Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
ID: text says:
"Liberal: How can you go to bed at night after promoting violence? I get that they're Nazis but it's still violence.
Me:"
Bellow is an image of Homer Simpson asleep, tucked in to a cosy looking bed with a big contented smile on his face.
Going online and telling other people to commit violence is incredibly easy. It also has little to no impact on actual violent activity.
By contrast, you've got politicians actively running cover for paramilitary in the US. If you can shoot someone and get away with it - as in during the Rittenhouse murder, the Daniel Perry murder, the NYPD subway shooting, various murders of migrants on the border... you can take this all the way back to Rodney King or the MOVE Bombing if you like - then you have a strong incentive to do it again.
By contrast, if you're a Christopher Dorner or a Micah Xavier Johnson or a John Allen Muhammad or a Luigi Mangione, state officials will have unlimited resources and full license to take them in dead or alive.
Consider a case in Houston Texas of police demolishing the side of a building to get at a suspect of a police shooting
You can talk all the shit you want about fascists but when push comes to shove where do you think you're going to be standing? Fascism works because the fascists are killers and the shitposters are terminally online dorks.
And where pray tell will you stand? What conversations are you having in the meat space? You talk a lot about the real world in your comment replies but I see very little talk about proposed solutions or actionable content. You seem to yell at the same clouds of those that you chide. Just from a different angle.
This was absolutely clear-cut self defense, and there is so much direct video evidence out there accessible to the public, including the whole damned trial, that anyone who still claims Rittenhouse "murdered" anyone in Kenosha is outing themselves as an ideologue who readily rejects inconvenient facts.
It's not murder to stop someone who is literally in the middle of an attempt to kill you, and "he shouldn't have been there" is 'she was asking for it by choosing to dress that way'-tier apologism.
No way. The kid took a guy illegally across state lines with the intention to intimidate if not shoot protestors to protect fucking insured business property. He went there with ill intent, it was recognized, and people fearfully reacted to subdue him.
He got his wish. He got to shoot two and walked scott free. Then made a bunch of money while psychopaths took him on tour around the country for people to cheer because he shot some "liberals."
I don't care about the fact that he thought he was fighting for his life. Maybe he was. But he engineered that situation himself. That is not at all comparable with the choosing to dress that way bullshit.
This is literally untrue at one end and deliberately deceitful on the other. Literally the only portion of that sentence that is correct and not misleading is "the kid", lmao:
Pretty hilarious that the very first thing you retort with is both false and deceitful. People like you don't even know the most basic facts of the matter, and what you do know, you deliberately twist with deceitful intent. You've got your narrative, and damned if you aren't going to stick to it like glue, no matter what the reality is.
Thanks for proving my point so succinctly.
I wasn't aware the distance was so short or he had connections to the area. That's fair and thank you for educating me.
The fact remains the took a gun to "protect" insured businesses. The real reason was to intimidate or get a chance to shoot a "liberal".
I mean no deceit.
I'm with you on intent. He had no place being there, and it surely wasn't to protect anyone.
But the guy above is correct in regards to the event's timeline/order of action. Rittenhouse sucks, he was a child who was radicalised to hate and to fear others, and then he cried (like the child he was, at 17) in front of a panel and got brought into the conservative media fold where he now, as an adult, is an absolute shit stain for not recognizing his actions or the vitriol of the people around him. I pity 17 year old Rittenhouse, no one is adult enough at that age to be carrying a gun in that kind of a situation with that kind of mindset. The 22 year old he is now doesn't get that pity.