You must log in or register to comment.
“Literacy” down the line really hurts me.
I’m an elementary school teacher, and I just had a conversation with my principal today that really upset me. He has a vision of the future where AI is ubiquitous and video takes such precedence over the written word that everybody doesn’t need to learn how to read. He thinks he’s a futurist. I think that version of the future sounds like a nightmare.
all for one, one for all
It’s gonna take a socialist revolution to liberate people from oppression
Imo, a socialist revolution starts by rejecting our current business associations and recreating them as employee-owned businesses.
What I mean by that is instead of worrying about “Unionizing” start scouting and then taking the capable people in your corporation that would allow you to recreate your current workflow. Then do your previous employer’s job better, while continuously sucking up their work force. Imagine how much money there is to go around when you cut out the middle-men(CEO/Board of Directors), and how easy it would be to steal the talent while leaving them with the mushroom managers.
As for defending human rights, and freeing people from oppression, that takes violence. And doesn’t require waiting beyond grouping up and dealing with the ugly business at hand.
Culture war exists to waste your time.
ok listen i agree with the sentiment but this smacks of ‘behold, i have presented myself as the chad and you as the soyjack, therefore i win!’
There is a direct trajectory of abstraction between these sorts of cartoons and the chad/soy meme, including the white supremacy that is so popular with people who use it unironically.
Is a shining beacon on the hill meant to be like, not religious?
Edit: this commentor realized they were wrong and does not appear to have updated their comment, in case anyone comes across this and falls for this misinformation.
There’s nothing intrinsically religious about the symbolism of light or raising objects representing virtues while lowering vices, the architecture with columns likely representing secular legal and judicial institutions architecture at the time. it was published in 1890 in a publication called the truth seeker, Winthrop’s 1630 speech wasn’t popularized until the 1960s by JFK’s '61 speech.
Mhm, now you’re recognizing the cultural and historical contexts, which is good, but you’re doing it as though it is insulated from religiosity. Yes, they are likely drawing on the neoclassical architecture that the US was and is obsessed with, have you considered why that is and specifically why it is popular in a culturally Christian country? Ever seen the inside of the capitol building’s dome constructed in 1865 (literally called The Apotheosis of Washington?)
Yes, liberals have and continue to act religiously about their ideology, and “objectivity” is a major element in how they legitimised it in response to secularism. Social darwinism, something that has never been scientifically substantiated but none the less has had tremendous influence on “secular” thinkers, emerged in the US for the same reason in the mid- to late-nineteenth century.
The image you posted draws on the imagery it draws on exactly because it is legible to Christians and draws on Christian values.
(Edit: also just really quick, Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill” is itself an example of the application of this imagery, not the creation of it. That Winthrop made this analogy that applies in this image as well as in JFK’s use is once again a good example of how consistently Christian the US is.)
Edit: for those interested, there is a further explanation below both on the connection in historical development between these images as well as how they emblemize a consistent settler-colonial framework. Both commentors who tried to spread misinformation just abandoned the thread when it was clear they were wrong, so they might be useful for people who aren’t clear on this.
That’s nice you can find something it kinda looks similar to but It explicitly rejects Christian values like faith and superstition, it doesn’t draw on Christian values when it’s rejecting the values bible believing Christians hold contrary to investigation and science putting observation and evidence before conclusions instead of after. If you believe in sorcery or foreskin blood magic or people coming back from the dead or other faith based beliefs I don’t think you’re appealing to the same virtues Watson Heston had in mind.
Refer to my other comment for an explanation on why this comparison is drawn. But, because I get the impression that you seem to think you’re an expert on this topic even though there is fundamental knowledge gaps in what you’ve said throughout this thread, could you explain to me the functional, affective difference between what is explicitly and implicitly Christian in these images?
That “secularism” is a reproduction of Christian values is not a new or even challenging argument, it has been a common understanding of this period since the 1950s and especially so after decolonial scholars and post structuralists started writing about it. I’m excited to see how you disagree, I’m sure it is very well-informed.
There’s nothing actually Christian about the image you’ve posted though, it’s kind of a thumb in the eye of Christianity if you take some time to look
Yes, they were “culturally Christian” in a sense, but they also rejected Christianity and were just as much children of the enlightenment
Wow, I’m not going to lie, I’m surprised I have to explain this particular element of this. So, the thing is, people can say something and mean something different.
I picked social Darwinsism as an example both because it was “secular,” was proliferated through the US largely through Christian proselytization, and happened to legitimise preexisting settler-colonial notions of race and class. When people say it isn’t Christian, they are doing so to salvage those settler values (inextricably linked to Christianity both ideogically and historically), not actually transition away from them. In the same way liberals today will often speak of anti-racism and anti-transphobia, but never about how those movements are fundamentally opposed to a liberal system.
Also, this may be a result of the difference in Christian architecture through much of the US today, but the painting of Washington in the clouds with angels on the inside of a dome is nearly triggering for me in its familiarity as someone who has been subjected to Christian and Catholic churches for much of my life. Even if that wasn’t so, and this was meant to evoke some vague sense of divinity, I’m afraid that would still be religious, and the fact that it is in a neoclassical building further demonstrates the attempted continuity between ancient Roman and Greek imperialism through the evocation of their religious iconography, which is where much of the Christian imagery in Euro-imperialist countries developed from.
You know why JFK used Winthrop? Anxiety over his identity as a Catholic in a majority Protestant country.
If you don’t actually analyze what people say, and only take them at face value, you are going to be taken advantage of very often. Now, before you respond, you worded this comment as though you think youre some authority on the topic (stating your views as fact), so I hope you can at least stop and reconsider how you know what you think in light of this.
Edit: oh, also, look up what Apotheosis means.
I’m sorry, it appears that you’ve confused angels with “Greek Gods”, like Dionysus, Poseidon, Hermes, etc., and their entourage.
Ouch, very embarrassing for you. Clouds and sun are not any more “Christian” than Apollo and Icarus and Mount Olympus.
You may want to research remedial Greek Mythology and look again; the architecture is also classical Greek, about as Christian as the Great Pyramids.
Also, you might want to refresh your internal definition of “apotheosis”, educate yourself so that you don’t humiliate your family any further.
So, in closing, learn about the Greek Mythos and then use that new knowledge to identify the “angels”, and then come back to apologize humbly. Now, go forth and SIN NO MORE.
Trans rights are human rights and stripping people of those rights is my biggest make me angry button.
The other day at work, someone made some transphobic comment and i was like: nah dude. He asked me why i care, i’m not trans.
I was honestly kind of taken back by that comment. I told him that he’s not a child either, if i can kick his kid in the face?
I hate people more often than not.
Lmao that’s a great comeback from you. How’d he react afterward?
He was honesty just confused. He didn’t see a connection at all. But that’s life if you don’t see gay or trans people and probably immigrants as human beings
Ah, bummer, hope the confusion at least made him think or question his beliefs.
Excellent retort, give them their own medicine
any group’s rights are human rights, except fascists because human rights is an agreement and if you don’t agree to it then you also renounce yours
What annoys me, is how obvious this is. It’s not like most people who e.g. hate trans people even pretend to not hate gay people or women…
i wish it said freedom from religion, but overall i like it
We skipping the immigrants rights stone already?
That’s the point. They’re trying to construct more favourable routes of “progress” that can leave particular groups vulnerable as liberals secure their position in a post-Trumo regime. You never see them talk about Land Back either.
They can be with us on the trans stone, I’m happy calling them transnationality folks
:3
Okay, but they experience oppression in a very different way that also normalizes racialization and classism, which racialized trans women who disproportionately experience material insecurity obviously experience. If the point of the post is to demonstrate that these rights are interdependent, then all vectors of oppression must be acknowledged and challenged.
it’s cause we are all immigrants
Which means we should erase the experiences of people who are literally being thrown into camps on the basis of race, legal citizenship, and class? Like, you don’t seem to realise that the talking point you just used is common in discourses that seek to minimize the harm of these groups.
White women suffragests insisted all women had a shared experience while obviously disregarding black women’s oppression, gay men were infamously uncooperative with lesbians and gender queer people in their activism even while claiming to speak for us all on the basis of a commonly “gay” sexuality, respectable middle-class queer people today dominate queer activism and have effectively disarmed its material and social critiques of settler-colonialism exactly because they identify their needs as universal.
??? definitely are not
🥱
Didn’t know shitjistworks has an emoji for eating shit!
“But the democrats supported Israel…”
/s
Yeah, the Democrats were better than the American Hitler, but trying to shame the left is not only never gonna win anybody over, it encourages the Democrats to never be improve. It encourages them to never be strong enough to prevent the fascists from taking over again, and to not undo the damage Trump has done. The Democrats need people to be harsh on them; their loss in 2024 was their fault. Their stance on the Palestinian genocide was only the tip of the iceberg of the bad political decisions.
Democratic bootlickers offloading responsibility for their loss onto the left makes me more hopeless for the future than the Gestapo who want to put me in camps. I know the Republicans are evil and will only ever seek to harm me, but seeing my potential allies being so weak willed makes me sick. We’re in for generations of suffering rather than just a few years because you aren’t willing to hold your politician’s feet to the fire. Liberalism is dead and liberals are responsible.
And we should condemn them deeply for it.
You should still vote for them, I guess, but they don’t even have a presidential candidate for the next election.
This purity testing between Democrats is so stupid. They fucking better give me a candidate, that doesn’t want to slaughter Palestinians. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement. If we signal to Democrats now, that we will vote for them no matter what stupid inhumane bullshit they do, then we are just gonna get another Biden that doesn’t do anything for 4 years and then loose to the stupidest Republican candidate imaginable.
It’s not like the Democrats do anything for transrights, Gavin Newsom literally said, that they were to supportive of Trans People and that’s why they lost the last election. Shure, their own research (that they tried to hide from the public) showed, that Kamela Harris’s position on Gaza lost them the election, but shure, let’s blame the minority group that is already heavily under attack.
I mean, shure in the short term, Gavin Newsom might be preferable to Trump, but he will be so bad, that everybody is gonna hate him after 4 years and people will just return to the Republicans. If we just continue to accept the Democrats bullshit, we are not doing anything for ourselves.
We need to do what the Republicans did. Start local and build. They corrupted everything from school boards to city mayors to local judges and used those pulpits to loudly push their agenda. Right now we don’t have much of a choice as far as national elections go, but if dems (actual social democrats and progressives) can achieve what the republicans did we’ll eventually get real change at the national level.
or you can vote Green
If the goal is to have a clean conscience in US politics, may as well not vote at all and just spend that time volunteering at your local food bank instead. At least that has more of a net positive to society than political virtue signalling.
I say this as someone who once voted Green in an election, because I was a dumb kid who thought a protest vote would ever accomplish something. First past the post needs to go before our third party dreams can be more than just memes.
I liked the way it was before the culture wars divided everybody and added more letters. Politics ruins everything
How was it again?
They came for the trans, I didn’t care, I am not trans.
Then they came for the gay, I didn’t care, I am not gay.
Then they came for the women, I didn’t care, I am not a woman.
Then they came for me, And no one was left to cry out for me
I am not gay
Who are you lying to??
when they came for the gays, i didn’t care because i am not gay… maybe curious, that’s normal, right? like who hasn’t kissed a guy once just to see what it would be like? also some guys are just objectively hot
Don’t tell me you kissed a person. Gross
I am whatever it is called when you are attracted to any person, thank you very much
Physically (bisexual), personality wise (pansexual) or emotionally (demisexual)? Don’t answer, just wanted to give you more pointers.
You forgot omnisexual.
omnisexual
That’s definitely a synonym for being horny all the time
Omnisexual sounds pretty bad ass, not gonna lie.
“I think he is gay.”
“No no, I am pretty sure they are demisexual.”
BOOOM “We are the OMNISEXUAL!”
Look at how far the unisexuals must go to mimic just a fraction of our power!
Thank you
Too late; you’re gay now. I don’t make the rules—I just think them up and write them down.
Can I be gay too please? I could do with cheering up on a Tuesday :)
If you’re a male, then bisexuality doesn’t exist and you’re just gay
I believe it’s more like “and no one was left to protect me” but I could be very wrong
Well the original poem goes
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
I changed it a little when writing for dramatic purposes as well as not remembering verbatim
By Martin Niemöller. Wikipedia has an article about it, too
And who is trying to push all of these? The picture could have Maga people on the other side with a sledge hammer.
Maybe not put them up so close together?
all rights are intrinsically linked
