Don't try to physically block cars people... throw crushed up spark plugs at their windshields instead
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
188 points (99.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13872 readers
839 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
These are the same people saying China is authoritarian because tiananmen square where some guy famously DID NOT get run over by a tank.
You don't understand, it's all the protestors fault for letting ICE get them to fight back....
Most normal world take
Tianamen square 89 was a horrible massacre! /S
I actually saw comments on reddit saying "that tank driver in China at least tried to move to the side..."
I hate this shit. They think they are so clever but the guy wasn't even run over by the tank.
The lib's party line I think recognizes that now but say he was disappeared afterwards or something, because the video of him walking away was popular. They are saying US forces are worse than China, like "in the US they just keep going", so it's an improvement I guess versus saying 'we're just like those darn Chinese' when this stuff happens.
The lib’s party line I think recognizes that now but say he was disappeared afterwards or something, because the video of him walking away was popular.
I saw one lib argue that someone was run over by a tank the day before and that the full tank man video is a tankie bait and switch to fool people into thinking that no one was run during the protests.
Idk how they would even know if he was disappeared, there has never been any confirmation on who he was as far as I can remember.
Yeah the rhetoric shifting will be interesting to see.
Bit idea: Make up random identities and claim that the reason you haven't heard of them is because the government disappeared them
"Don't tread on me, only tread on thee."
Well yeah, it's Don't Tread on Me.
Tread on THEM!
Don't? Tread on me!
Libertarianism: "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect (And I should be the in-group)"
The government should be small, so it can't oppress us with things like driver's licenses and traffic laws, but not too small that it doesn't have the capacity to do important tasks like disappearing innocent people for crossing imaginary lines.
I like this one
Hey, now stop it.
Make me? 🥺
Lol this is literally the Shane Topp method to get out of a speeding ticket. Be too horny and make the officer uncomfortable.
Except if a cop ever showed me their dick/muff I'd hit it with a brick.
ACAB indeed.
All Cops Are Bricked (in the genitals)
yo
I knew a "libertarian" who immediately went full fascist during the BLM riots because he said "people don't know how to behave."
He also didn't think gay people should have kids.
He's spent the last 5 years posting anti-woke memes weekly.
Absolute freedom lover.
I forget where the quote is from, maybe Jakarta Method? But it talks about how reactionary types view freedom as "the right of powerful men to do as they please, even to hurt others."
Not the quote you're thinking of, but Lenin said something similar:
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.
Well yeah, that’s Barry Obama’s step dad; who shows up in Jakarta Method.
I've heard someone on here or left-twittersphere say reactionaries view the law as a constraining of others but a freeing of themselves, which overlaps with your quote. I definitely think there's something to it.
Domenico Losurdo really explores this contradiction in Liberalism: A Counter-history. All the big liberal thinkers in the 18th and 19th century loved to preach about “freedom” and “liberty” and whatnot, while defending the necessity of chattel slavery.
Really interesting read, would highly recommend.
I just finished reading his Stalin book so maybe I'll read that one soon.
Wilhoit’s Law:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
-Frank Wilhoit (the composer, not the Ameican history scholar)
^(^No ^seriously ^please ^stop ^misattributing ^this ^quote ^to ^the ^wrong ^Frank ^Wilhoit. ^I ^know ^it's ^odd ^that ^a ^musician ^and ^not ^a ^historian ^came ^up ^with ^such ^an ^apt ^description)
^superscript^ ^requires^ ^a^ ^caret^ ^on^ ^both^ ^ends^ ^of^ ^a^ ^word^
Oh weird. It's not showing up like that in the app I'm using. 🤔
hmm, very interesting... which app is it, for any future coder that investigates
Sync. The dev abandoned it a long time ago, but it still works and has the ability to switch accounts with the push of a button or browse anonymously. This was more useful when Bureaucrat was still operational.
Right wingers are horrible people ,grass is green ,the sky is blue and water is wet
Only one of these is false and it’s not the first one
The grass is not green. We killed a part of our lawn, it's more yellowish...
The sky is not blue. If it's evening and things are right it's more red.
Water is not wet. Unless it can also be dry?
2 dialectical 4 u
Isn't that typical rightwing hypocrisy? As in: the in-group needs to be protected by the law but not bound an vice versa for the out-group. The double standard is not a contradiction, it's the point.