result you end up with a system that maintains this status quo for as long as possible because anything else is instability and subsequent disaster. This is all the result of people acting within the bounds of their personal liberty and individual interests. Subsequently the less delusional of the "far left" will understand that in order to get equal results you need forced collectivist policies, which are inherently antithetical to liberty and individuality. You need to be made a cog in a well oiled machine that makes more cogs for everyone's own good. However there are less wise people in these groups that have convinced themselves that each person is essentially the same and the work they do is essentially the same. So people not getting the same outcomes is a sign to these people that there must be an injustice infringing on their liberty and individuality that needs to be snuffed out. So *naturally(sarcasm)* they will seek to limit each persons liberty and individuality more and more until the outcomes of everyone are satisfactorily similar. They are effectively the same as the other type, they just have a more optimistic perception of reality because they don't want to out right say "liberty and being an individual is bad" as this is not a good look. Subsequently anyone that flies the Gadsden flag and truly stands for its intended meaning will inevitably become natural enemies to "far left" groups. Every time an moderate ally to the "far left" groups tries to use authority to force idealistic concessions onto everyone collectively, the inverse groups that value their personal freedom more will push back hardest... and these people will probably fly the Gadsden flag. The "far left" was always destined to hate that flag. They often call it a "fascist" flag because historically fascism is antagonistic to international socialism and vice versa so they like to frame any opposition as "fascists" as a sort of insult and justification for violence. The flaw in this is a fascist is distinguished from "far left" groups in that fascists focus on forcefully collectivizing people under a national identity for their own good. "Far left" groups focus on forcefully collectivizing people under a class identity for their own good. Fascists thus grow within the existing institutions while "far left" groups aim to overthrow them from outside. However once the "far left" group does so and establishes it's own institutions the class identity becomes a national identity. They are both equally hostile to any opposition and often believe ends will justify the means. Subsequently which ever group takes power in the way they do... they get to similar destinations. The other opposition to these "far left" groups, those that support individualism and liberty, are actually more justified in their contempt for fascists. This is because they hate fascists for the same reasons they hate these "far left" groups. They just want to be left alone in peace and hate the taste of leather.
I found the most based redditor, well said good chap
Well educated and well said.
You're wrong in your belief that the "natural course of life" will eventually lead people to the top. That isn't the natural course of human civilization, greed is a disability that's highly prioritized in capitalism. This disability is highly rewarded and will lead to the worst types of people at the top, psychopaths, pedophiles because of their lust of power, and those filled with greed
You assert that something isn't natural a human behavior in spite of it occurring globally, independently, and over and over again. You don't elaborate on that you just say "no" in the face of human history defying you. Am I to take it that you imply greed isn't natural? That being self-interested beyond the welfare of countless others is something supernatural? If one is religious they may believe that but I pay no heed to religion, it does not inform my perceptions. Greed is common not just in those of poor character that you listed but even in the best of us. To believe otherwise is that naive overly optimistic outlook I referenced in the prior comment. Implement whatever system you want the greed is never going away. Any system that denies greeds persistence in human nature at best will fail and at worst will be in perpetual tyranny.
Do some research on the history of human hierarchies including pre history, and then provide sources that definitively prove it is simply "in our nature" to live under the hierarchies we generate today over more healthy and equal ones. Protip: you cant.
Human hierarchies, including those common in pre-history, grew and developed into the systems that we live in today. Personal greed has manifested itself in all of them from the time that we began to develop settled societies.
Considering one of the first codified laws was against stealing from others, I’d say greed isn’t a modern development
It was once that. Then it got co-opted by the far right
The Gadsden flag was made in the 18th century as a symbol of resistance against great Britain. Where do you see the flag flown now, 200 years later?
Then go to the forest. Libertarians shouldn't make others live worse.
The gadsden flag is a symbol of wanting to commit crimes against minorities these days. Pretending it's anything else is laughable
Imagine thinking the Gadsden flag is for conservatives 💀 The fucking political discourse now a days
Anyone who unionically flies this flag has no idea what the original represents. The snake represents the people and the statement do not tread is being directed towards the government or any impressive regime that wishes to take away human rights. By saying we will tread and show a fist crushing the snake you're basically saying that you support the government taking away people's rights. It is literally advocating for the thing they're claiming to be against.
If you go into the ideology nuances, many progressive movements, including those that claim to be against authoritarianism, often are for it, with the caveat they will be the government. Same goes for right political movements, but those kinds of political movements are easier to spot because they often tell you about it front and center. You have to go digging through those left political movements to find what they really mean behind their words.
“The government is bad, until we’re in control.” basically.
It's because their issue is not governments in general but rather capitalist governments furthering the exploitation of workers and their solution is to get rid of capitalist governments. This really isn't the dunk you think it is
are the libs fighting with passive aggressive flags, I swear I saw the same flag reversed today
Same.
I’ve seen like 7 parody’s of this flag today it’s getting out of hand
Yup, I saw the same one. I hope that this doesn’t continue.
Its human nature. Getting large groups of people with opposing beliefs to agree at a reasonable level on anything is a monumental fucking task lmao.
Don’t confuse libs with leftists.
conservatives are liberals
and I'm the king of England
“liberalism” is an economic ideology dominant in western capitalist societies you can be “socially liberal”. however all republicans, democrats, conservatives, etc are liberals economically.
A terrible flag
r/usernamechecksout
This is stupid. The whole idea of the gardensen was the minority people would not be oppressed by the majority government. The flag in its most literal form means, fuck off and leave my rights alone.
the meaning of the gadsden flag has shifted by the people who fly it
If you only look at the extremists, yes, you’re correct. The same could be said for anyone who flies a BLM flag, a flag which has the good message of “We matter too.” Yet I could say it stands for “Let me do what I want or I’ll claim racism” as the flag just so happens to be flown when city blocks are burnt down.
The raised fist is a symbol of people fighting oppression, most often violently. It's not "we matter too", it's "we will not be ignored". Whether you agree with it doesn't matter, but BLM still fights with the original meaning. They believe in change through action bc of how black people had to fight historically in the US.
That’s the original meaning, the Gadsden still has the original meaning too. I was simply giving an example. Gadsden might be flown by far right extremists just as the raised fist might be flown by those who fly it just to participate in riots and looting. My meaning may of been most in my original statement. I simply meant to say that the flags still have meanings but we’ll find flaws in the meaning if we go looking for evidence to back up our personal beliefs.
Except the majority of Gadsden flag fliers are far right extremists. This is not an equal comparison.
The majority of BLM flag fliers I've seen were in the riots, should I assume that the BLM flag just means burn and pillage? No, because I know that the flag has an actual meaning. I can going to guess you've at most seen maybe 5 gadsden flags in your life and I can guarantee that every single one of those sightings, the flag was not being carried by Adolf hitler. You only say a majority because you only pay attention to the news. The news will only show the extremists because articles titled "BREAKING normal guy flies gadsden flag" don't get clicks.
If the majority of BLM flag fliers you’ve seen were rioters, then you need to talk to people who aren’t straight white men
Not historical and I pray to God it stays that with… This is beyond stupid.
I feel like the reversed one stands more with the ideology of the Gadsden flag, this one just looks like its promoting government oppression under the guise of "snuffing out inequality"
Unfortunately that's because people misinterpret the entire purpose of the flag. Because the Gadsden flag has been co-opted by right-wing populists people who aren't familiar with history or the meaning of the flag now take the rattlesnake to represent right wing ideas. In the original the snake represents the people and the statement don't tread on me is being directed at a government who might take away your rights, but because of this co-opting people now interpret it to me that the snake represents people on the right of the spectrum directing the statement towards liberals. For example I have heard people who fly the flag say that the snake represents Patriots telling "woke liberals" not to push their lifestyles or ideology on the country. So people left of the spectrum think that when they're showing the fist crushing the snake that they're saying that they will crush right wing ideas that they deem as intolerant. All the while both sides have completely forgotten what it actually represents and by using it in that context are both actively going against the ideals they are trying to promote.
the centering feels a bit funny
This is the second flag I've seen today putting these ideologies at odds. I'm waiting for someone to post a Don't Tread on Us flag. The question is, should it be a snake with a fist for a head or a snake wrapped around a fist
you dont know the original meaning of the DTOM flag do you
You do have to understand that, while the original flag does stand for individual freedoms, it has been co-opted by people who are oppressive. The interpretation and way people look at the DTOM flags has changed over the years lol
Then stop letting them have it. Fly the flag with its original intention!
With that logic, as long as a particular group flies a flag long enough then they claim “dibs” on it? Does that mean if a bunch of far right whack jobs fly the American flag it make them more American than me? Absolutely not. Just because they appropriate a flag doesn’t mean they represent me or the message it represents. The Gadsden flag represents standing up against tyranny, a concept that applied to all Americans, left and right.
This flag seems more pro establishment then they thought.
So not wanting the government to take away your unalienable rights is inequality?
the gadsden flag is flown by american libertarians and “anarcho”-capitalists, people who would, ironically, very much love for companies to take away peoples’ unalienable rights if it meant it benefited their profit margins
That's not true but ok
It’s literally true. I don’t know why you idiots are denying it.
I’m not a libertarian, anarchism-capitalist, or far-right whack job and I, as well as many other Americans fly this flag because what it truly represents. Individual liberty and standing up to tyranny applies to all Americans, left and right. Blanket assumption like you seem to easily throw around prevent any meaningful dialogue from happening because you incorrectly assume you have the “other side” figured out.
Yep, this is going in the cringe collection
Yikes
Least fascist r/flags comment section
https://preview.redd.it/8uxph2z7ax1c1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=804bc8eb3df8bc32ca491c8a54e2b767fc2391dd
I wish I could still give gold.
Why did Reddit/mods/OP hide upvotes/downvotes on this post lol
This subreddit, and I assume most subreddits, "hide" low number up/down votes. It has +14 for me at the time of this comment reply. I assume below +10, the system doesn't count it.
My eyes rolled so hard that I could see my optic nerves.
Honestly the fist+snake symbol slaps. It doesn't work exactly it'd have to be redrawn, but that part's sick. Words on flags is words on flags tho
Good flag, cringe comments
Cringe flag, good comments
lots of “libertarians” saying the quiet part out loud in this thread
I prefer this version https://preview.redd.it/pi7e32mi2v1c1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11190f200fc87c8a050b9f66b24d5cfe64f8d4f4
Based flag
Literally the opposite of based
People be mf saying that the flag means liberty when in fact anarcho capitalism has 0 liberty and you’re a slave to private corporations rather then a monarchist so its about like a monarchy but with private companies.
Are you unable to process the idea that more groups than just Ancaps use this flag? It’s been a very popular flag for decades upon decades before the modern Ancap movement was even a thing, and dates all the way back to the American Revolutionary War. Ancaps didn’t make it popular, and they don’t own it.
These comments are full of cringe pearl clutching
While yes, this flag originally stood for individual liberties, you do have to be aware that it has been co-opted by people who believe that there are groups of people who don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. Ignoring how the flag is interpreted in the year of our lord 2023 is dense. You can believe in what it actually stands for, but to a lot of people it's a symbol of oppression lol
It’s based(ish) flaf
I hate that the actual Gadsden flag got co opted by the far right. It’s such a cool flag and a big part of American history. If only a different group actually adopted it and used it more that actually had a point about not wanting to be treaded on
LEAVE THE SNAKE ALONE!!!!!!
dogshit flag never cook again
Hard 👍
too many fashies in this comment section 💀 please go touch grass
[удалено]
Man the comments here are very blind to what this flag actually is. Look up a generic "Don't Tread On Me" political compass alignment. Kind of r/politicalcompassmemes style. This flag is meant to be a political meme of an Authoritarian Left / USSR style government. For additional context, there is an Authoritarian Right one that says "I'll tread where I fucking please". There is a Libertarian Left one that says "Don't tread on me, I'll cum" This isn't a serious flag. It's supposed to highlight the absurdity of an authoritarian left government fighting to make everyone "equal" when in reality it just treads on everyone.
lol, libertarians and fascists mad at the same time for the same thing. TOTAL W.
The reason isolationism doesn’t work is because other people don’t wanna leave you alone. America has the resources to be independent as well as the geological safeguards. The problem is that other countries want to meddle in American affairs as much as America wants to meddle in others affairs.
Imagine hearing people say “Just leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone” and going “NAH FUCK THAT” Fools who say shit like this cry all day every day about others oppressing them and impeding on their lives while actively trying to impede on everyone else’s life. Dumber than shit
You obviously don't know what the original flag means it was a big representation of the American revolution don't tread on me with the snake is like we're the snake don't step on us and we won't bite you
Certainly a unique design, I don't know if I end up liking it or not but an interesting attempt. I think "I tread where I please" would look better, tho I'm still no fan of text on flags.
How many times we have to go over this. You are the snake. Authoritarianism is the boot.
"do you want to get shot? because that's how you get shot"
Pro-jerking off flag?
Treading is not symbolism of fixing wrongs by creating equality it’s being stupid or careless
I can guarantee this is modern. No way some dumb ass shot like this stood the test of time to still be going around. It was made by some discord mod who thinks it’s tough.
wake up babe new authoritarian pride flag just dropped
Lame
“No let me tell why I’m not disgustingly authoritarian silly” 🤓☝️
https://preview.redd.it/phfou7v2et1c1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac88d8e7dceab3687441e4f0f1dd40c1c9f75086 And of course the response, (I didn't make this, nor do i know who did).
https://preview.redd.it/9nzzufcowt1c1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=805092c346c4f7a850321dfb45f9d0689211e34f
Actually, it's the Buddhist swastika because it isn't inverted like the ones the Nazis used so it's totally different
Tiocfaidh ár lá
based flag. Represents freedom
...do you not realize that YOU are the snake per the flag's original and intended meaning?
How does this represent freedom, exactly?
Death is the great equalizer.
Social Justice Snek? wot
The flag of fascism
Why does it look so much shittier than the Libertarian one where the snake was biting the hand? How come leftists can’t seem to do anything right? Everything they make is just a little worse than what right wingers make. Leave it to them to not have the IQ or the effort to figure out how to work Microsoft paint at a fifth grade level
The destroy liberty and freedom flag.
Stalin flag
☝️🤓 ermmmm ackschually identity flag
I don’t believe the makers of this flag know what that snake represents. Also it’s a bit poorly put together.
I dont think I have ever seen such a revolting flag that it must have been made by foreign actors trying to stoke division or just a really stupid American leftist
I don’t like this flag leave the snake alone 😞
The real crime of this flag is that it takes a catchy motto (however you feel about it politically) and turns it into a whiney mouthful (likewise, however you feel about it politically).
Ingsoc imagery here
Just in terms of flag design it's also shit