523
Do memes from 1911 count if they're still true? (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 70 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Imagine telling the original artist right after they finished it that in 113 years time people would be posting his/her creation in full color and high fidelity on a communications system that instantly made it accessible to anyone in the world. That would completely blow their mind.

[-] Heywaitaminute@lemmy.world 65 points 3 months ago

Now imagine also telling them the situation in the meme is the same or worse 113 years later and they will cry.

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 months ago

Them: "What's a meme?"

[-] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

You are not ready for this

[-] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago

A joke reminding people of a shared experience. It gets really good in the internet age.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

Eh. Marx was pretty clear that it was a process, and worker rights have improved.

What they'd be upset about is everyone twiddling their thumbs while we kill the climate.

[-] Norgur@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

Or put on a sly grin and sue OP for Future -Royalties

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

“Wow, so with all that innovation things are better?”

“Look I don’t know how to tell you this but we definitely aren’t making the most of our new technology and medicine.”

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

“Wow, so with all that innovation things are better?”

I mean... things are better, just not nearly as much as they should be.

[-] Banana@sh.itjust.works 29 points 3 months ago

My partner's father is a member of the canadian communist party and he has this framed and hung up in his house

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

A classic

[-] teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Does lemmy have im14andthisisdeep yet

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Since when are memes supposed to be deep?

[-] marduk@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 3 months ago

I'd like to see your explanation of why this meme belongs there, please

[-] teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

We live in a society

Bottom text

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago

Bro turned 15 and has it all figured out now

[-] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago

Well, they were likely called mimemes back then, but, yes, they still count. And holy crap is it still relevant.

[-] emilmuzz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Thank you! I recently saw a thumbnail of this in a Feral Historian video and I was hoping to find a copy.

[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

I'm confused about what this picture is trying to say. What do the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tiers from the top — rule by royalty(?), indoctrination by the clergy, oppression by the military — have to do with capitalism?

[-] Peddlephile@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago

I think it's more:

  • We rule you and take your money
  • We preach to you and take your money
  • We fight you and take your money/resources
  • We take your resources that you've grown

Or it could be the rulling class takes the biggest cut, clergy the next biggest etc. with workers at the bottom supporting the entire system but receiving the least.

[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

None of that has anything to do with capitalism, though. You're just pointing out the negatives of tyranny, which, arguably, capitalism doesn't necessitate.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 months ago

They are each beneficiaries of the capitalist system, with the military / police serving duel roles as employed and enforcers / protectors of the system.

[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

They are each beneficiaries of the capitalist system

How do police and the military specifically benefit from a capitalist system?

with the military / police serving duel roles as employed and enforcers / protectors of the system.

Are you saying that only a capitalist system benefits from the police and military?

All that being said, I'm not entirely sure what your point has to do with the thesis of the poster.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Especially so.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

We need an updated version of this.

First, the money goes underneath the liberal politicians and their capitalist and fascist cronies. The Marxists got that wrong. They don't serve capital - capital serves them.

Second, replace the religious types with media personalities.

Third, replace the diners with upper middle-class "managerial" types and move them one step up.

Fourth, move the goon squad one level down and - of course - replace them with pigs.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

You don’t think religion is still used to control people?

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Not really. I don't think religion was ever used to control people. Certain aspects of religion was used to justify certain classes hoarding the real means of control - which is always a material thing - but that makes religion no different than any other justification (such as nationalism or the belief in the so-called "free market")

Marx himself had a pretty nuanced take on this - I'd say he was half-right about it. The Marxist-Lennists completely fudged it - as they do with almost everything - but even anarchists got this horribly wrong.

Even if you disagree with what I'm saying - and most leftists do - you still have to admit that the only way you control religion today is through media.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

So you're saying that trusted religious sources that tell people in person (believe it or not, going to church is not "media.") what to believe does not control them and that's only a left-wing view that trusted people control others? Really?

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

(believe it or not, going to church is not “media.”)

Do you know what happens to religious organisations or movements that starts to threaten the line laid down through the media by the status quo? This.

The example posted also nicely demonstrates just how easily the status quo can be threatened by religion.

Religion is a very important propaganda tool - but it doesn't control squat. Control is a material thing - justifying that control isn't.

If you could control people through religion you wouldn't need goon squads to terrorize people into giving you that control in the first place, would you? Humans are not zombies - they can interpret religious ideas on their own just as they can political ones.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Religion is a very important propaganda tool - but it doesn’t control squat.

That must be why LGBT+ people are so tolerated in Muslim and evangelical Christian communities in countries where being queer is legal, right? They're really tolerated and loved and no one in a church or mosque is telling them they're evil, just the media. Because you can't control people through religion.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

There's no need to go all reactionary atheist (a religion that has no churches or temples - but lots of media) on me - it's not going to gain you anything.

I'll explain it this way -

To be anti-LGBTQ+ is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.

To be anti-religion is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.

There is no contradiction here. If you think there is one, it's your logic that requires examination.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Who do you think tells them to be homophobic? Do you think it's genetic or something? They get it from the churches.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Do you think it’s genetic or something?

Do you really believe that it's religion itself that is (somehow) fundamentally threatened by homosexuality? Are you really going to try and tell me that Christianity grew inside the Roman empire because the Romans (of all people) were all closeted homophobes deep down?

Come now... I know you're smarter than that.

If the Christian churches all over the west that align themselves with empire are peddling anti-LGBTQ+ narratives it's because the embrace of LGBTQ+ people poses a threat to said empire - not Christianity.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Please explain to me how queer people are a threat to Western governments. This should be interesting.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Please explain to me how queer people are a threat to Western governments.

You mean...liberals themselves hysterically painting transgender people as a "threat to liberal values" isn't enough for you?

Content warning - it's very liberal.

I mean... did you really think the colonialists brutally imposed heternormativity on the colonized world for shits and giggles? Or do you perhaps suspect that it has somethng to do with the vast resources flowing from the colonized world to the liberal empires and the cheap, expendable labor that makes it flow in the first place?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Yes, I know right-wing people hate queer people. That doesn't answer my question. If it is governments, not religions, that are the cause of homophobia, what threat do queer people pose?

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Yes, I know right-wing people hate queer people.

What did you think right-wing ideology exists for? What did you think the status quo is?

That doesn’t answer my question.

You really don't know any of this, do you? Fine.

None of this is a secret anymore, you know - you could have found this all by yourself.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Maybe find a better source. An opinion article from a medium-credible one isn't exactly great.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/novara-media-bias/

But I get it. Religion is blameless. No evil in this world can ever be traced to religion.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Maybe find a better source

No. It's a perfectly fine source for a lot of things - that is, unless you prefer the "objective" centrist claptrap I showed you first?

It's your choice.

No evil in this world can ever be traced to religion.

More reactionary atheism... and you're still stuck in a dead-end.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's clearly not a fine source as I showed you.

But fine, if I'm stuck in a dead end, name three evils that religion is responsible for.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

It’s clearly not a fine source as I showed you.

Again... it's a perfectly fine source - anyone that tries to convince you that there is, or has ever been, such a thing as a "far left" has already dealt their own credibility a crippling blow.

name three evils that religion is responsible for.

Which one of the hundreds of thousands that has existed over the last six millenia would you like to focus on? Remember... your argument - the same argument that all reactionary atheists peddle - wholly rests on the hopelessly ahistorical presumption that there is something fundamentally "evil" about religion. In order to prove this argument, you have to find a pattern of the exact same "evil" in the religious practices of a whole bunch of pre-modern civilizations (both large and small) than the ones you attribute to modern day ones.

Reactionary atheists have all failed at this - most don't even try, and simply pretend this big flaw in their anti-scientific pretzel-logic doesn't exist.

Wanna try your hand at it?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I never said there is something fundamentally evil about religion. Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

All I asked for is three things. You can't even do that. Are there zero evils religion is responsible for?

I see no reason to "try my hand" at anything you ask me to when you won't do what I asked you to do first.

So. Three things. Any religion. Can you list them?

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I never said there is something fundamentally evil about religion.

You didn't have to - the people who made, printed and distributed that poster you posted already did. And it's a narrative that exists among the left to this very day. That's why I suggested we need an updated version, remember?

I see no reason to “try my hand”

Neither do I. I didn't actually expect you to perform that which is historically impossible to do - merely to understand how ludicrous this line of reasoning actually gets the minute you unpack it.

Are there zero evils religion is responsible for?

Religion doesn't do anything. Period. We can talk all day long and discuss how the DRC supported the Apartheid-regime... but that discussion will contain lots of ideology and lots of realpolitik but very little that can actually be called "religious," won't it?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Sorry, we're not going to continue this discussion when you're not going to acknowledge you put words in my mouth.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Suit yourself. But remember... only one of us leaves here with an unresolved contradiction in their narrative.

That's you, by the way.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

And the other one of us leaves here a liar. I know which one I'd rather be.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Grab at any and every straw you feel like - it doesn't change anything.

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I don't think religion was ever used to control people.

Ignoring thousands of years of history where religion literally controlled people does not help the rest of your arguments. You clearly lack a wealth of knowledge on how society functions both in the past and in the now.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Ignoring thousands of years of history where religion literally controlled people does not help the rest of your arguments.

I'm afraid not - it's you that is blithely ignoring history. Religion has been used to justify revolt as much as - if not far more - than it has been used to justify conformity.

I guess we're beyond the point of merely calling this "edgelord atheism" now - I'd say that a better term for it would be fundamentalist atheism. And, like everything peddled by the right, it's perfectly ahistorical and essentialized.

[-] goosehorse@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I like this one

this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
523 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5233 readers
1924 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
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world