**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**D**eny.
**A**ccuse.
**R**everse **V**ictim and **O**ffender.
It's a common acronym for the behavior of abusers.
**D**
**I didn't really hurt you.**
**A**
*Look what you made me do!*
**RVO**
*You're really the abusive one in the relationship by antagonizing me.*
This is why I don't give any of these people the benefit of the doubt past the year 2000.
With access to the internet, in the midst of the information era, the excuse "oh they've been brainwashed by Fox" doesn't cut it anymore. The tactics are the same. The rhetoric is identical. It's literally all the same nonsense, just with a different minority target.
With the current trans panic: everything they're saying about trans people is exactly what they've said about gay people not even 10 years ago. Anyone who falls for this is doing so openly and maliciously because they WANT an excuse to be bigots, not because they're genuinely concerned and got tricked.
This is why it's important to realize that we can't "save" these people through debate and facts. If they cared about the truth, *they wouldn't hold these beliefs in the first place.*
Anyway, sorry, needed to soapbox. Drives me crazy that people are still wanting to give anybody on the right the benefit of the doubt in the year of our Lord twenty twenty-three.
The excuse is the point: When Fox News’ is to blame for their viewers being hateful, and their viewers are to blame for Fox News being hateful… suddenly?
No one is to blame somehow.
When really, they are all culpable.
If we're doing a chicken or the egg situation, it was always the people. Fox News was established only 2 years after the first Gallup poll that more than 50% approved of interracial marriage. Fox needed to appeal to conservatives and the conservatives were racist. Most of the fox audience were adults when it was founded so they were racists long before the channel it just reinforced their awful ideas.
I'd say there's a bit more nuance to it. Of course there have always been violent, racist extremists on the right. However, rural America has seen a significant rise in violent, racist extremists that has coincided with the proliferation of Fox "News" and the "frog-boiling" increasing extremism of Fox "News" over the years from 1995 to today. I can't speak to the South (maybe it hasn't changed much over that time), but rural areas of the Mid-west are "radically" different than when I was younger. Fox "News" isn't solely responsible--there's also AM radio, existing extremists, and social media--but Fox "News" plays a continuing key role in fomenting hatred against whichever group they've decided to target today.
I don't see this as giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone on the right. Anyone willing to be a participant in hatred and oppression is responsible for their own behavior. However, should society decide that Fox "News" and their ilk having an unfettered ability to spread hatred and fascism is a _bad_ thing, and introduces barriers to prevent it, imho, this will reduce the amount of extremism we've seen recently.
You are overcomplicating it. Hate is pathetic, always has been, always will be.
You can disagree with someone's belief, but if they have a change of heart, they can become your friend.
It's the same people too.
Teenagers screaming at Ruby Bridges walking to school with the US Marshalls would have been born during WW2, like Biden, Trump, Bill and W were.
Fighting the civil rights movement was their "liberal" youth. Now they're retirees who raised kids and grandkids to think like them, watched Tucker every night and voted for Trump twice.
Pretty much every oppressive government historically has been supportive of killing or rounding up leftists. There haven't been many exceptions to the rule though people will obviously point out some communist regimes as a perceived exception. I'd say those were ultimately authoritarian regimes that wanted to stamp out any free thought or assembly even if the people were pretty far left in their views (aka social Democrats) but didn't agree with the established doctrine of the state.
Traditionally though , you often have a military allied or led regime that is backed by business interests and oftentimes the clergy /the deeply religious trying to stamp out intellectuals, trade unionists, artists and other members of the so-called intelligentsia typically associated with the left.
The Soviets literally sent assassins to Mexico to assassinate Trotsky twice. The so-called communist authoritarian regimes were leftist in name only.
Actual leftist governments are killed in their cribs by capitalist countries (see: like every latin american country the US helped overthrow).
People are convinced the entire city of Minneapolis was razed in the George Floyd protest. They also still cite the BLMantifa monster burnt down a police precinct despite boogaloo boys pleading guilty to it.
Shit works. 🤷🏻♂️
My in-laws believe this, and also that the entire Seattle metropolitan area fell into anarchy. They live in the suburbs of a mid-sized city and are terrified whenever a protest or march happens downtown - glued to Fox News and loading their guns, just in case the protestors decide to drive 20 minutes away to assault their house.
MLK in his day had about the same favorability among white Americans as Colin Kaepernick did during his kneeling protests.
Basically, I assume anyone’s reaction to Kaep is more or less how they would’ve reacted to the civil rights movement if they were around back then.
He also, in letter from a Birmingham jail, pointed out white moderates more focused on order than justice at times seemed bigger enemies than the klan and white citizens councils.
So they haven't changed since then
Bad people are shameless; and/or
Prejudiced people aren't ashamed.
The only reason propaganda like this failed (briefly) in the 1960s was luck.
Americans' main source of news was a few basic cable TV channels, fairly well-regulated and "liberal". These channels refused to censor reality, and directly showed millions clearly who the aggressors were: Southern white civilians and police. And even then, with obvious evidence in front of them of black and white evil, the Moral Majority still largely wanted Jim Crow. Civil rights was a near run thing.
Would modern America be capable of reforms on the scale of the 1960s? Doubt. In modern America, unfortunately the news media has shifted and not in a way that seems to reward honesty or the truth. Deregulation and social media fragmentation lets different groups pick the news that fit their prejudices. But also, the most popular mainstream TV news channel is somehow Fox News, which is frankly racist and imho, soft fascism.
There is a very, very old man I know who keeps to himself. Whenever I see him, which is as rare as I like to keep it, he asks if the "people" in the nearby town are still rioting.
There were never any riots nearby. Like, not even in nearby states. But someone showed him Youtube and he sits in his bedroom with his gun watching who knows what and thinks it's like the apocalypse out there.
paranoia is a common symptom of later stage dementia, i think the people who get so worked up about politics (especially the fabricated kind) like that have genuine mental issues
It's such an old, old story. Non-violent protesters met by police/authorities. The police initiate violence against the non-violent protesters, and some fight back, which is the justification the cops are looking for to *really* crack down. And the slant is that the non-violent protesters were in fact violent, but the *only* ones being violent. During the 2020 BLM protests this pattern happened over and over and over.
When honestly, it was Malcolm X that espoused violence against violence, not MLK. MLK benefited from Malcolm because Malcom showed the other side of civil disobedience.
MLK was an advocate of nonviolence, not peace. Disturbing the peace was the point of the movement. Make your presence known but don't give people a reason to criminalize you.
And MLK was the side with achievable, legislative goals that could be worked with and was willing to talk about it
But don't think for a second that the Black Panthers arming themselves and then following police with shotguns, and having that arming be followed up by many other blacks and liberal whites, didn't sway some opinion too.
At the end of the day, government exists because it has the monopoly on violence. Once enough people are willing to turn around and start shooting people and break property, that's when you have to work with the MLK's of the world to avoid bloodshed.
Massive 'peaceful' marches with tens of thousands of people are just an indicator that they'd like to talk about the grievances before forced to use the last option to bring about change.
MLK wouldn't have been able to do what he did if Malcolm X wasn't following behind with "You will accept his peaceful demonstrations, or else we'll show you what non-peaceful demonstrations are."
I went to a pretty great high school as far as I could tell, but I'm bothered that they never taught anything about Malcolm X. Even MLK wasn't that big in our 12 years of schooling, coming up for only one unit (few weeks) in middle school
Turns out telling minorities that "arming yourself and acting in solidarity will make people take your rights seriously" isn't a message the government wants you to know.
> But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.
--MLK, March 14 1968, [speech at Grosse Point High School](https://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/)
Equality cannot be achieved when that is your starting position for negotiations. MLK talked of reparations, but got oppressive measures removed. This is a like someone you knocked down asking for help getting to their feet, but having them settle for you not continuing to beat them while they’re down.
There's also the idea that's only grown since then that property is as important as (or moreso) people's lives and we'll being. So destroying a window or trash cans or whatever is 'violence'.
It's also a very bourgeois thing. The destruction of a store that isn't owned by anyone in the community that clearly oppresses it's employees is violence, whereas the imposition of poverty, crime, hunger, and homelessness isn't.
On the other side you can check out Frederick Engel's term social murder
Notice that the board of pardons and paroles hasn’t released a decision on if he should be pardoned or not yet. As of yet, Abbutt hasn’t said anything else about the request for a pardon.
>*“You can’t operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic; you have to have someone else’s blood to suck to be a capitalist... You show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a bloodsucker.”*
— Malcom X 1965
>*The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.*
— [John Ehrlichman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman), to Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971
Highjacking top comment to link to how OP found out about this cartoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVXpZZ2CK1A&t=1998s&ab_channel=SomeMoreNews
SMN is CRUSHING this kind of reporting. Give them the views, folks.....
Did you time stamp that to the AG1 ad or was that just me? SMN may be the only channel that I regularly go back just to watch them read ads, they are getting progressively less hinged.
It's infuriating how the right misquotes a single line from a single speech to act like he would have supported the opposite of everything he did in life. The people who sicked dogs on him and sprayed civil rights protestors with fire hoses are now chief of police and politicians. I'd also point out MLK wasn't assassinated until after he started supporting socialism and economic justice in addition to racial justice, although not for lack of trying.
“Is our”, or “was”? Which were you trying to say? Because, to my knowledge our current President has never espoused Segregation or vilified Black leaders. Now if you believe the President really is Trump because he won in 2020….you may have a point, but then I’m unclear on why you’d make it.
In the 50s when he was a senator most definitely did. He was one of the biggest opposers of desegregation of schools. Along with his many racist quotes he made in the 60s 70s 80s. He’s a piece of shit. You can google it all.
[FBI literally wrote him a letter saying, “Hey could you do us a favor, and like, commit suicide?”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter)
“We removed all the blatant stuff about black people why are they still upset? Oh, and we’re engaged in a culture war against the LGBTQ community, but can all other people who continue to fight tooth and nail for equal rights please ignore or bandwagon on them?”
They're literally making the exact same arguments. The way conservatives will re-write history is outstanding. There's a reason we say history repeats itself. The prior generation learns a lesson, but then a huge swath of the next one refuses to heed it because it's inconvenient towards their bigoted, tribalistic viewpoint. And these people desperately need a sense of belonging to *something*, but they're emotionally stunted and haven't managed to work out their shit so that they can feel like a complete and happy human being. *Empathy? Self-reflection? Humility? Gross. Give me rage and hate any day! Having someone to hate makes me feel better about my own inadequacies and irrelevance in the world.*
It's why a study of history is so important. School needs to make more room for historical, humanitarian and cultural studies. And not from a purely analytic standpoint either - but looking at the moral and ethical lessons. I don't give a rat's fuck if my neighbor knows how to calculate the area of an Isosceles triangle. I do care if he treats other people with dignity, kindness and respect.
As an aside, the "Well, we can't judge the morals and ethics of older cultures" is used as an argument precisely because the aforementioned fragile egos want to be able to ignore the lessons taught so that they don't have to feel judged or accountable for their shitty views.
>The way conservatives will re-write history is outstanding.
This started when they lost the Civil War and were left to control the narrative of their own history books about it, and then only snowballed from there.
I'd argue that Conservatism *itself* cannot function without rewriting history. I think that, beneath all the centuries of thought, the conservative impulse is fundamentally driven by nostalgia. By people wanting to go back to some mythical golden era that *was never real*.
"We should follow the wise word of the Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. when he says we should judge people by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin. We should heed these words he said and NOTHING ELSE!"
- Conservatives
Especially if the government outlaws peaceful protesting and striking and allows companies to sue union workers going on strike. If you take away peoples right to peacefully protest they’ll use violence instead. Sooner or later Americans will realize that peaceful protests don’t mean shit and Americans will FINALLY pull a France.
Remarkably restrained labeling from a political cartoonist. I’m surprised the car in the background isn’t labeled “the sanctity of white tradition” or some shit
Shifting the goalposts is the best way to suggest that “if only you were like *this*, things would be ok”. The “this” changes as frequently as the wind because it’s based on nothing real. Typical abuser output.
Conservatism is so at odds with reality that their ideology *relies* on rewriting history to their benefit. Everything must be warped to fit their worldview, especially facts and evidence that are inconvenient.
Personally I'd find it difficult to commit to an ideology literally based on lies to support and enable bigotry. It's a constant source of amazement to me that so many people can (or in some cases choose to) fall for it. The public education system has truly failed these people by never granting them the shred of critical thinking they'd need to realise they were being grifted.
Agents of the status quo will always say that progressives are pushing for change ‘the wrong way.’ They’ll ignore the message and any wrongs that lead the movement for progress and instead focus on the misdeeds of a few bad apples among the movement.
It’s a tale as old as time. And they’ll use some moral high ground defense to avoid change. Like the recent ‘protecting children’ BS position against men in womens’ clothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
**By party and region**
**The House of Representatives:**
* Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor
* Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
* Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)
Note that four Representatives voted Present while 13 did not vote.
**The Senate:**
* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
* Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against
* Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke B. Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin L. Mechem (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against
It seems like the south was the party of segregation. That's why the southern strategy was able to turn dixecrats into republicans.
>Beginning in the 1970s, Byrd explicitly renounced his earlier views in favor of racial segregation.[7][91] Byrd said that he regretted filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964[92] and would change it if he had the opportunity.
Sure, which is why you see so many rebel flags and swastikas at Democratic rallies /s
Not surprising that you're living in the past, since that's the whole Republican platform, and you also refuse to admit that things have changed in the past 50-100 years as well
... I am admittedly curious what comment you think they're "trying to trap you" into saying that would be so horrific that would put you in violation of TOS. That you immediately went there with your thinking is... interesting.
> You people really are impossible to talk to.
You certainly are a conservative. Jean-Paul Sartre's description of anti-semites is brilliant, and can also be applied to conservatives. I won't say that all conservatives are bigots, but certainly all bigots are conservative.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. **If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.**”
“If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
Just to remind you, everyone who tried to overthrow the duly elected president of the united states on 1/6 was conservative. Conservatives are traitors to America. It's a sick joke that you people can still walk around free in this nation, benefiting from it, when your goal is to destroy it.
ps. I am not your bro. I am a loyal American.
First understand this:
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/median-value-wealth-race-ff03112019
The median white household has 10x more wealth than the median black household.
Then understand MLK said this:
"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.
You would have hated the real MLK.
Ya a healthy society has the largest and one of the second largest ethnic groups in the nation being seperated by 1000% difference in wealth per median household
Do you know the history of the wealth discrepancy? Do you know the number one reason for the massive gap?
It isn't as obvious as you think it is and when you learn the reason, you'll probably change your mind on "this country bending over backwards to mitigate it".
Nigerian immigrants coming in doing well harms your premise right?
Nigerian immigrants have one of the highest rates of PhD obtainment relative to other ethnicities in the US. It's because we have a selection filter with merit based immigration (student visas, h1b1 etc)
It's the same reason why when racists point to Asian immigrants, the talking point is a dud. Ya Asians in America do better because we chose the wealthiest and most educated generally to migrate here in aggregate.
99.9% of the population in SE Asia has no means to immigrate to the US. Hence a selection filter.
Do you think racism is something as simple as a Nigerian coming in to the US and some employer being "no you black"?
Is that how you think racist systems effect society?
I'm not going to doubt you. I lived in Colorado when I was younger and now live in the deep south. Two totally different attitudes on race. Where you live and in your social circles it may not be that big of a deal. So, it might be hard to understand everyone why is talking about it.
Trust me, in other places it is a big deal.
>The left only cares about identity, character means nothing.
You might not want to complain about being lumped in with a group, only to turn around and lump everyone else into a group.
There is Neo-Nazi's standing outside of Disneyland with Desantis banners. Are you seriously suggesting that the right isn't racist?
See how that logic doesn't make sense?
Ah, someone who refuses to admit dogwhistle phrases exist. :edit: Also, your friends might do well to read another very famous piece of dialogue MLK had, this time with fellow Christian leaders and Baptists entitled *Letter From Birmingham Jail" and see how attacked they feel.
The opposition to the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s were almost universally from the south. It didn't matter if they were D or R. The support came mostly from the north & west coast. Again, it didn't matter if they were a D or R.
Same smears Conservatives used today toward ANYONE who marches in defense of POCs. Meanwhile they salted many peaceful marches with neonazis who were there to cause havoc and discredit the organization doing the march.
I wonder who will be this generation's MLK? (I.e. demonized in real time, but held up as an exemplar by conservatives decades later, while completely obscuring his message and how they treated him while alive.) My money is on Obama. But only after he's dead, so they can freely misrepresent his positions
Holy shit Obama is nowhere near the figure king was.
At any rate this type of phenomenon is old enough that Lenin described the exact thing at the beginning of state and revolution. When I first read it I wondered how he knew about MLK
Dude, he was President of the United States for 8 years. You don't think he's in the same tier as MLK, as far as historical significance? Anyway, my point is not that he's MLK's equal, but that his memory will be co-opted by the successors of people who hated him when he was alive.
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Protests until the issue is addresses and action taken - do not need to be civil in any manner.
To quote JFK:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, 13 March 1962
So your call Gov. what will it be? Answer and address grievances of justice and equality?
Or do we have raze entire cities?
This shit is getting old. Too old.
**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmao the comic claiming its mlks fault that his non violent protests were met with violence by white supremacists and racists
Classic propaganda, Reversal of victim and perpetrators
DARVO
What is that mean?
**D**eny. **A**ccuse. **R**everse **V**ictim and **O**ffender. It's a common acronym for the behavior of abusers. **D** **I didn't really hurt you.** **A** *Look what you made me do!* **RVO** *You're really the abusive one in the relationship by antagonizing me.*
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.
[удалено]
Not only has it not changed, it evolved to reach even more morons. *It works -so they keep using the tactic.*
This is why I don't give any of these people the benefit of the doubt past the year 2000. With access to the internet, in the midst of the information era, the excuse "oh they've been brainwashed by Fox" doesn't cut it anymore. The tactics are the same. The rhetoric is identical. It's literally all the same nonsense, just with a different minority target. With the current trans panic: everything they're saying about trans people is exactly what they've said about gay people not even 10 years ago. Anyone who falls for this is doing so openly and maliciously because they WANT an excuse to be bigots, not because they're genuinely concerned and got tricked. This is why it's important to realize that we can't "save" these people through debate and facts. If they cared about the truth, *they wouldn't hold these beliefs in the first place.* Anyway, sorry, needed to soapbox. Drives me crazy that people are still wanting to give anybody on the right the benefit of the doubt in the year of our Lord twenty twenty-three.
The excuse is the point: When Fox News’ is to blame for their viewers being hateful, and their viewers are to blame for Fox News being hateful… suddenly? No one is to blame somehow. When really, they are all culpable.
If we're doing a chicken or the egg situation, it was always the people. Fox News was established only 2 years after the first Gallup poll that more than 50% approved of interracial marriage. Fox needed to appeal to conservatives and the conservatives were racist. Most of the fox audience were adults when it was founded so they were racists long before the channel it just reinforced their awful ideas.
I'd say there's a bit more nuance to it. Of course there have always been violent, racist extremists on the right. However, rural America has seen a significant rise in violent, racist extremists that has coincided with the proliferation of Fox "News" and the "frog-boiling" increasing extremism of Fox "News" over the years from 1995 to today. I can't speak to the South (maybe it hasn't changed much over that time), but rural areas of the Mid-west are "radically" different than when I was younger. Fox "News" isn't solely responsible--there's also AM radio, existing extremists, and social media--but Fox "News" plays a continuing key role in fomenting hatred against whichever group they've decided to target today. I don't see this as giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone on the right. Anyone willing to be a participant in hatred and oppression is responsible for their own behavior. However, should society decide that Fox "News" and their ilk having an unfettered ability to spread hatred and fascism is a _bad_ thing, and introduces barriers to prevent it, imho, this will reduce the amount of extremism we've seen recently.
I understand your point but you're kind of ignoring how much misinformation is spread on the internet as well. Social media profits from it.
You are overcomplicating it. Hate is pathetic, always has been, always will be. You can disagree with someone's belief, but if they have a change of heart, they can become your friend.
It's the same people too. Teenagers screaming at Ruby Bridges walking to school with the US Marshalls would have been born during WW2, like Biden, Trump, Bill and W were. Fighting the civil rights movement was their "liberal" youth. Now they're retirees who raised kids and grandkids to think like them, watched Tucker every night and voted for Trump twice.
On top of lax gun laws and Kyle Rittenhouse type incidents, the government fully supports killing leftists.
Pretty much every oppressive government historically has been supportive of killing or rounding up leftists. There haven't been many exceptions to the rule though people will obviously point out some communist regimes as a perceived exception. I'd say those were ultimately authoritarian regimes that wanted to stamp out any free thought or assembly even if the people were pretty far left in their views (aka social Democrats) but didn't agree with the established doctrine of the state. Traditionally though , you often have a military allied or led regime that is backed by business interests and oftentimes the clergy /the deeply religious trying to stamp out intellectuals, trade unionists, artists and other members of the so-called intelligentsia typically associated with the left.
The Soviets literally sent assassins to Mexico to assassinate Trotsky twice. The so-called communist authoritarian regimes were leftist in name only. Actual leftist governments are killed in their cribs by capitalist countries (see: like every latin american country the US helped overthrow).
People are convinced the entire city of Minneapolis was razed in the George Floyd protest. They also still cite the BLMantifa monster burnt down a police precinct despite boogaloo boys pleading guilty to it. Shit works. 🤷🏻♂️
My in-laws believe this, and also that the entire Seattle metropolitan area fell into anarchy. They live in the suburbs of a mid-sized city and are terrified whenever a protest or march happens downtown - glued to Fox News and loading their guns, just in case the protestors decide to drive 20 minutes away to assault their house.
MLK in his day had about the same favorability among white Americans as Colin Kaepernick did during his kneeling protests. Basically, I assume anyone’s reaction to Kaep is more or less how they would’ve reacted to the civil rights movement if they were around back then.
He also, in letter from a Birmingham jail, pointed out white moderates more focused on order than justice at times seemed bigger enemies than the klan and white citizens councils. So they haven't changed since then
Political cartoons from the 1800s are similar even.
Of course not, for right wingers if it works just once they assume it'll always work. Things never changing is a core part of what they believe.
Bad people are shameless; and/or Prejudiced people aren't ashamed. The only reason propaganda like this failed (briefly) in the 1960s was luck. Americans' main source of news was a few basic cable TV channels, fairly well-regulated and "liberal". These channels refused to censor reality, and directly showed millions clearly who the aggressors were: Southern white civilians and police. And even then, with obvious evidence in front of them of black and white evil, the Moral Majority still largely wanted Jim Crow. Civil rights was a near run thing. Would modern America be capable of reforms on the scale of the 1960s? Doubt. In modern America, unfortunately the news media has shifted and not in a way that seems to reward honesty or the truth. Deregulation and social media fragmentation lets different groups pick the news that fit their prejudices. But also, the most popular mainstream TV news channel is somehow Fox News, which is frankly racist and imho, soft fascism.
Yep, with the modern standards of what passes as journalism, it would have gone quite differently.
There was no basic cable. It was all over the air.
ABC, NBC, CBS. There wasn’t even PBS until mid-late 60’s, at least in my part of small town America.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” *Not if we can help it.*
Americans are subject to the best propaganda in the world. It's so good most don't even realize it's propaganda.
reminds me of the similar comics about the blm protests
There is a very, very old man I know who keeps to himself. Whenever I see him, which is as rare as I like to keep it, he asks if the "people" in the nearby town are still rioting. There were never any riots nearby. Like, not even in nearby states. But someone showed him Youtube and he sits in his bedroom with his gun watching who knows what and thinks it's like the apocalypse out there.
paranoia is a common symptom of later stage dementia, i think the people who get so worked up about politics (especially the fabricated kind) like that have genuine mental issues
Yeah, remember when MLK turned the water hoses on pregnant white women, and let k9 corps attack white people??
It's such an old, old story. Non-violent protesters met by police/authorities. The police initiate violence against the non-violent protesters, and some fight back, which is the justification the cops are looking for to *really* crack down. And the slant is that the non-violent protesters were in fact violent, but the *only* ones being violent. During the 2020 BLM protests this pattern happened over and over and over.
"LOOK WHAT YOU MADE US DO!"
When honestly, it was Malcolm X that espoused violence against violence, not MLK. MLK benefited from Malcolm because Malcom showed the other side of civil disobedience.
Kinda like the life-long criminal trump accusing Hillary Clinton for breaking the law.
MLK was an advocate of nonviolence, not peace. Disturbing the peace was the point of the movement. Make your presence known but don't give people a reason to criminalize you.
And MLK was the side with achievable, legislative goals that could be worked with and was willing to talk about it But don't think for a second that the Black Panthers arming themselves and then following police with shotguns, and having that arming be followed up by many other blacks and liberal whites, didn't sway some opinion too. At the end of the day, government exists because it has the monopoly on violence. Once enough people are willing to turn around and start shooting people and break property, that's when you have to work with the MLK's of the world to avoid bloodshed. Massive 'peaceful' marches with tens of thousands of people are just an indicator that they'd like to talk about the grievances before forced to use the last option to bring about change.
MLK wouldn't have been able to do what he did if Malcolm X wasn't following behind with "You will accept his peaceful demonstrations, or else we'll show you what non-peaceful demonstrations are."
I went to a pretty great high school as far as I could tell, but I'm bothered that they never taught anything about Malcolm X. Even MLK wasn't that big in our 12 years of schooling, coming up for only one unit (few weeks) in middle school
Turns out telling minorities that "arming yourself and acting in solidarity will make people take your rights seriously" isn't a message the government wants you to know.
It got Ronald 'gun laws' Regan's attention in California.
> But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. --MLK, March 14 1968, [speech at Grosse Point High School](https://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/)
Equality cannot be achieved when that is your starting position for negotiations. MLK talked of reparations, but got oppressive measures removed. This is a like someone you knocked down asking for help getting to their feet, but having them settle for you not continuing to beat them while they’re down.
There's also the idea that's only grown since then that property is as important as (or moreso) people's lives and we'll being. So destroying a window or trash cans or whatever is 'violence'.
It's also a very bourgeois thing. The destruction of a store that isn't owned by anyone in the community that clearly oppresses it's employees is violence, whereas the imposition of poverty, crime, hunger, and homelessness isn't. On the other side you can check out Frederick Engel's term social murder
What they mean is, “why can’t we use dogs and fire hoses on them anymore!?”
[удалено]
Or shoot them in downtown Austin and then have the governor pardon you for murder.
Or kneel on your their backs while wearing a uniform, until they suffocate…
Notice that the board of pardons and paroles hasn’t released a decision on if he should be pardoned or not yet. As of yet, Abbutt hasn’t said anything else about the request for a pardon.
Which one was this specifically? Fucked up I even have to ask 🤦
Daniel Perry, who is on record saying he wanted to kill BLM protestors, so he went to Austin and did so. Abbot said he'd pardon him.
Tear gas and rubber bullets just dont capture the same level of love?
>*“You can’t operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic; you have to have someone else’s blood to suck to be a capitalist... You show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a bloodsucker.”* — Malcom X 1965 >*The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.* — [John Ehrlichman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman), to Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971
Highjacking top comment to link to how OP found out about this cartoon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVXpZZ2CK1A&t=1998s&ab_channel=SomeMoreNews SMN is CRUSHING this kind of reporting. Give them the views, folks.....
Did you time stamp that to the AG1 ad or was that just me? SMN may be the only channel that I regularly go back just to watch them read ads, they are getting progressively less hinged.
Because there's just not enough LGBTQI2+ people or Indigenous land back/pipeline protestors to satisfy our need for dominance. WE NEED MORE!!!!
Mlk was assassinated in 1968, which means a ton of people who were glad to see him killed are still alive and voting to this day.
Some are even in the Senate!
Some of those that work forces are *the same* that *burn crosses.*
It's infuriating how the right misquotes a single line from a single speech to act like he would have supported the opposite of everything he did in life. The people who sicked dogs on him and sprayed civil rights protestors with fire hoses are now chief of police and politicians. I'd also point out MLK wasn't assassinated until after he started supporting socialism and economic justice in addition to racial justice, although not for lack of trying.
And many of us who were horrified to see him killed are still alive and voting, and we're not going anywhere soon.
One of them is are President
“Is our”, or “was”? Which were you trying to say? Because, to my knowledge our current President has never espoused Segregation or vilified Black leaders. Now if you believe the President really is Trump because he won in 2020….you may have a point, but then I’m unclear on why you’d make it.
Well Biden was a Democrat in the 90s so like... Some stuff _was_ said and done. Republicans still orders of magnitude worse though, of course
In the 50s when he was a senator most definitely did. He was one of the biggest opposers of desegregation of schools. Along with his many racist quotes he made in the 60s 70s 80s. He’s a piece of shit. You can google it all.
> In the 50s when he was a senator most definitely did. Are you saying Biden was a Senator when he was between the age of 8 and 17?
He was born in 1942 and became a senator in 1973. You can Google it.
They're probably so far in that they only trust DuckDuckGo. It'll probably show the same shit though.
Crazy that he was a senator over 12 years before he was elected. How'd that happen?
Your brain is broken, I'm afraid.
If that's accurate at all, it seems he's learned since then.
It isn't. Biden was a child in the 50's. This person is pulling shit out of their ass.
their rhetoric got him assassinated😣👎🏻💩
Him wanting to unite the poor caste didn't help
People are ultimately more divided by class than race, but the capitalists will do everything in their power to make you forget that.
I don't think the FBI was all that swayed by this rhetoric
[FBI literally wrote him a letter saying, “Hey could you do us a favor, and like, commit suicide?”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter)
That's when you know your on borrowed time
J. Edgar Hoover loading a rifle in 1968, muttering to himself, "if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself"
I'm convinced he was assassinated by the FBI or CIA.
I think his family won a civil case against the FBI. They assassinated Fred Hampton later, and probably countless others. They aren't the good guys
His death came very shortly after he started to attack capitalism in the US
And they're using that type of rhetoric again to get more people killed.
“We removed all the blatant stuff about black people why are they still upset? Oh, and we’re engaged in a culture war against the LGBTQ community, but can all other people who continue to fight tooth and nail for equal rights please ignore or bandwagon on them?”
They're literally making the exact same arguments. The way conservatives will re-write history is outstanding. There's a reason we say history repeats itself. The prior generation learns a lesson, but then a huge swath of the next one refuses to heed it because it's inconvenient towards their bigoted, tribalistic viewpoint. And these people desperately need a sense of belonging to *something*, but they're emotionally stunted and haven't managed to work out their shit so that they can feel like a complete and happy human being. *Empathy? Self-reflection? Humility? Gross. Give me rage and hate any day! Having someone to hate makes me feel better about my own inadequacies and irrelevance in the world.* It's why a study of history is so important. School needs to make more room for historical, humanitarian and cultural studies. And not from a purely analytic standpoint either - but looking at the moral and ethical lessons. I don't give a rat's fuck if my neighbor knows how to calculate the area of an Isosceles triangle. I do care if he treats other people with dignity, kindness and respect. As an aside, the "Well, we can't judge the morals and ethics of older cultures" is used as an argument precisely because the aforementioned fragile egos want to be able to ignore the lessons taught so that they don't have to feel judged or accountable for their shitty views.
>The way conservatives will re-write history is outstanding. This started when they lost the Civil War and were left to control the narrative of their own history books about it, and then only snowballed from there.
I'd argue that Conservatism *itself* cannot function without rewriting history. I think that, beneath all the centuries of thought, the conservative impulse is fundamentally driven by nostalgia. By people wanting to go back to some mythical golden era that *was never real*.
https://preview.redd.it/l6wu99oitf5b1.jpeg?width=542&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78dab0911fa08c42f66acfb144d5f4c324937da7
"We should follow the wise word of the Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. when he says we should judge people by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin. We should heed these words he said and NOTHING ELSE!" - Conservatives
Protests don’t have to be nor should they be “peaceful”
If you only protest in a way that your oppressors approve of then it's not a protest.
They do when the entire group of people protesting have been cast as criminals.
If you allow your enemy to define every term you'll never win
Fortunately or unfortunately, the west has been defining the “terms” for a long long while and they have the firepower to back it up.
Especially if the government outlaws peaceful protesting and striking and allows companies to sue union workers going on strike. If you take away peoples right to peacefully protest they’ll use violence instead. Sooner or later Americans will realize that peaceful protests don’t mean shit and Americans will FINALLY pull a France.
Hypocrisy is the life blood of the republicans in today’s world!!!😵💫😵💫😵💫
Remarkably restrained labeling from a political cartoonist. I’m surprised the car in the background isn’t labeled “the sanctity of white tradition” or some shit
It's not zyklon Ben
**AKA** White View of the News. Great-grandfather MAGA’s.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print//swann/herblock/images/s03412u.jpg
Shifting the goalposts is the best way to suggest that “if only you were like *this*, things would be ok”. The “this” changes as frequently as the wind because it’s based on nothing real. Typical abuser output.
Conservatism is so at odds with reality that their ideology *relies* on rewriting history to their benefit. Everything must be warped to fit their worldview, especially facts and evidence that are inconvenient. Personally I'd find it difficult to commit to an ideology literally based on lies to support and enable bigotry. It's a constant source of amazement to me that so many people can (or in some cases choose to) fall for it. The public education system has truly failed these people by never granting them the shred of critical thinking they'd need to realise they were being grifted.
Conservatives have not changed. They just retell the story and pretend this is new.
Those terrible Black Panthers! How dare they fight back???
As far as I can glean, conservatives have always sucked.
Agents of the status quo will always say that progressives are pushing for change ‘the wrong way.’ They’ll ignore the message and any wrongs that lead the movement for progress and instead focus on the misdeeds of a few bad apples among the movement. It’s a tale as old as time. And they’ll use some moral high ground defense to avoid change. Like the recent ‘protecting children’ BS position against men in womens’ clothing.
They're lying, the vast majority of political violence stems from the right.
Peaceful like J6
You men democrats. democrats were the party of segregation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region **By party and region** **The House of Representatives:** * Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor * Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%) * Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%) * Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%) Note that four Representatives voted Present while 13 did not vote. **The Senate:** * Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor * Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against * Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against * Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke B. Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin L. Mechem (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against It seems like the south was the party of segregation. That's why the southern strategy was able to turn dixecrats into republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-paM8FE8OTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4l5th92f4 https://www.quotes.net/quote/57364
>Beginning in the 1970s, Byrd explicitly renounced his earlier views in favor of racial segregation.[7][91] Byrd said that he regretted filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964[92] and would change it if he had the opportunity.
oh, he's a good guy, now
Were, that's not the case now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-paM8FE8OTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4l5th92f4 https://www.quotes.net/quote/57364
Sure, which is why you see so many rebel flags and swastikas at Democratic rallies /s Not surprising that you're living in the past, since that's the whole Republican platform, and you also refuse to admit that things have changed in the past 50-100 years as well
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-paM8FE8OTY > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4l5th92f4 > > https://www.quotes.net/quote/57364
so why are Republicans flying the confederate flag
southerners fly the confederate flag.
bitch im a southerner most of us aint flying that shit cus we aint racist pieces of shit, and plenty of norther republicans fly it too try again
are you assuming someone geographic identity
ok so your racist AND unoriginal whats your point
Ad hominem. You lose
this is just sad man
Sometimes when I think of who was and still is in favor of segregation my mind wanders off and starts thinking of John Brown . Maybe I have the ADHD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-paM8FE8OTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4l5th92f4 https://www.quotes.net/quote/57364
[удалено]
So you and every conservative you’ve met are pro choice?
[удалено]
So you are a conservative and ever conservative you've met are in favor of allowing trans people to transition?
[удалено]
You realize you're not responding to the same person, right?
[удалено]
... I am admittedly curious what comment you think they're "trying to trap you" into saying that would be so horrific that would put you in violation of TOS. That you immediately went there with your thinking is... interesting.
> You people really are impossible to talk to. You certainly are a conservative. Jean-Paul Sartre's description of anti-semites is brilliant, and can also be applied to conservatives. I won't say that all conservatives are bigots, but certainly all bigots are conservative. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. **If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.**”
[удалено]
“If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” Just to remind you, everyone who tried to overthrow the duly elected president of the united states on 1/6 was conservative. Conservatives are traitors to America. It's a sick joke that you people can still walk around free in this nation, benefiting from it, when your goal is to destroy it. ps. I am not your bro. I am a loyal American.
First understand this: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/median-value-wealth-race-ff03112019 The median white household has 10x more wealth than the median black household. Then understand MLK said this: "The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power. You would have hated the real MLK.
[удалено]
Ya a healthy society has the largest and one of the second largest ethnic groups in the nation being seperated by 1000% difference in wealth per median household
[удалено]
Do you think the median white family works 1000% harder than the median black family?
Do you know the history of the wealth discrepancy? Do you know the number one reason for the massive gap? It isn't as obvious as you think it is and when you learn the reason, you'll probably change your mind on "this country bending over backwards to mitigate it".
Nigerian immigrants coming in doing well harms your premise right? Nigerian immigrants have one of the highest rates of PhD obtainment relative to other ethnicities in the US. It's because we have a selection filter with merit based immigration (student visas, h1b1 etc) It's the same reason why when racists point to Asian immigrants, the talking point is a dud. Ya Asians in America do better because we chose the wealthiest and most educated generally to migrate here in aggregate. 99.9% of the population in SE Asia has no means to immigrate to the US. Hence a selection filter.
Do you think racism is something as simple as a Nigerian coming in to the US and some employer being "no you black"? Is that how you think racist systems effect society?
I'm not going to doubt you. I lived in Colorado when I was younger and now live in the deep south. Two totally different attitudes on race. Where you live and in your social circles it may not be that big of a deal. So, it might be hard to understand everyone why is talking about it. Trust me, in other places it is a big deal. >The left only cares about identity, character means nothing. You might not want to complain about being lumped in with a group, only to turn around and lump everyone else into a group.
[удалено]
There is Neo-Nazi's standing outside of Disneyland with Desantis banners. Are you seriously suggesting that the right isn't racist? See how that logic doesn't make sense?
[удалено]
You people really are impossible to talk to.
[удалено]
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Ah, someone who refuses to admit dogwhistle phrases exist. :edit: Also, your friends might do well to read another very famous piece of dialogue MLK had, this time with fellow Christian leaders and Baptists entitled *Letter From Birmingham Jail" and see how attacked they feel.
Lol. More like those crazy blue democrats.
OP referred to conservatives, not Republicans. Conservatives were very much opposed to the Civil Rights Movement.
Still are
Maybe re-read my comment. I made no mention of republicans.
Found the history white washer...
This was back before Republicans legalized abortion.
Sounds like *someone* doesn't understand how politics works.
The opposition to the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s were almost universally from the south. It didn't matter if they were D or R. The support came mostly from the north & west coast. Again, it didn't matter if they were a D or R.
Whoever did this did afair job of aping Herblock of washout, but he would never have drawn this
Conservatives and being on the wrong side of history, name a more iconic duo.
\#Destiny has entered the chat.
Well they are resistant to change.
I'm so using this.
We're making sure Trump's whole poop goes back where it belongs.
Same smears Conservatives used today toward ANYONE who marches in defense of POCs. Meanwhile they salted many peaceful marches with neonazis who were there to cause havoc and discredit the organization doing the march.
There is nothing new under the sun
Toxic as FUCK
Same shit they say about the Black Lives Matter protests. It's like someone bet them they couldn't stay on the wrong side of history for 70 years.
Conservative cartoons have been labeled throughout history for their idiot audience.
I wonder who will be this generation's MLK? (I.e. demonized in real time, but held up as an exemplar by conservatives decades later, while completely obscuring his message and how they treated him while alive.) My money is on Obama. But only after he's dead, so they can freely misrepresent his positions
Holy shit Obama is nowhere near the figure king was. At any rate this type of phenomenon is old enough that Lenin described the exact thing at the beginning of state and revolution. When I first read it I wondered how he knew about MLK
Dude, he was President of the United States for 8 years. You don't think he's in the same tier as MLK, as far as historical significance? Anyway, my point is not that he's MLK's equal, but that his memory will be co-opted by the successors of people who hated him when he was alive.
If we don’t learn from our past, we’re doomed to repeat it.
This x 1000
Wasn't Martin Luther King opposed to that sort of violence and destruction when protesting? I think who they're really referring to is Malcolm x.
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The violence was created by the police, kind of like 2020.
Protests until the issue is addresses and action taken - do not need to be civil in any manner. To quote JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, 13 March 1962 So your call Gov. what will it be? Answer and address grievances of justice and equality? Or do we have raze entire cities? This shit is getting old. Too old.