this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
183 points (79.4% liked)

Political Memes

12538 readers
2621 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) 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.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Can I get a smug lecture on how you're choosing the third, disconnected track?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

"milquetoast liberals" who literally immediately set about working on how to undo the impact of civil rights legislation by launching the drug war, establishing the southern strategy and then triangulation, and then drove head first into racial mass incarceration?

Like, listen to what we're saying. You think it was voting in liberals that got the legislation passed. I think liberals happened to be in charge when the rioting strategy got strong enough to demand a response. My evidence? A D president and an R president both had to capitulate, and an R president and a D legislature both worked to build the next structure of criminalizing blackness together after passing civil rights legislation.

To me, that says the party doesn't matter at all because both parties operated in both sides of power system, giving concessions and setting up the next disenfranchisement fight because, fundamentally, they were collaborating the whole way and continue to do so.

[–] dreamy@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The person you're replying to thinks that America should continue funding Israel's Iron Dome because children might get hurt there, just an FYI. He's a peak liberal.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Oh no, I care about children independent of where they live.

Oh, the humanity!

^ By the way, this person could not acknowledge that Hamas murdered children on O7 (and a cursory glance at my history shows I'm no zionist lol, just not a zealot.) I bet they'd defend Russia's invasion of Ukraine and strikes on civilians, too.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean, they could've immediately set out to undo it by not voting, but clearly they did not?

There were Republicans in Congress. They didn't vote for it. What you're telling me is that when liberals are in Congress and in charge, they listen to protesters. Tell me, why hasn't Trump listened to protesters yet over a range of issues even though the No King's protests are larger than anything during Civil Rights?

Liberals > Conservatives. Just a fact.


NOVEMBER MIDTERMS ACTION STATIONS:

  • Vote Democrat all the way down ballot for these midterm elections for Congressional control that are the very first chance to put brakes on the fascist Trump regime. In doing so, in this user's words, we can "stall" and slow down and give people a chance to respond! In this user's words, they will actually be in power and listen to these protesters, unlike Republicans!

  • Check when and where your local No King's Protests will be!

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You're confusing protesting with riots. The civil rights legislation was passed when the people could no longer be ignored. It was a deliberate concession to stop the rioting. Need I remind you that a Democrat was president when the FBI assassinated MLK Jr and Malcolm X? Because Democrats are just as bloodthirsty as Republicans. You think Democrats were "liberal" in the 60s but Republicans weren't? The Democrats were the party of the KKK at the time.

You have no idea of the history. You're making up myths to validate your voting choices.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Do you have any science-based evidence the riots were essential to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? In fact, how do you know they weren't counterproductive and we achieved in spite, not because of them?

Need I remind you that Democrats weren't yet the liberal banner but largely the conservative one at the time. This is common knowledge in any US Civics course. Are you a US Citizen and/or reside in the USA?

Audience, take note of the bad faith argumentation and gross misunderstanding of US History and party ideological swaps. I see this from MAGA all the time.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

You literally said the reason civil rights passed is because the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WERE IN CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THAT LIBERALS > CONSERVATIVES and you want claim that I am arguing in bad faith?

That's some serious dirtbag shit right there. Which is it? Civil rights passed because white voters voted in the KKK conservative party and that's evidence for why we should vote for Democrats today? Or is it that white voters voted in the liberals and the liberals did it?

You see the contradiction you've created and decide to pivot to meta debate? Fuck off.

@dreamy you were right

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Ah yeah sometimes I flip it too but had modern Democrats in my head, of course (because that's what matters for this upcoming election after all!). You're right, I should've simply referred to them as Liberals consistently.

That said, yes. The literal reason the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed was because those activists voted in "Milquetoast Liberals" who then went on to vote for the legislation in Congress. This is fact!

So let's do it again! (The Tankies just can't figure out a way to weasel around this, it's kind of hilarious).

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

You know what else is a fact? That it wouldn't have passed without Republican support. I don't say that out of any love for the Republicans. All US politicians are lower than shit in my books.

You're so trapped in this liberal vs conservative framing and it's so inaccurate. All of the politicians in the history of the USA have been Liberals (private property, autonomy of individuals, wage labor, government defense of "universal" rights, capitalism). The distinction you're making in this case is the distinction between progressivism (a liberal faction that believes it can maintain capitalism by making concessions to the masses) and a mixture of classical liberalism and "liberal conservatism" (2 liberal factions who take a hard line on limiting what the government should do to maintaining markets and personal autonomy).

But even the progressive liberals are only making those concessions, like civil rights, to stop the rioting and the only reason they are ever successful is because the social conditions call for it. There's a reason liberal democracies didn't see progressivism emerge for more than a century after liberal constitutions were written and more than 200 years after liberalism became philosophically ascendant: because liberals became afraid of successful revolution.

Progressivism is widely understood to have structurally emerged by 1890. The Paris Commune was established in 1871 and the October Revolution occurred in 1917. Progressivism in America emerged in response to an agrarian popular uprising that was contemporaneous with violent labor uprisings.

Liberalism specifically has nothing to say about these things. It was Liberalism that created these problems and it was Liberalism that used the value of private property to justify putting down these uprisings with state violence. But using violence to repress unrest creates more unrest. It's not like there weren't progressive ideas before 1890. It's just that liberal democracies didn't allow progressivism in until, after over a century of conflict with the masses, it started to look like the masses would win.

Progressivism, therefore, was used by the liberal establishment as a release valve for the tensions caused by the class war (waged on the battle fields of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age, ability, neurology, and others).

Yes, you are 100% right that the reason civil rights was passed is because the progressives won the day. But the progressives won because their strategy was the best strategy available for dealing with the actual crisis that was caused by black population that not only was organizing for rebellion in huge numbers that could no longer be repressed fully but we're actually winning over white people as they did so and started to make class consciousness a part of their program. Progressivism had the solution that worked for the ruling class. The ruling class benefited from resolving the crisis.

And again, how do I know this? Because that same Congress then immediately set to work to support Nixon's criminalization of drug use which the insiders in the administration knew was specifically directed at Black people and the hippies that supported them.

This is the point. The parties don't matter. They take up different positions as needed at different times. But they share a common goal: maintenance of the capitalist global empire