MercurySunrise

No, I'm being upfront. If y'all really feel this strongly for beating around the bush, good luck getting anything done in time.

Big oil motherfuckers should get the guillotine.

Hahaha, that's fucking awesome. Good on 'em. Break Shell. Break petrochemicals. Disgusting, nasty, lying abominations of industry.

Seems relevant /shrug

Speaking of ACP, the affordable connectivity program just recently got cut.

Along Came Pollen

I didn't realize grass had reached such an advanced evolution. Obviously it must be exterminated. (/s)

I totally agree that "outside" protestors shouldn't be considered any kind of reasoning for dismissing a movement. It does imply the movement is bigger than local or territorial lines and therefore should be taken more seriously than not. In regards to anti-national revolutionists, that's actually a very specific point of pride, and it should be. We are all people regardless of the territorial lines we are forced into. If we can reach outside the scope of the nation, we have in a sense, beaten it. This is why I see internationalism, or as some say, globalism, to be a very important goal for all movements focused on human rights. We are more than just where we are on the Earth. Humanity is a connected species, and in my opinion, that does go beyond just tech and state structures. I feel that reactionary solidarity should not be dismissed, though. Class warfare, for example, has a certain level of necessity for movements against oppression. I do not disagree with oppressing the oppressor. I think it's a tactic we've actually seen too little on the left and perhaps could explain some of the incrementalism we've seen so far. I am, however, an accelerationist. Personally, I feel the more I am fought, the more I can fight back - and I do think that's really important to allow others on the left to utilize too. We must find ways to equal the playing field, and I think literally all forms of solidarity have their roles in that. I think to say we cannot alienate those that alienate us leaves us as the only ones alienated. Those that disregard the use of reactionary solidarity disregard the use of tactics used against us. This is actually a larger philosophical argument of pacifism. I like to call it the batman argument. You're putting yourself on a moral high-ground that only hampers your effectiveness. The "bad guys" keep going and keep coming because they are not actually stopped. They are not, as some of the more intensive left likes to say, "stomped". The right-wing stomps, and they also steal from us constantly. We should stomp and steal back, while also using transformative tactics. Never disregard the importance of diversity, not in anything, but especially not in warfare. Honestly, I see this argument against it as dividing the left up more. There are aggressive leftists. They have their right to be, because of self-defense. The right-wing fucking murders us, to say we should not be angry and that such anger somehow makes us weaker... I just simply disagree.

A mother, angry about state motherfuckers, downvoted on mother's day. Damn.

The second amendment: "WELL REGULATED MILITIA", which is quite specifically a citizen's army. I'm literally just advocating rights we were guaranteed at the beginning of our constitution. This shouldn't actually be controversial. If you can't regulate to an equal playing field, the only way to "well regulate" is by destruction. "Arms" isn't exclusive to guns just as it isn't exclusive to bombs. It is however made exclusive to THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT to "bear arms". The people can find equality in arms that aren't totally insane (such as the arms they had when the constitution was written), and that is an important part of saying "well regulated". They designated the military as not an official part of "the people" (the citizenry), and the military itself technically has no right to bear arms. That is why it is within the purview of the second amendment, and arguably the government's job, to destroy all arms not accessible to the people (and in the case of the military, arms not accessible to ALL PEOPLE). The very point of it is to assure equal weaponry so that the people are not forced from their freedom by the power of the larger societal structures, whether that be a state, a military, or capitalism.

The government owes the people respect, not the other way around. They put food on their table with our money, our work, whether we agree or not. The government's money isn't the government's money, it's the people's money, distributed. If they're going to take our money with or WITHOUT CONSENT and put it towards something else, especially something like murdering innocent people for what mostly seems to be a religious cause, we have to be allowed to complain. We have to be able to shut them down if they won't change, as the people. The founding fathers intended for our system to change, or we wouldn't even be able to make amendments. The constitution itself was an intended change from the static religious monarchy of Britain, which required civil war because it was static (it refused to equitably change).

The state, especially the federal government, technically only exists to regulate currency (and resulting industry) as the people need for maximum well-being. So the state needs to get their heads out of their ass and do it instead of trying to silence protestors during national crisis and every war or they'll be, in a sense, fired. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Then again, if they were actually doing their fucking job, none of this shit would be happening. The constitution isn't an unreasonable structure. The biggest problem is that we have let capitalism completely overwrite it, which is quite literally the opposite of what the constitution intended. Once again, "WELL REGULATED".