• BanMeFromPosting ( BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml ) 
      11·
      2 days ago

      Also, all art is political. I dont know if memes are art, but they are the result of a creative process.
      Politics isn’t just when you see something you disagree with or something that outright makes a clear political statement. A quick example: Will & Grace, old sitcom, very cute, nothing deep there. Bunch of people were mad about that one because some of the main characters are gay.
      Yes, rothko is also political

      To misquote an aristocraric rapist snitch belowed by liberals: “The opinion that memes should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude” - George Orwell

      Here’s the top meme from the comm

      It depicts a man and a woman. They have been in a sexual relationship for a long while, yet the man still expresses attraction at the womans naked body, to her annoyance.
      Apart from just depicting a heterosexual relationship (and this specific type of relationship) as normal and thus in turn helping normalise it, there are also many other things one could comment on. Gender roles - the man is the active person in this situation. Objectifying women. Other stuff.
      “It’s not that deep” the reader will say or “that’s not what they intended!” or “thats not bad though!” and I will agree.
      The normalisation of the type of relationship isn’t bad, but something does not have to be bad to be political. We normalise all sorts of things all the time.
      And I am sure the author didnt think of these thing when they made the comic. But they are still present because the comic is a product of the author and the author is a product of their culture. The very fact that these things are not considered is due to the politics of the society of the author. Take that same comic strip and publish it in a different society or a different decade and it would be viewed differently.

      Next meme:

      A picture of a drawing of a cat in the medium of snow on a public road. Someone used temporary materials created by the local climate to make public art on a municipal road. There is so much here that is political, I believe the description itself is more than enough to convey that.

      This was the first meme I saw on the comm:

      A single mother commenting on her toddler wishing to help her because she has to do so much due to being a single mother. That is political.

      Last one:

      Basically just a written conversation. Two tumblr users comment on the form and function of the English language, expressing their frustration. Again, just by describing it I feel like the “politics” (you as a reader should understand that I am not describing the politics, but just some elements which are political. You might consider something else about it “political”.) are readily available by the description.

      My point is that almost everything in the public sphere is political in some way and will thus be perceived as political by some people. These memes are not overtly political, but that does not mean they are not political.
      Gamergaters scream about “politics in video games” when the main character is queer, POC or female. They’re not technically incorrect in that those choices are political, they’re just incorrect in the statement that everything else isn’t. Same goes for the memes you see that annoy you due to politics. All the other memes are political as well - Probably. I dont know if memes are art, so there might be some that aren’t, but I dont have an example in mind.

      Edit: The downvoted on this comment are outright sad. If you consider the comment to be incorrect, then try to adress why, in order to actually further understanding.

      • UninterestingVoid ( UninterestingVoid@reddthat.com ) 
        1·
        2 days ago

        I think you’re wrong cuz this meme talks directly about politics. The original commenter said there was a community for that and this is not the place.

        While you can say anything is political, talking about the politics of your country is obviously more political than talking about a dog. I would say the other community probs has memes talking directly about politics: Parties (or whatever), presidents, economical systems, that kind of stuff. This community probably is for stuff less political. Or at least stuff that’s less noticeable to be political (Considering you are less likely to view something as political if it aligns with your position… which basically everyone in lemmy has a similar one to some degree (not excluding myself ofc))

    • BanMeFromPosting ( BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml ) 
      31·
      3 days ago

      Not USAID??? Won’t someone please think of the CIA front for regime-change operations?!

      Other sources
      https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2015/04/15/lessons-not-learned-covert-operations-since-the-cold-war/

      https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other-times-usaid-pretended-to-be-an-intelligence-agency/

      https://www.justsecurity.org/18634/usaid-engage-covert-action-cuba-proper-domestic-legal-authority/

      https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/15/when-is-foreign-aid-meddling

      And here’s something about another US program, since we’re already shitting on things

      https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/in-edicola/articoli/2024/12/03/the-close-relationship-between-occrp-and-the-u-s-government/7789620/

      https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/occrp-budget-funding-us-government-usaid

    • EmmiLime ( EmmiLime@lemmy.ml ) 
      34·
      3 days ago

      Now do one about USAID.

      USA destabilizes a nation through bombing them or funding reactionary rebels and then comes in as the oh-so graceful white saviour of USAID to help the “uncivilized savages” who can not run their own country for some reason

    • davel [he/him] ( davel@lemmy.ml ) English
      25·
      3 days ago

      USAID wasn’t what you think it was. It was CIA front, and Trump didn’t shut it down so much as move its operations to Marco Rubio’s State Department.

    • JasonDJ ( JasonDJ@lemmy.zip ) English
      7·
      3 days ago

      Prepare yourselves, “centrists” trying to target apathy will be chiming this both sides crap straight up until midterms.

      It worked with Kamala.

      Don’t let it work again.

      • davel [he/him] ( davel@lemmy.ml ) English
        12·
        3 days ago

        Socialists aren’t “centrists,” and we’ve been saying this all along and will continue to. The election cycle has nothing to do with it, and it didn’t “work with Kamala,” because there are far too few of us to have had an appreciable effect on the 2024 election. Harris’ campaign lost due to its own unforced errors.

      • MaxLemminist ( MaxLemminist@lemmy.ml ) 
        21·
        3 days ago

        Poor Copmala, such a great domestic track record and definitely not from the both sides of genocide enablers.
        It’s good that you warn people about us.
        They should really check for themselves what this great woman has achieved.

        https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/socialism_faq.md#kamala-harris

        And that’s before the unconditional genocide stuff.
        Oh and this banger:

        It’s all a Trump/Russian/Chinese/NK/commie but also fascist psyop to divide our peaceful country and our 2 beautiful parties that love eachother!

      • BanMeFromPosting ( BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml ) 
        23·
        3 days ago

        Right… “Both sides crap” its just some stupid little fringe issue like genocide, mass deportations, an ever-growing police state, wasting money on a border wall, not giving a fuck about a conservative Supreme Court, more money for the military, fucking up the climate, throwing marginalised groups under the bus, not giving a fuck about womens rights. Stuff like that. Apart from that stuff, they’re not the same, that’s true I suppose. And Trump is fat (ewww).

        Also, very funny bit to call people who (correctly) point out that both parties are far right wing “centrists”.
        I suppose MLs are to the centre - right between Lenin and Mao (I would say Bukharin but I do not respect him.)

      • EmmiLime ( EmmiLime@lemmy.ml ) 
        19·
        3 days ago

        Kamala was quite literally the same as Trump, from Palestine to the Iran war. The “problem” with Trump is that he is incompetent(which is good) and for you, the worst you people hate about Trump is he does not pretend to have a mask on like the Democrats are doing, and even then they themselves are barely keeping the mask on anymore.

        • Rentlar ( Rentlar@lemmy.ca ) Banned from community
          2·
          3 days ago

          One could possibly imagine turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering coupled with nice sounding words of sympathy, but there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran. Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran, she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric, that most nations would provide the USA some token support which would keep it from being as disastrous for the USA as it is.

          • BanMeFromPosting ( BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml ) 
            19·
            3 days ago

            there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran.

            Youre right. The person who’s a fervent supporter of Israel, genocide, who said “Iran is the biggest threat to the US” AND “we will have the most lethal military in the world” could never conceivably start a war with Iran.

            Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran

            Definitely. Looking at her history we can safely conclude she would remain sceptical of Israel and not just do whatever they wanted her to do.

            IF IT WERE OPPOSITE DAY!!! *GOTTEM

            she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric,

            Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.

            • Rentlar ( Rentlar@lemmy.ca ) Banned from community
              3·
              3 days ago

              Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.

              You’re taking the part where I’m being charitable and accepting the other person’s (and your) premise that a war under Harris is inevitable for the sake of argument, and twisting that into as if I was arguing for it, which is incorrect. I will engage no further with you on this.

              • BanMeFromPosting ( BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml ) 
                17·
                3 days ago

                No, I’m taking your argument: “If a war were to be waged with Iran, you would prefer it would be waged by Kamala, because then it would be done competently” and pointing out your main issue with the war in Iran is how it is waged. The rest of your argument is: “I don’t think Kamala would go to war with Iran.” So, while you make allusions, the only actual objection you place to the war is that it is waged incompetently.

                You know, how I first took one part of your comment, and then the other, until I had addressed the whole. You should try it.

                I am then making an assumption, which is unfalsifiable, that if a war were waged with Iran under democratic leadership, you would not find it disagreeable, because you would buy into the propaganda that would be used to make you accept it.
                Probably something about the inflated number of dead protesters. Or some pinkwashing.

                edit: How about you adress the rest of the comment?

          • BrainInABox ( BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ) English
            19·
            3 days ago

            “How can you say Harris would be the same as Trump? She would have prosecuted the brutal war of aggression competently!”

            And this is why BlueMaga are just as fascist as their red counterpart

          • OBJECTION! ( Objection@lemmy.ml ) 
            18·
            3 days ago

            Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran, she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric, that most nations would provide the USA some token support which would keep it from being as disastrous for the USA as it is.

            That’s a point against. I don’t want the war to be done competently. I would rather we get our asses kicked so badly that the administration gives up, and even talking about fucking with them again becomes politically toxic. We had an international coalition going into Afghanistan, and then we were there for 20 years and accomplished nothing but blood and death. If Europe had reacted like they’re doing with Iran, how many lives might have been saved by the war being cut short? Since the war is unjustified, surely it’s better that we lose. Or are you saying, “My country, right or wrong?”

            Granted, I don’t fully agree with the other person’s position. I think that Trump is doing more damage than Harris would have, I just don’t believe that you should automatically support the “lesser evil.” And I don’t know really know how unlikely it really is that she’d stay out of Iran with her rhetoric about “the most lethal military in the world,” her campaigning with Cheyney, and with Biden increasing the military budget to an all time high. I’m not aware of anything she ever actually said that indicated that she was inclined to a peaceful foreign policy.

            • Rentlar ( Rentlar@lemmy.ca ) Banned from community
              2·
              3 days ago

              I can respect your position on that screwing up a war hard to create a deterrent and disincentive, it’s an interesting one. To me that (and arguments that he’s done more to reduce oil consumption than any environmental activist) are silver linings than reasons to direct your vote on the future one way or another.

              We had an international coalition going into Afghanistan

              As a Canadian, “my country” got involved there but we got burnt pretty bad I’d say, whatever the result was.

              I’d rather see no war, despite Harris labelling Iran as the greatest adversary, I still don’t think it’s forgone conclusion that Harris would start a war, but I’ll assume she does for the sake of steelmanning your argument. I’m not a time traveler so I can only speculate the alternatives, but Trump instigated war not just once but twice with Iran. He’s giving American money away to dictators and allowing right wing propaganda campaigns to foment. He’s done nothing to help suffering Iranians, if Harris were to involve the US militarily, she would at least provide some forms of aid to try to mitigate the regime’s massacaring people and restore communication between people stuck their and the worldwide Iranian diaspora. It’s even hard for me to speculate how long a Harris-initiated war would be, but there would definitely be a stronger push to come to a nuclear deal quicker rather than this on-off style untrustworthy negotiation with Trump, and unlike him Harris would care about any unsanctioned action getting approval from Congress, which if it is ®-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.

              So overall, I will still push back on the argument that always springs up around American election-time that Harris/Dems will be equally bad therefore don’t vote, but I’ll entertain a nuanced argument that one supports a thing Trump did, intentional or not, over a at least somewhat hypothetical action Harris might take.

              • BrainInABox ( BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ) English
                17·
                3 days ago

                the argument that always springs up around American election-time

                It’s extremely fucking demonstrative of how much liberals completely go out to brunch politically between elections that they think this argument only springs up at elections and hasn’t been what we’ve been saying consistently the whole time

              • OBJECTION! ( Objection@lemmy.ml ) 
                12·
                3 days ago

                if Harris were to involve the US militarily, she would at least provide some forms of aid to try to mitigate the regime’s massacaring people and restore communication between people stuck their and the worldwide Iranian diaspora

                Would she? Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan created a humanitarian crisis, people were starving to death. Getting humanitarian aid would be dependent on them overthrowing the government. This is the whole argument behind economic sanctions, in every country they they subject to them - if the people are suffering, they’ll blame their own government and revolt.

                This is, in many cases, delusional, or more about wanting to “do something” to look strong to voters. Because the Democratic party is assumed to be more progressive, they sometimes go even further in order to prove that they’re not soft and weak. This was the same logic behind mass incarceration under Clinton.

                Congress, which if it is ®-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.

                Did the Republican-controlled Congress ever do anything to stop Obama from continuing the war in Afghanistan? Those people fucking love war. Every one of them is in bed with the military-industrial complex, as long as bombs are dropping, they’re thrilled.

                So overall, I will still push back on the argument that always springs up around American election-time that Harris/Dems will be equally bad therefore don’t vote

                To be precise, my position is not that they’re equally bad, but that they’re both fundamentally unacceptable. I cannot envision a future either of them would lead us to where we are not completely and totally fucked.

                Four years of Biden brought declining economic conditions, record military spending, countless dead in Palestine, and four years closer to ecological collapse. When the average American sees that, they’re going to be dissatisfied and want change, which is why Trump won. What would four years of Harris get us? According to her, she wouldn’t do anything differently and refused to distinguish herself from him in any way. So, it’s reasonable to assume that things would continue in that direction, the same way they have for decades, across both Democratic and Republican administrations. Even if they somehow squeaked out a win in 2024, they would lose in 2028.

                This whole mentality of lesser evilism is based on accepting the choices we’re presented with and trying to make the best of it. But my approach is to start at what actually needs to happen, and then try to work out how to get there. The crises we’re facing (climate change, for example) are part of the physical world, governed by the laws of physics. What a political system is capable of doing is only governed by human laws, by human norms and customs. If there is a disconnect between what a human system says it can do, and what a physical system says needs to happen, then the human system will bend and break. Either the rules of what our political system treats as possible will bend now, or they will break later, when, for example, cities are flooded and millions of climate refugees are starving at the border.

                There is a giant boulder headed straight towards us, and one party denies it exists at all while the other acknowledges that there’s a boulder, but says that saying we should step out of the way is unrealistic, unamerican, and probably somehow antisemitic.

                From a physical perspective, what needs to happen are drastic fundamental, changes to the system, because none of this shit is sustainable. If the political system does not give us that option, if we are only offered options that completely refuse to bend to what is physically necessary, then the political system is simply broken and destined to fail, and all we can do is prepare for that.

                And the best way I can see to prepare for that is to call out it’s inevitable failure and to distance myself from the people responsible. Because as the system is failing, the far-right are the only ones positioning themselves as an “alternative” (even though, as the Iran War demonstrates, they’re just more of the same), and if that’s the only alternative then that’s where people will turn. There needs to be a left-wing movement that can plausibly distance itself from the establishment’s failure and can be ready to step in and pick up the pieces, or else the far-right will be the only game in town.

                Tl;dr: When shit hits the fan (and it’s going to) people are going to find their ideas of what’s “politically possible” changing very rapidly. We need to be presenting a real alternative and not be associating ourselves with the people actively launching shit towards the fan.

                • BanMeFromPosting ( BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml ) 
                  8·
                  3 days ago

                  Would she? Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan created a humanitarian crisis, people were starving to death. Getting humanitarian aid would be dependent on them overthrowing the government.

                  Not to mention the democratic party was infuriated at Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan and immediately began agitising for a return.

                  This is the whole argument behind economic sanctions, in every country they they subject to them - if the people are suffering, they’ll blame their own government and revolt.

                  Another example would be the starving of Venezuela or Cuba. Another argument would be the colour revolutions fomented - particularly under Obamas “Arab Spring”

                • Rentlar ( Rentlar@lemmy.ca ) Banned from community
                  2·
                  3 days ago

                  I absolutely see where you’re coming from. Sorry if I made bad assumptions about your opinion because I’m responding to you and the original comment, and in a sense I agree on your assessment but differ on the approach.

                  The physical crises are coming whether we shut our eyes or not, you are correct. I am maybe a lot more optimistic than many here on how pliable that system could be. My optimistic vision still does hinge on many improbable sounding feats like getting money out of politics, drastically reforming the court amongst other changes. Preparing for the break is fine, but I argue we’d be better off doing that while still trying to bend the system to better handle the break if it happens, and form some strategic alliances with the establishment to get there.

          • EmmiLime ( EmmiLime@lemmy.ml ) 
            15·
            3 days ago

            but there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DxQTPOouU

            she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric,

            Trump is just treating the US’ allies as they always has been; vassal states. He’s mask off and the vassal states can not do anything about it for that reason. It’s why Denmark won’t do anything but bark for their master when it comes to Greenland as an example.

              • BrainInABox ( BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ) English
                12·
                3 days ago

                “How can you say Harris would be the same as Trump? She would have prosecuted the brutal war of aggression competently!”

                And this is why BlueMaga are just as fascist as their red counterpart

              • BanMeFromPosting ( BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml ) 
                8·
                3 days ago

                The point is though, USA’s ill treatment of those states hurt a major source of the USA’s own soft and hard power.

                Yes. That is a good thing. The USA is a genocidal imperialist fascist oligarchy. Making it a less effective agent of capitalism is a positive.

                You may say losing that power is better, well that’s great, I’m glad you are getting what you want from Trump.

                Thank you. Normally when people are engaged in an argument and they present the expected counterargument, they usually have some refutation of it. Especially if they present it with the framing “you may say…”

                it wouldn’t be waged this illegally, and it wouldn’t be waged alone,

                Neither of these things are the issue with the war. And “illegal” war is an oxymoron. If you mean domestivally, then it is far from unique, if you mean internationally then it is a useless moniker.

                With no regard for human life anywhere

                What is your basis for this assumption? The democrats designated all male afghanis over the age of 14 “combat-ready males”. Obama dropped more drone strikes than Bush. Biden loved genocide, and Kamala wouldn’t change a thing. The only difference is the majority of popular media pays less attention when Democrats do it, because they use nicer words.

                on-again-off-again, which I argue would be less harmful for everybody.

                The war would be less “harmful” if it was “legal”? If it was done with support from other imperialists? If we got all the bombing over with at once? IT IS A WAR. THE POINT IS TO CAUSE HARM.
                Apart from that, more people causing harm or causing harm with more perceived legitimacy does not make the harm less harmful.
                Not to mention this statement is akin to that dimwitted guy who thought he had WWII figured out
                The reason the war is “off again, on again” is because Iran is an actual country with actual military capabilities that allows them to absolutely demolish US equipment in the area, and exert pressure upon the US. Iran makes reasonable demands, but they are unreasonable in the eyes of the propagandised American masses, so the political establishment cannot accept them. This would still be the situation under a democratic president.
                You’d just be foaming at the mouth due to some rainbow imperialist propaganda instead.
                Even if the democrats would be capable of leading a successful war, then that would not be “less harmful” it would, in fact, be worse - because the US is a fascist genocidal imperialist state. A victory would further empower the US, further entrench the establishment and leave Iran like every other nation the US has benevolently invaded - With millions dead, warlords roaming around, bored US rapist murderers guarding poppyfields, fucked infrastructure and growing right-wing radical militants. This would be the outcome of your utopian idealist view of the war if it were waged “less harmfully”.

                In the large majority of potential outcomes, most of them NOT engaging in needless wars

                In the majority of potential outcomes the following things are still the same for Harris:

                • Fervent supporter of Israel
                • Critiqued the pull-out of Afghanistan
                • Views Iran as a geopolitical rival, she even stated Iran is the number one US enemy
                • Such a xenophobe she ran on deporting more people than Trump
                • Fervent supporter of US militarism, supporting past invasions and intrusions
                • Fervent supporter of the US military, which she wanted to be “the most lethal”

                So, given Harris’ political platform, her political history, the history of her party, the interests of her major donors and supporters, her view of geopolitics and her support for Israel (who were the ones to push Trump to war with Iran ) we have every reason to assume, in the vast majority of “potential outcomes” the situation would be practically the same.

                but you are most welcome to disagree.

                Don’t make this out to be some silly little “oh its just my opinion”.
                An opinion is something you have about an actual concept, it is not the concept itself. “War is bad” is an opinion. “Grass does not exist” is not an opinion. You can have an opinion on the conclusions of the analysis of what is going on and how things might have been differently, but if your opinion is that the analysis itself is incorrect, then you need to present why said analysis is incorrect. Just spouting “well I think something else” is completely useless.