checkmate
(midwest.social)
Unruffled [they/them]
Flippanarchyif you are looking for an image, it was probably deleted.
Wise words, wise words
We all have the power to make someone happy. Some of us do it by entering the room, while some do it by leaving.
I always think someone edited his facial festures with a shrink tool to make it small on his large head.
I stole and reposted it.
I made that meme, and I encourage people to go forth and use it to upset conservatives
Did they just subtlety decrease his face size in this? Epic.
Even the wisest cannot tell.
I find it really fun to repost satirical kirkaganda on facebook where I subtly shrink his face each time until someone notices.
That's like 99% Helvetica Scenario, right there.
The greatest argument against the Second Amendment is that its biggest supporters aren’t lifting a single trigger finger to stop fascism.
Cosplayers. The whole lot of them.
Its biggest supporters are fascists.
Broke: The Second Amendment is bad because guns are bad.
Woke: The Second Amendment is bad because gun owners are not stopping fascism like what the framers 🤮 promised.
Bespoke: The Second Amendment is irrelevant to anarchist theory and praxis, and it should be burned to ash with the settler-colonial Constitution and all its defenders. Guns are useful tools for fighting oppression, but must not be fetishized.
This feels like a deadly misunderstanding of both the people who you're referring to (they're getting exactly the thing they want why would they try to stop fascism), and also the argument for why leftists should have been 2a the whole time.
Like, don't let the desire to be correct pull you this far into the weeds. They will never care that they're hypocrites, they just want you dead.
I know. I was being sarcastic. The common argument for 2A is that their ancestors needed guns to fight fascism.
I never seriously thought they’d do the same. I just think it’s funny that they pretended for so long. Most couldn’t load a musket.
Damn I'm dumb. My bad
why leftists should have been 2a the whole time.
I agree that leftists should support gun ownership, but I deliberately do not support the Second Amendment, or any part of the US Constitution, for the simple reason that the document is part of the law in . Even in a theoretical instance where the text of the law is not problematic (which the Second Amendment is; it is a poorly written sentence, even by the standards of the time), the fact that it is law gives the text a role in the maintenance of the various hierarchies the State imposes.
Fair. I'm also of the unironic and literal "arm the homeless" leaning. How would you have wanted gun rights worded if it were up to you to write the law?
I would simply not write the law, since I am an anarchist and I oppose laws.
As a point of agreement within a freely associated anarchist community...it would depend on the needs of the people. Like there might be communities where the members freely agree to not own guns, or communities where members freely agree to all own guns, or something else.
Personally, my preferred approach would be to share gun ownership, maintenance, training, and regular usage collectively within a small community of a couple hundred people at most. The hope would be that the community is small and safe and we all know and trust each other, so we wouldn't need to carry guns all the time around each other. But then if we needed to defend ourselves against tyrants, we would collectively be armed to the fucking teeth and trained to use these tools. But I would never want to impose this approach.
Hmmm. That feels like the worst interpretation of anarchism, like kind of how non-anarchists have always just assumed anarchism means "no rules I do what I want". You know some laws can be for enforcing a lack of hierarchy right? Hell you can run a court in an unhierarchical way.
But if you're uninterested in putting anything down on paper, I get it. You're basically describing what should happen anyway. I just personally would want that enshrined in a societally agreed upon text that can be referred to when defending my rights in ways that don't employ violence
But if you're uninterested in putting anything down on paper, I get it.
Nah, that's not the part I'm objecting to at all. I'm not against rules, written rules, or rules having serious consequences. I'm against, specifically, rules backed by State power. I am using "rules backed byi State power" as a definition for law.
You know some laws can be for enforcing a lack of hierarchy right
So under my definition, rules can be used to facilitate a lack of hierarchy...but not law by my definition, because the State inevitably imposes the dominant hierarchies.
If you are operating under a definition of "law" that does not require State power... then I suspect we disagree on definitions and not what we mean to say through them. Sorry if this is too pedantic, but I really do think that understanding each other's definitions is super important. In an academic work I would simply begin by stating a list of definitions from a minimum of primitive objects...but people would find that weird on a casual web forum 😆.
By "rules" I mean "points of agreement which are required to freely associate with a group". So then, consequences can be baked into the agreement. For example, you could put in the agreement "We agree that if any member discharges their firearm in a dangerous way, they must surrender their firearm immediately and retake the firearms safety class.", or something like that depending on community needs.
I just personally would want that enshrined in a societally agreed upon text that can be referred to when defending my rights in ways that don't employ violence
Me too. I just don't believe that it is useful to name such a text a "law". I believe it is useful to make a distinction between "a rule" and "a law".
They see themselves as future fascists; temporarily embarrassed pacifists.
They also love to wave the American flag and screech about freedom. As long as their chosen propaganda outlet is telling them everything is fine and the brown people are getting a boot on their neck they don't care. My only hope is when these dumb mother fuckers can no longer afford groceries or gas they might start to wake up. But then their propaganda will tell them it is somehow the democrat's fault and throw in the word "woke" and they won't question it.
Kirk's shooter is all but forgotten now (which took like a week btw), probably facing execution which I bet was super worth it
Kirk himself after getting Kirk'd simply got replaced in 0.1s with other rapedwinger
all it did was create a meme for larpers to laugh at
adventurism sure is effective huh
it's become sadly far too common to see a communist claim that killing fascists isn't worthwhile.
larper
moth has sympathy for you. the world has beaten you down, and you have given up. rest, comrade. even in your dejected and miserable state, you have worth.
Effective at what? Pretty effective at eliminating one odious propagandist. Sure, it's not a good alternative to revolutionary organizing, but if you're already not going to organize... might as well get a lick.
Effective at accomplishing anything that's even remotely meaningful
Like hooray, some random 0 charisma rightwing grifter got killed, as if these are in short supply due to money such positions bring. Now the mentally vulnerable shooter kid (who more likely than not got groomed into doing it online) has thrown their life away for nothing, not even for the slight joy of having their name remembered (my theory is they weren't hot enough) but rather just being a tool that got expended and forgotten after the single spectacle, and this is the fate of every such lone wolf shooter with delusions of grandeur
Not to mention how this is the best case outcome for adventurism, it can be easily be used as a justification to crack down on any dissent and make everyone's lives worse - something even anarchists of old had learned
Again, it's not an "alternative" to anything. It's an inevitable phenomenon, given the conditions. And the conditions are so bad that when a pig like Kirk gets ventilated on live stream, I'm gonna cheer. Be careful about worrying about what will or won't give fascists justification for crackdowns-- they will crack down no matter what.
There's an argument that in terms of total human suffering in the world, eating an execution for killing Kirk is a net-positive because Kirk had an abnormally large platform.
Pretty apt criticism tbh. Everyone likes to joke but for that week the shooter's motivations were the world's most fiercely contested game of hot potato. "Not ours, not ours, we condemn violence!"
I think about that now every time somebody brings up Teh Ebic Revolution and how it's coming any day now.
Shout out to CK for going on a personal record of not saying anything racist in over a year
I still cant tell if that's how big his face was or if this image has had it enlarged
It is accurate and unedited, you can trust me, no need to look it up and verify
I dunno it looks really natural to me. At least back in the Photoshop era, shrinking a face down on an angle like that would be hard to pull off (at least for me).
If You Go Left Enough You Get Your Guns Back
"Counting or not counting gang violence?"
Ya got me there.
The exception that proves the rule.
He’s got a point
I see guns as a great way for the USA to remove the “conservatives.”
"Necessary to the security of a free State..." is pretty cut and dry...
In an alternate dimension he is rocking out with Macklemore on stage fighting for Palestinian rights
fuck he kinda has a point tho
I couldn't stand Charlie Kirk, he reminded me of his buddy Ben too much. I believe he was killed by Mosad for going against Isra-Hell. They used a shaped charge in his mic to kill him, not a bullet from a 30 ot six. A gun that powerful would have taken his head clean off. Three days after his assassination, they paved over the whole area where he had his "rally".
instance checks out
Rich, coming from a mental-case who refers to themself in the third person.
you will refer to me using the pronouns I prefer, or you face a permanent ban. this isn't up for discussion, it is a FAF guideline and you can't use our instances if you don't agree.
also, making fun of neural divergent people isn't allowed either, so watch your mouth.
I believe he was killed by Mosad
Why would they bother over such a measly pawn?
They have all the Epstein they want on Mango Mussolini.
Less than 24 hours after it happened, Netanyahu was denying he did it. I don't think anyone was accusing him until that point. Remember the pagers they exploded in Gaza? Remember when that shit-heel joked about it at the last UN conference he spoke at?
Charlie Kirk doesn't deserve the dignity of a conspiracy theory. He was a shitty podcaster that spewed hateful inflammatory shit to get a reaction out of people, and he ended up getting exactly what he wanted.
Charlie Kirk was a joke and deserves to be remembered as one.
the dignity of a conspiracy theory
Title of his biography
To be fair, his death was kinda suspicious. A rifle bullet would have done much more damage. Theres another theory floating around that he was shot behind from behind with a pistol
A rifle bullet would have done much more damage.
moth has seen enough pictures of dead kids from Gaza to know that isn't always the case. sometimes all you're left with is a tiny hole on both sides of the body.
