For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
Oldie but goodie.
Transcript: Tweet by the SRSLY wrong podcast. Content: "message to my enemies: when the revolution comes you're not just gonna get the wall, buddy, you're gonna get four walls, a roof, clean clothes, good food, education, and quality health care because that's what every human being alive deserves"
The tolerance paradox doesn't justify death squads.
I'm talking that such a revolution can't be peaceful to happen because there exists powerful parties that are very interested in keeping the status quo who will NOT hesitate to use death squads to stop you from changing the status quo.
Good luck convincing companies like Black Rock, that have both huge investments in housing properties and paramilitary, to just let everyone have free housing, or Nestle (who I hope I don't even have to cover the atrocities they have and still do) to let people have free water, when the CEO has himself publicly stated he doesn't think people are entitled to water.
Also, never said death squads, but nice strawman.
Never said anything about it not being peaceful. "Getting the wall" is an executional method. There's a difference between enacting violence and executing people.
What do you think "getting the wall" means? O.o
Obviously it means you're getting part of a room /s
Like... nice deflection and if you don't want to continue the argument, that's fine, but... Is that it?
All that contrarian shit and accusing me of strawmanning and all that and it ends with an insincere, sarcastic comment?
Yeah. After thinking about it, it's not like the USA will ever have a revolution as much as a forced civil war, if it happens, and then violence would be inevitable.
So arguing about a utopia that can't peacefully happen is really redundant.
Still not getting your point. Not sure you used "redundant" correctly here.
You do know that there's more that the US in the world, right?
Yes, but considering most of the world at least has some form of nationalized healthcare already, including UK, Canada, and Australia, and the commentary is in English, it really narrows the likelihood that you and most others are talking about the USA.
I know it isn't here in Finland you're talking about at least.
Why would you think revolution is about nationalized healthcare?
Everyone can't get quality healthcare if you can't afford healthcare in the first place at all.
But why would you think that quality healthcare is the goal of a (violent) revolution?
It can be one of the goals. Pretty sure it was for Cuba actually for example. And many times it comes about from one as well, like, again, Finland
But why would you think that everyone's talking about the US here? I have national healthcare and still I'm a revolutionary.
Most of us are not revolutionaries. We're just people who have some basic logic and a straightforward solution to some of the main causes of basic human misery. These days that's not even a revolutionary thought. The majority of people in surveys of different countries agree with the original statement.
A real revolutionary takes extreme actions. They break laws. They cause "good trouble" when they can. They stop the means of production, either as a collective or even as an individual. They invent and strongly advocate for an original and novel idea that goes against the status quo.
Most people here are extremely unlikely to be true revolutionaries. And if you are, be careful when admitting it in public, because those in power by nature do not like true revolutionaries.
It would be nice to think you are. But from my years of experience, it's more unlikely you aren't.
You're most likely a follower, a messenger. And that's not a bad thing either - the world needs people to support true revolutionaries. Stability wouldn't be possible without that either.
But change only comes through true radical action.
If that's were true, no revolution would have ever been possible.
Never said the majority of people had to be revolutionaries.
But a decent chunk does either way.
Yeah, I don't agree with your definition of revolutionary.
Fair enough. Language changes. Once revolutionary as a word has been diluted in meaning, there'll be another to replace it.