As someone who is somewhat familiar with English legal history, I can say that there are a lot of ways we can get at these gay little protestors if we wanted too. All without infringing actual freedom of speech btw (tho leftists will of course lie about it). Vagrancy, unlawful obstructions, *literal* public nuisance, etc.
That's not a bad idea. Problem is, I know there are many people who are much more knowledgeable on the 4cuck lore, and I would rather encourage them to write the article. Or maybe collab.
I think that protests can be useful in our case because they help move the overton window and normalise our beliefs, while internet is much better for spreading information doing it in real life makes it more real for normies and prevents leftists from saying "you just hide behind the screen"
The internet is much better at spreading information, but I'd argue its also better for normalising beliefs because it's intertwined with the real world. It's evident that RW twitter had an impact on Trump's campaign e.g. Haitians eating pets, remigration, among other things. Protests aren't the tour-de-force they once were, especially among the youth.
Well isn't Stop Oil funded by oil companies to make oil protesters look bad? It would really seem to be the intention, it only gives dissenters of the oil monopolies a bad name. I think that the truth anti-smoking campaign was another case of this. It's reverse psychology propaganda, "wow this anti-smoking ad is so gay... i need to smoke cigarettes so nobody thinks I'm a homo like these guys"
I went to an anti war protest in 2010 in Chicago. It started in one of the west side neighborhoods and quickly was corralled by riot police into a dead end. I remember them taking pictures of everyone and snatching some of the "black bloc" people out of the crowd and kicking their asses. I believe they brought a chopper out as well. It seemed really pointless and especially dumb for the low profile I was maintaining - I had a hydroponic grow op back at the apartment.
This kind of takes the case of historical materialism and that the guiding change in society is the result of economic power blocs (ik its marxist but I honestly don’t think its wrong).
It is fatalistic in a way though. It does mean protesting is stupid. Oddly communists or leftists believe in a bottom up revolution but it actually goes against historical materialism lol.
Ehh, not really. It is more the act of protesting in particular that is useless. Talking about politics online is, on the other hand, quite effective and significantly influenced the outcomes of the past 3 elections in an uncoordinated way. The zeitgeist is still powerful. And elites in power blocs (not necessarily economic, mind you) still have free will and ideas of their own that aren't a product of their material conditions
Just to argue: They might have free will, but they still (tend to) selfishly serve what benefits them.
I disagree that online politics on its own vastly shifted public opinion or sentiment. Algorithms are ran by elites themselves lol and there is massive disposable money for propaganda. So they do shape public opinion if they want. (But yes the average person is typically personally right wing I think, right wing ideas are more rational).
If nationalism serves elites - then politics can become more nationalistic due to them.
I could make the argument that American businesses see Chinese corporate competition as a threat to profits. Labor isn’t cheap anymore in China so they don’t gain enough from free trade anymore. This could easily be a shift in business strategy.
I could also argue the neo-liberalism of the past 60 years was the result of economic interests and not public altruism:
Decolonization & free trade benefited the US to sell its products in undeveloped markets and benefit off of cheap labor short term so the US “randomly” starting championing free trade and those liberal ideas post WW2. In reality US elites were just trying to upset the European dominance of the world’s markets at the time and were guided by their own economic interests.
Protests are like zoos because you can see funny looking animals
TRVTHFLQQD...
Noah's Protest...
Sectionalism plz return to ifunny… I'm here without u baby… but ur still with me in my dreams…
Imagine walking around holding a sign all day just to achieve nothing but being a nuisance. Very gay.
Prime Sectionalism back man
but where is Lunchly Sectionalism?
Krusty Krab is fun fair!
I've had this thought for a while, protests are pretty fake & g*y.
As someone who is somewhat familiar with English legal history, I can say that there are a lot of ways we can get at these gay little protestors if we wanted too. All without infringing actual freedom of speech btw (tho leftists will of course lie about it). Vagrancy, unlawful obstructions, *literal* public nuisance, etc.
>Most bottom-up revolutions in history have been astroturfed by power blocs. Or they only succeed—
Never in history has a bottom up revolution ever succeeded
You should do an article on why 4cuck is an awful site and the people who still use it should be shoved into lockers
That's not a bad idea. Problem is, I know there are many people who are much more knowledgeable on the 4cuck lore, and I would rather encourage them to write the article. Or maybe collab.
It came back a few days ago sadly
I think that protests can be useful in our case because they help move the overton window and normalise our beliefs, while internet is much better for spreading information doing it in real life makes it more real for normies and prevents leftists from saying "you just hide behind the screen"
(did not mean to reply here oops)
The internet is much better at spreading information, but I'd argue its also better for normalising beliefs because it's intertwined with the real world. It's evident that RW twitter had an impact on Trump's campaign e.g. Haitians eating pets, remigration, among other things. Protests aren't the tour-de-force they once were, especially among the youth.
Well isn't Stop Oil funded by oil companies to make oil protesters look bad? It would really seem to be the intention, it only gives dissenters of the oil monopolies a bad name. I think that the truth anti-smoking campaign was another case of this. It's reverse psychology propaganda, "wow this anti-smoking ad is so gay... i need to smoke cigarettes so nobody thinks I'm a homo like these guys"
“I am a complete stranger to the female race” Trvvcvll status retained
I went to an anti war protest in 2010 in Chicago. It started in one of the west side neighborhoods and quickly was corralled by riot police into a dead end. I remember them taking pictures of everyone and snatching some of the "black bloc" people out of the crowd and kicking their asses. I believe they brought a chopper out as well. It seemed really pointless and especially dumb for the low profile I was maintaining - I had a hydroponic grow op back at the apartment.
This kind of takes the case of historical materialism and that the guiding change in society is the result of economic power blocs (ik its marxist but I honestly don’t think its wrong).
It is fatalistic in a way though. It does mean protesting is stupid. Oddly communists or leftists believe in a bottom up revolution but it actually goes against historical materialism lol.
Ehh, not really. It is more the act of protesting in particular that is useless. Talking about politics online is, on the other hand, quite effective and significantly influenced the outcomes of the past 3 elections in an uncoordinated way. The zeitgeist is still powerful. And elites in power blocs (not necessarily economic, mind you) still have free will and ideas of their own that aren't a product of their material conditions
Just to argue: They might have free will, but they still (tend to) selfishly serve what benefits them.
I disagree that online politics on its own vastly shifted public opinion or sentiment. Algorithms are ran by elites themselves lol and there is massive disposable money for propaganda. So they do shape public opinion if they want. (But yes the average person is typically personally right wing I think, right wing ideas are more rational).
If nationalism serves elites - then politics can become more nationalistic due to them.
I could make the argument that American businesses see Chinese corporate competition as a threat to profits. Labor isn’t cheap anymore in China so they don’t gain enough from free trade anymore. This could easily be a shift in business strategy.
I could also argue the neo-liberalism of the past 60 years was the result of economic interests and not public altruism:
Decolonization & free trade benefited the US to sell its products in undeveloped markets and benefit off of cheap labor short term so the US “randomly” starting championing free trade and those liberal ideas post WW2. In reality US elites were just trying to upset the European dominance of the world’s markets at the time and were guided by their own economic interests.
Ja, ons naai.