this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
607 points (97.9% liked)

Political Memes

5615 readers
1642 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 88 points 5 months ago (3 children)

This is why I caution what people should expect when imagining a second civil war.

It's not going to be formed lines of men in pitched battles.

It's going to be warlords engaging in terror tactics with the fronts emerging along urban rural divides as opposed to state lines.

This won't be the battle of Gettysburg, it'll be the Troubles with rigged quad copter drones instead of car bombs.

Depending on who wins this election the US military isn't going to be either "side"'s ally, in fact they'll probably be the fighting parties' worst enemy since their goal is basically just going to be to kill all the people taking up arms until the terrorists and counter-terrorist terrorists knock it all off.

It'll probably lead to a purge of the most extreme folks in politics, as they'll either be found in cahoots with the terror cells covertly, or actively be leading one or more of them out of a misplaced sense that they'll be able to parry it into running the country.

It won't be glorious, it won't be honorable, it won't be anything for people to be proud of. It will just be bloody and then deeply regretted by all but the most unrepentant cretins, who still won't be able to publicly express that sentiment or risk ostracism at best, and lynching if they are discovered to have had a hand in ruining everyone's lives for however long it goes on for.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 33 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nailed it! A modern civil war would almost certainly take the form of the Troubles, unless there’s a state secession, which I find highly unlikely.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 24 points 5 months ago

I think Texas would make a move towards it, and then Austin would catch on fire as the very liberal city population mutinees against the republican leaders trying the stunt.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

We had that in the first one...

Kentucky fought for both sides. A family could even split with brothers going to each side, and possibly both making it back.

That's what the whole Hatfield's and Mcoys shit was. Was side was union, one confederate. One side was made about a member that died in war, and killed a member of the other.

They were the most famous feud, but all over Kentucky the civil war kept playing out for years after it ended.

The resulting exodus to escape the violence is why you see rebel flags still in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and other northern states.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Sounds exactly what I would expect.

And it's already happening. Local government buildings getting bomb threats and packages with apparent explosives. Mass shootings. It's just gonna get worse, and more painful to observe and experience.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 46 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Since that quote in 1875, "patriotism" has wandered over to the other side of the line, inbred with superstition, ambition, and ignorance, and turned into nationalism.

That just leaves intelligence, by its lonesome, on the other side.

[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That’s not patriotism. Being patriotic is like being honest; if someone has to stress how honest they are, they’re not.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Put another way: patriotism is shown through actions, not through words.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 months ago

I show my patriotism by voting and ensuring the rights and autonomy of others is protected. That's theoretically why nations exist. I can be proud of mine when it fulfills that promise.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Or flags. Especially with blue lines.

Patriotism is loving your country by loving its foundation. It's people. Loving your neighbor. Loving your brothers and sisters. I feel no love from the GOP.

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Grant isn't referring to "ruh ruh 'Murica" as patriotism, he's talking about appreciation of what we have. Different political alignments just appreciate different things; the left, liberty, and the right, supremacy of rich, white males.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Yeah, I get that. But in 2024, when you hear the word "patriot" who do you think of?

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We should not allow terms like this to be coopted. It's a pretty standard tactic: dilute the language of your opposition so it becomes harder for them to communicate effectively with an audience. Trying to constantly change your position's vocabulary is a losing strategy as the intended audience can't keep up. Instead, we must take back the words that are important and, for example, clearly state that it is the oppressor who is unpatriotic.

A flag doesn't make you a patriot. Loving guns and blind faith to Constitution doesn't make you a patriot. It is care for your fellow American, defending the weak and disenfranchised, and protecting the ideals of self-determination and opportunity that make someone a true patriot

[–] classic@fedia.io 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I really appreciate this take. In the pursuit of better language, some groups also hamper their own ability to communicate - not a slam against the attempt, but between that and the other side diluting the group's words, it's an uphill fight

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

not a slam against the attempt, but between that and the other side diluting the group's words, it's an uphill fight

And they are absolutely doing it on purpose. Stripping meaning from words benefits them, because their side doesn't care about truth, or facts, or policies. As long as they can make the Other suffer, their base will scream whatever the word of the day is, and every time they steal a word, it makes matching their organization a little bit harder

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kinsnik@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Just like National Socialist party wasn’t socialist, or the Democratic People’s Replubic of Korea isn’ta democracy, the patriotic republicans aren’t patriotic

[–] just_ducky_in_NH@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

So, the ignorant people don’t understand what patriotism is. It supports Grant’s thesis.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 10 points 5 months ago

Definitely not the Russian shills that are going at our democracy with a weed whacker

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

The most patriotic thing an American can do is criticize politicians and hold the ones they vote for accountable.

Blindly insisting your country/party is perfect and excusing every fault is nationalism.

That's what the nazis had, the Republicans have, and I swear moderates want Dems to adopt.

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago

holy shit, he fuckin nailed it

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm starting to think we need more wartime generals and less businesspeople in politics.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, you get Pattons from the military just like you get Grants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Pretty sure Grant is widely considered to have been a lousy president.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He's easily my favorite president, but he chose hands down the worst and most corrupt cabinet members of all time.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What makes him your favorite then?

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 32 points 5 months ago (5 children)

He was better for emancipation and reparations of freed slaves than Lincoln, he even had a history of employing them and treating them well during the war and before the great emancipation. His inaugural address alone was enough to earn points with me, but he was also responsible for changes of the Tenure of Office Act which allowed him to remove presidential cabinet members without the senate needing to vote on it, gave suffrage to people of all color via the 15th Ammendment (which almost certainly would have been vetoed by the previous Johnson who took the reigns after Lincoln was assassinated and before Grant was elected), and his administration defeated the KKK via state marshals and federal troops over his 2 terms as president.

To be clear, Grant was a radical of his time. He was fringe and far left from the norm of the time. He treated blacks as equals and as citizens when under the previous president Johnson there were massacres and riots against African American communities. To Grant, they were worth defending with the lives of servicemen like himself.

By comparison Lincoln was a moderate too afraid to give any promise of rights or eventual freedom to slaves because he wanted to avoid any and all conflict. It took two years after secession and war for Lincoln to emancipate slaves. I'm not saying Grant was perfect in every way, mind you, but if I had to pick a president whom I liked the most it would easily be Grant. (It's not a high bar).

And that's all you'll get out of me, go read a book you lazy fuck.

[–] niktemadur@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lincoln was a moderate too afraid to give any promise of rights or eventual freedom to slaves because he wanted to avoid any and all conflict

To be fair in the context of the era, he had his fill of catastrophic conflict during his tenure, and the Thirteen Amendment was passed by the skin of Congress's teeth. The huge leap was his, the following strides were for somebody else to take.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lincoln was also at one point on board with a plan to send them all back to Africa. I'm sticking to the "he was a moderate" take I had before.

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

fun fact, Liberia was actually an experiment at sending freed African American slaves back to Africa because people thought that freed slaved would have better prospects of liberty and prosperity in Africa than they did in the States.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Hi. I just asked a question. You invited a question with an open ended statement that he was "your favorite". You have no way of knowing what I know or what I have read. You have no idea of my name, my education, what car I drive, or what I like for breakfast.

I don't have the same knowledge about you.

So instead of making things personal when someone asks a perfectly normal question in a conversation maybe you should ask yourself "Am I the problem?".

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Feels like I just read one!

[–] andxz@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You're quite correct on all points in my opinion, for what it's worth.

Edit: although to be fair, Lincoln had to navigate an extremely complex political situation. He could've done a lot worse than how it ended up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He's received a much more positive re-evaluation from historians in recent years.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean not saying he’s the worst, but wasn’t he famously corrupt? I have a hard time getting past that one.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

His administration was very corrupt, which is a black mark that can't really be re-evaluated away. Grant himself is widely accepted to have been innocent - the man died nearly penniless, and was never a prodigious spender - but he was trusting and loyal to his friends. These are actually really BAD traits for a politician, in which trust and loyalty are a big "USE ME" sign painted on your back.

However, Grant's overwhelmingly negative reputation has a lot to do with the domination of Lost Causers in historical academia up until the 70s. He was positively radical on civil rights, crushed the First KKK, pursued a policy of negotiation and attempted coexistence rather than war with Native American tribes, set up reform within the civil service, was positively inclined towards women's suffrage, created the country's first national parks, supported public schooling, and elevated African-Americans and Jewish-Americans to high posts within the government despite the racism and religious prejudice rampant in the period.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Very very unfortunately, trust and loyalty are a “USE ME” sign painted on one’s back in many parts of the modern world .

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 27 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Except that both sides will call themselves patriotic and intelligent.
So anyone just looking at the situation with their peripheral vision, will not know which one they are looking at.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This is a fundamental problem with any kind of civil conflict. You're inevitably going to have inteliigensia at the highest levels of each side of the dispute. You're going to have mountains of propaganda to justify the need for the conflict and the existential nature of the threat of the opposition. You're going to dehumanize your opposition in order to de-legitimize any kind of dispute. And you're going to tap a rich vein of low-income, low-education civilians to fill out the rank and file of your military.

Plenty of liberals lined up to march into the deserts of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan and jungles of Vietnam. Plenty of conservatives are still part of the Soy, Woke, and Gay modern military, NSA, FBI, and CIA. Even if you're looking dead center, you're only going to see the view that your lens of observation affords. Its not like Bezos owned WaPo or Bill Gates's MSNBC is above filling your eyes with Murdoch-tier bullshit. Just look at how the clusterfuck in Gaza has been covered.

What we have, at the end of the day, are all the same tools of dividing and conquering our own nation that we have historically inflicted on our colonial territories. Fascism is just imperialism returning to the core. And when your wild-eyed gun totting next-door neighbor breaks in to your house, convinced that you've got an adrenachrome factory in a non-existent basement, it'll be under the same conditions that turned Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis against one another or Serbs and Bosnians or Koreans and other Koreans or Texans and Mexicans time and time again before.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

the thing is, only one of those sides is deluded into thinking they're actually patriots.

[–] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 8 points 5 months ago

And the problem being that, that side is easier to propagate than the one which tells you to observe properly and use more of your brain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Did he really fucking say that?!?!?! Goddamn prophetical

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Someone on Shermanposting posted more of the speech. It's even more prophetic than it seems - Grant speaks on the dangers of religious instruction in schools and the need for separation of Church and State.

I do not bring into this assemblage politics, certainly not partisan politics, but it is a fair subject for soldiers in their deliberations to consider what may be necessary to secure the prize for which they battled in a republic like ours. Where the citizen is sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign — the people — should possess intelligence.

The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.

Now in this centennial year of our national existence, I believe it a good time to begin the work of strengthening the foundation of the house commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago, at Concord and Lexington. Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the more perfect security of free thought, free speech, and free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion.

Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money appropriated to their support, no matter how raised, shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that the State or Nation, or both combined, shall furnish to every child growing up in the land, the means of acquiring a good common-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistic tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-ninth-annual-meeting-the-army-the-tennessee-des-moines-iowa

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wow. That last part is... Rough. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Well we didn't keep them separate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Ain’t it the truth

[–] satanmat@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›