this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
416 points (94.4% liked)

Political Memes

5359 readers
2072 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

TBF, occasionally sending in a murderous idiot armed with a gun is actually the correct solution to a problem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Terrorists and school shooters. Frankly, if cops were as gun happy towards Nazis as they are everyone else, we wouldn't have quite the fascist problem.

Now, I'm not saying an idiot with a gun is the best solution to those issues, but it would be a solution.

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

When?
When guerrilla warfare attacking another sovereign nation (so not on home soil)?

No, I don't think there is a problem I want solved that way (the "murderous" part I mean).

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For every problem, there is a sufficiently improbable scenario where it's a benefit.

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

Yes, sufficiently improbable!

But the og reply I'm replying to said "correct" (not best, or appropriate, or practical), that's why I don't want a raging natural murderer doing any murdering (not even as executioner).

That's why you don't usually have hero movies where heroes heroically kill people & enjoy it - but rather heroes that oppose killing (but still kill a buch of evil™ people).

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

What definition of "correct" are you using that makes it significantly different from those others words?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago

Well, since it's not exact science we are talking about the "correct" can only mean something totally subjective.

So I might not think ever the correct solution to use a murdering idiot with a gun.
Not least because that implies having (and keeping) murdering idiots.
That's one example why I would label that as an incorrect solution.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

I mean forest fire fighters do this sometimes.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This looks like Fahrenheit 451

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

There is a grain of truth buried in there

[–] [email protected] 47 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Is that from Fahrenheit 451 by chance?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I did Google F451 fireman to make this

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

I guess why the bottom right one is holding a book?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

That's Montag

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

That was my first thought

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

god I hate how few cars are properly firefighter proof

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (4 children)

They did at one point set houses on fire though. I listened to a podcast on the history of firemen in the US. Mad stuff. Can't remember the name of the podcast though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

I know in like ancient Rome they'd haggle for payment while the house was burning.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There's a nice scene in Gangs of New York, where rival Fire teams would fight it out whilst robbing the houses they were "saving"

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

Firefighting shenanigans go all the way back to ancient Rome: Marcus Licinius Crassus formed Rome's first fire brigade, which would basically extort the owners of burning buildings to buy them on the cheap. Per Wikipedia:

The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Crassus. Fires were almost a daily occurrence in Rome, and Crassus took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the firefighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire; if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground. After buying many properties this way, he rebuilt them, and often leased the properties to their original owners or new tenants.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

When you get paid to stop something bad that is happening, prevention is not in your best interest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

If you guys wanna defund the fire dept because some GqP says it sounds edgy WHILE saving tax money for the rich, then please let me not live there. Having lived through a devastating house fire, I'd like to not repeat the experience.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

It was a pleasure to burn.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I assume that's a reference to what the book-burners in Fahrenheit 451 are called, and not a weirdly misogynistic gatekeep, lol.

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

Thought so-- Sorry about all the downvotes :(

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

It's ok. They're just imaginary points. And if people wanna be sensitive about the gender neutrality of a term from the book that the source image is referencing, that's their problem.

I'm all for gender neutrality, but c'mon.

load more comments
view more: next ›