this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
1120 points (96.7% liked)

Political Memes

5473 readers
3115 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

As well as lack of affordable or even free healthcare, lack of affordable housing, lack of vacation time, lack of decent pay, lack of maternity and paternity time, lack of affordable healthy food.

It is really becoming lack of anything and everything. The only thing that has rights in this country are guns and vehicles.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Bet you they try to repeal Loving v. Virginia too. They'll "leave it up to the states" I'm sure, so that them and their rich buddies can keep their partners. Looking at you, Mitch.

I am emptied of all faith in their humanity or good sense.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Clarence Thomas rulling his own marriage illegal? 🤔

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. He'd just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the abortion ruling, Thomas listed off a whole bunch of civil rights-related rulings he wanted to revisit. Obergefell (gay marriage) was among them. Loving, however, was conspicuously absent, and there's a pretty obvious reason why.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't doubt it. However if Trump's team sent it down the pipe, I doubt he'd fight much - even a principled man finds it difficult to stand up to their friends, and that he ain't.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

That's definitely one way to get a divorce

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Why are all basic civil rights not enshrined in laws, but instead resting on brittle law precedents in the US?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Because it’s all imaginary and I can’t believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.

A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like the law is going to stop him. He’s a convicted felon and he’s still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.

Laws don’t matter. Laws don’t protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago

Because our legislature is dysfunctional in its very structuring.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's the way English Common Law works contrary to French Civil Law

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (4 children)

That's not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but we've passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added "gender identity and gender expression" as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.

So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.

So it's perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Off topic but how does Canada square away their English system with the one province under the French system? They’re nearly opposite systems.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

“Leaving it up to the states” is how we ended up with gay marriage being legalized federally by the scotus….

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

I'm sure this one will get right on that.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (22 children)

Call me radical if you want but, I don't think Subject A of our cause should be rights for a minority of our citizenry.

Those rights should be unspoken truths we uphold regardless.

The common man will walk by TRANS RIGHTS 4000 times before they walk by UNION STRIKE.

The left needs to go back to focusing on workers, unions, labor, taxes, fairness and sense. Trans rights are important, and topical, but I feel the sjw yelling pushes a lot of people away from what our side of politics is actually about.

There isn't a single person I work with that wouldn't toss a flier with 'trans rights' written on it in the trash the second it was handed to them.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

that’s the importance of countermessaging. harris and walz had it right for 0.0076ms with their “weird” direction, like “look how fucking weird jd vance is for wanting to do genital inspections on every kid in order to make life harder for like 40 kids nationwide, what a freak!?!” and even some conservatives were like “yeah that’s a little far we don’t need to be doing all that.” that was a really successful strategy that had great potential.

…and then they dropped that like a month before the election in favor of courting suburban conservatives. from “weird” to “follow the law.”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And fuck the very concept of "sjw", that shit isn't helpful

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It sucks because I know a lot of people referred to as SJWs, myself among them sometimes, and my read is that what pisses people off about them is not exclusive to minorities or the left wing, but the label tends to just apply to people advocating for the oppressed, and the behavior often comes from pain and vulnerability.

A lot of marginalized people lack the space irl to be politically active in a meaningful way. This goes double if you're trans or closeted or showing up irl is dangerous in any way. Online, you have a platform and can speak your truth, but that's about it. Social media platforms are incentivized to put a bunch of chuds you don't agree with in front of you to keep you engaged, and so people end up angrier and angrier, stuck constantly responding to bigotry but never able to actually do much about it, or even hold a good faith conversation. Pet peeves become big sore spots because people keep poking at them and it feels like there's nothing that can be done to change how anyone feels. Small disagreements over language become big blowouts because it's probably the tenth time it's happened today and it might not feel like anyone's on your side.

Funny enough the person I know who fits this description the most is a right-wing incel, marginalized in some ways due to neurodivergence. He's prone to big conspiratorial blowouts at the mere mention of climate change or queer people because he sees it as necessary to "educate" people. I don't think most would call him an SJW yet his engagement with politics and the ways in which he pisses people off are exactly the same.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

MSNBC agrees with you that the Democrats went too "woke"... while repubs dumped millions into trans panic ads. If "left" Democratic leaning media is willing to throw principles under the bus to capitulate on hand waving economic yabbering, then we need to stop associating them with leftist principles.

Again, repubs did all the sjw yapping about trans people, and other than the bare minimum the dems pretty much kept quiet while also not making moves on unions or anything the like. Shouldacouldawoulda, but they didn't. And trans people should not be brought to take the brunt of what lies ahead because of that.

I know its easy to say the dems should have done different, but DO NOT let rightwing narrative lead to you lapse in your principles, we're here because the Democrats couldnt stick to theirs regardless.

We're here now, so all you can do is protect your trans neighbors and friends. I, for one, certainly wouldn't want to be told my rights as an individual were focused on TOO MUCH by the only people willing to represent me.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Seriously, we got one line of support from Walz and Harris' offer to follow the law, which is a far cry from supporting trans rights when you consider the laws being passed in many states.

Democrats who were pressed on trans rights this election cycle consistently backed down and conceded and moved towards discriminatory Republican positions.

I wish Harris had won, I would feel much more comfortable with the future prospects of my rights the next 4 years. But anyone who views the Democratic party as truly supportive of trans rights, certainly in any kind of national sense, is sorely mistaken.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But anyone who views the Democratic party as truly supportive of trans rights, certainly in any kind of national sense, is sorely mistaken.

It's ironic if we were to say this before the election, there would be a very different response. Now the ship is sinking so to speak, critique is more receptive.. just not when it counts.

For a split moment I figured the whole "weird" rhetoric would expand to actually describe how people are legitimately being discriminated against with legislation, but yeah just follow the laws.. even if they mean parental rights for rapists and fucking windows on school bathrooms. Never hoping for a political outcome again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The entire point of the image is that protecting and engaging any and every marginalized community is a fundamental part of healthy democratic institutions. And part of the iterative process of improving and strengthening our democracy involves seeking out opportunities for creating egality. There is no singular perfect state where you just stop - you always need to be looking within for opportunities to make things better.

Don't think of it as just advocating for minority rights, think of it as advocating for human rights wherever that advocacy is needed.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It was a distraction tactic and they fell for it brilliantly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So what you're saying is that you work with shitty individuals

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yep. NC.

It is what it is. You don't turn a wrench without seeing a few confederate flags on a few Dodge rams.

and you don't turn their money away, either. The Benji's didn't have swastikas on them even if his fenders did.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The right to not be genocided... apparently negotiable.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›