Most people in America have no idea who Guy Fawkes was.
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
11 points (57.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26668 readers
1494 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Most people don't period. He was a Catholic that wanted a theocracy. Just because V for Vendetta promoted the guy doesn't mean he should have been promoted.
He was also the idiot who got caught... The whole gunpowder conspiracy went up in smoke (bad joke very much intended) when he gave up all his co-conspirators... He was not alone in being a dumb-ass, others did make mistakes, like writing their friends to not go to parlanent that day.
Its no suprise England mocks him every year on his "holiday".
Its both the holywood depiction of an idiot with poor planning on one hand, combined wit h the other hand-the somewhat callective fantasy of many a culture, especially one such as the Brits, of clearing out the miserableb power structure in such dramatic ways. Thats why the holiday is still around. It wasn't anything in particular about that plot by itself, after all I'm sure since then but didn't have caught many of more political terrorists.
"Look, 4chan is here!"
V for Vendetta was very popular when it came out and I think most of us would recognize the mask.
When I see it, the first thing I think of is Anonymous, not Guy Fawkes or V for Vendetta.
It didn't make the Top Ten grossing movies the year it came out [2006]
If 25% of the population knows it that means 75% doesn't.
I'm not American but IMO it has become far too associated with Anonymous and the stereotype of a rogue activist black hat hacker. Most people wouldn't get the reference to the movie. They'd just wonder if you are the notorious hacker known as 4chan
No, that's cringe. Also having British iconography in an American election is repugnant.
Why? One of the candidates is standing on the platform of bringing back the monarchy. It's fitting to use British iconography.
If I'm wearing the face of any antiquated European idealist it will be Maximilien Robespierre. There's far more similarity between our position and the lead up to the French revolution than there is between us and the gunpowder plot.
That said, the United States has so many people to pick from. Personally I like John Brown.
John Brown should be a cardinal direction in every American's moral compass.
John Brown did nothing wrong
We don't ... Record and broadcast election venues? This would be weird. If some people did do it, only people at their specific voting site would see it.
I'm in agreement with others in that a British guy isn't the best choice and also that anything resembling voter intimidation isn't what we need.
I think Lincoln would be a better character to choose as a mask. He's an American hero, and due to party on one hand and actions on the other, it adds anonymity as to the affiliation of the wearer as both sides of the political fence hold him up as virtuous.
I just finished up a biographical podcast of George Orwell, and much was discussed about him being used symbolically by both the right and left. I feel Lincoln fits the same circumstances, being the first Republican president, though his actions fit more to the current left. If we see a return of the loss of habeus corpus, that's be another thing they'd have in common. I don't want to be right on that though...
Considering voter ID is required in most states now, you have to show your face in order to vote.
Also, this really wouldn't work in Oregon since it's all vote by mail there.
We have thing about masks...
No
Guy Fawkes was fighting for the Catholic church being the official religion of the UK. I am not exactly picturing someone trying to establish a theocracy by blowing up parliament as a freedom fighter.
maybe if it's KN-95
Do i get a discount "vote twice" if I wear one?
Vote early, vote often!
Do we get vigilante justice to go with it?
I could but it might freak the cats out (I am an overseas voter and vote by mail).
No. Though it's been used in recent times during all sorts of protests, its meaning and what kinds of protests in appears at are all over the map. It was even used by some during the January 6th insurrection. It's also appeared alongside a fedora often enough that it gives me a little cringe to see it outside of an organized protest. If you really want to make a difference, get involved in an organization instead of fantasizing about being some lone wolf that takes down an individual to magically solve systemic problems. If you need to hide your face at a protest, try something that doesn't provide royalties to a huge corporation.
If you really want to make a difference, get involved in an organization instead of fantasizing about being some lone wolf that takes down an individual to magically solve systemic problems.
The whole point of the movie is the mobilaziation of the people. The mask is just a symbol.
Also, as I said, I am not American. I am active in my country, but I have no reason to get involved in American politics (aside from stupid posts on social media 😅).
A symbol for what? The mask has been used by both the left and right in the US. Just protesting and power in numbers generally? Alas, the presidential election is not determined by popular vote. What would it mean to somebody who saw it at the polling location? Probably there's some weirdo here. What politician would notice it? Absolutely zero.
Mobilization for what? I think you're missing something important with that idea.
The chancellor from the movie orthe chancellor from the original comics?
Alan Moore may not like Trump (I don't "like" Trump but think he's normal as far as not-so-good presidents go, it will always be normal to get one of those each decade), but he said he didn't like that the movie took away the leadership ambiguity his original comic had.
Even as another movement steps into light, I don't think the mask is best changed, that part is fine, but it would be stereotypical haste to not wait for something explicit/outright. What has Trump actually done that screams "I am an outright villain for this nation, fear me"? The Guy Fawkes groups are largely inactive in the discourse of Eastern nations, does that imply relative complicitness there?
What has Trump actually done that screams "I am an outright villain for this nation, fear me"?
Do you mean besides the evil plan (project 2025), his explicit statements of becoming “president for life”/overstepping the bounds of the 2-term presidency, talking about jailing his opponents (including some republicans), his associates calling for violence, his lawyers referencing immunity to political violence (military assasination of a political rival), and an actual insurrection by his followers?
That's not "his" evil plan (which doesn't even include the president for life part, that was wishful thinking out loud), and the part about jailing opponents is mainly related to those who exploited due process in the political sphere in the past eight years. Which, although Trump is not himself innocent, many, many people did, both for one side and the other (think the Biden family trials, which any normal person would see as parallel to the Trump trials), but with this kind of thing never going anywhere, even for state governors.
As for the rest, are we really going to hold someone accountable just because of their toxic fandom? That's the mistake many are trying not to make with all the involved sides. I for one criticize presidents by, I don't know, their policies and broken promises (e.g. Trump's military inclusion protocol).
That's not "his" evil plan
Fair, but as the puppet in this theater of government takeover, he is culpable.
which doesn't even include the president for life part, that was wishful thinking out loud
Clearly, him wishing to be a dictator does not concern you…
the part about jailing opponents is mainly related to those who exploited due process in the political sphere in the past eight years
Can you outline these for me, with some references? The list is:
- Joe Biden
- Kamala Harris
- Mitch McConnell
- Chuck Schumer
- Mike Pence
- Liz Cheney
are we really going to hold someone accountable just because of their toxic fandom?
Absolutely, when he stands by them.
One can fantasize about being a dictator and still have the restraint not to be one. Obama said the same once, exploring the "what if" of if he was elected more than twice. Neither stand by this, and neither stand by what some of their more extreme supporters have done, hence some of the people in Trump's list of allies, who do not fit the racial image promoted by said followers. The closest thing to this Trump wants is (and elaborating on the due process part here) to jail people who either charged other politicians wrongfully or got away with things wrongfully (which makes it ironic Joe Biden is at the top of your list, we don't know if he or Hunter are guilty but we know the issue at least deserves more analysis). Aside from Harris out of questionable association, that list draws a blank for me and nothing actually says those people are necessitated in a conversation about people who would be jailed, deciding this which isn't actually a power that comes with immunity to prosecution in the first place, as immunity to prosecution, if it was an issue here, just gives you invulnerability to political elements, not the power to imbue them, nor does it protect you from the consequences of absolutely every crime, which a president would find out if they ever killed someone for example.
Obama said the same once, exploring the "what if" of if he was elected more than twice.
From what I can tell, Obama said he probably could have beaten Trump if he had run for a third term AFTER the 2016 election was over. Unless you are referring to something different.
(1) neither stand by what some of their more extreme supporters have done, (2) hence some of the people in Trump's list of allies, who do not fit the racial image promoted by said followers.
On the first point, do I really need to quote the things Trump has said about the January 6th protesters? And those who participated in the Charlottesville white nationalist march in 2017?
On the second point, regardless of many of his supporters being racists, Trump knows he has to still win over black and Hispanic voters in the political game. And why would he reject a lap dog like Ben Carson or Justice Thomas regardless of their skin color?
Your last sentence was too long and I don’t understand what you were trying to say, except: 1. Biden and possibly Harris are the only one on the “Trump wants the send to jail list” that make sense to you, and 2. Not every crime will be immune under the new SCOTUS ruling.
- Me too, but I know why Trump added them: they are detractors from his “big lie” scheme and/or have criticized him publicly. 2. I understand that in theory, but with a corrupt judicial system, rules can be bent. There are plenty of articles out there outlining how, within currently legal means, the president (whoever they are) can be immune to doing harm to anyone. That, combined with the other reasons I’ve stated, and a myriad of others (Hitler talking points, for example), is the basis for my stance that Trump reaches super villain status.
If rules can be bent to the point of it being a defense, their mere existence ceases to be an effective enough topic of debate, since their acceptance can just be met with concern that they won't be adhered to as intended. If he is going to arrest anyone over a "big lie" agenda (or for anything else), it's also worth pointing out it's not like they're not going to get a court hearing for it, it's not like they're going to wake up one day and be like "well I guess I'm in jail now". Relatedly, it's by the same logic as not rejecting "lap dogs" based on their characteristic that we can't automatically assume he's going to accept people as model members of his fandom just because they follow him.
No. Most Americans have no clue who guy fawks is or what he did. It would be a weird thing to do in America culture.