100
Canadian protest (media.piefed.social)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Canadian protest

top 64 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 89 points 10 months ago (4 children)

It's probably just regular old graffiti. And it's kinda funny

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • [–] 78 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Or, you know, teenage boys.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 65 points 10 months ago (38 children)

    I love unsourced propaganda that's labeled a meme

    Delicious bait

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (37 children)

    OP has a strange obsession with New Hampshire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (36 children)

    I live there 🙂

    Free State Project

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago (35 children)

    The NH libertarian party is just a bunch of racist fucks. No one takes them seriously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -33 points 10 months ago (34 children)

    The Liberty Caucus represents about 80 seats in the New Hampshire state house. They just eliminated Motor Vehicle Inspections!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    So they got legislation passed that makes the most dangerous thing people do even more dangerous?

    Another “I only have to care about me despite my actions having broad sweeping impact on those around me” moment from the Libertarian dumbasses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -16 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    New Hampshire is also the only state in the US that doesn't require wearing a seat belt. https://docs.freestater.org/videos/NH%20No%20Seatbelts.mp4 Now, most people still wear a seat belt. It is safer, after all. It's merely that the government cannot require that adults do (children still have to).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago* (13 children)

    Is that something you’re proud of?

    Seatbelts don’t just save your life, they save the lives of others.

    People in the back seat without a seatbelt can kill the passengers in the front when their bodies become projectiles.

    Or just think about the municipal services and first responders who have to respond to your flesh goo. I mean all around not wearing your seatbelt is one of those tests, it actually isn’t all about you.

    This just screams of willful ignorance, like when people are proud they don’t know how to use a computer or are proud they don’t know how to be politically correct.

    Why enforce it for children if you’re not gonna enforce it for adults.

    Another Libertarian L

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -8 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    I always wear a seat belt. It's definitely safer than not wearing one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    So to you it's important to have the freedom of being a dumbass and endangering others?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -7 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Yes. There is a great Benjamin Franklin quote that applies here.
    XT7tlb562lWoSvK.jpg

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I love it when libertarians quote this out of context, not realizing that it often contradicts their positions.

    The quote is backing the right of the state legislature to levy taxes on wealthy assholes who want the benefit of property ownership and political power but who don't want to contribute to the welfare of society.

    https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    He said it several times. For instance, he said it when the British Crown offered their protection and self-governance in exchange for not declaring independence from Britain.

    https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/benjamin-franklin-on-the-trade-off-between-essential-liberty-and-temporary-safety-1775

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    And that doesn't contradict the fact that the quote was used to support the right of the legislature to tax the wealthy and property owners for the greater good of all citizens, including their long term (not short term) safety. The point still stands. The quote is not in defense of right wing libertarian philosophy and is being used out of context.

    If you're just going to transparently use unrelated quotes for your propaganda, you might as well just make up the quotes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. 🙂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Except it's not a subjective topic like which flavor of ice cream is better. We can actually see whether the speaker of the quote would agree with your positions. You're not agreeing to disagree. You're saying you don't care about verifiable facts because you're not interested in intellectual honesty. You're saying you don't care what he actually thought and just want to use him to push your propaganda.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    You shared your interpretation and I shared mine. I don't know how going in circles benefits anyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It's not an interpretation. You're ignoring the verifiable context of the quote and the speaker. You're actively choosing to misrepresent it for your propaganda. This undermines your narrative and marks you as transparently untrustworthy. If you don't care about that, then nothing you say has value.

    The irony is that you don't need to be dishonest to undermine your propaganda. You've already been doing that with your honest enthusiasm for deregulation as if everyone thinks seatbelt laws are oppressive government overreach.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Okay fine. We can discuss it more if you want...

    The intent of the quote in both my example and yours is to say "don't bow to a king". In my case, the King of England, in your case the Penn Family. You are correct that the way it was expressed in your context was a state legislator refusing to give a prominent family a tax break. In my case a refusal to accept terms to maintain status as a British colony. Either way, the intent of the quote is to not give up your liberty for a false sense of security.

    I think the "No Kings" interpretation is a good one, given the recent No Kings pretests in the US, eh?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    It wasn't just "don't bow to a king" but also "taxes are a legitimate method of funding the public welfare," which directly contradicts the right wing libertarian ethos. It was also saying that more permanent safety was an achievable goal without having to give up freedom. He wasn't saying that freedom (to regulate and tax as a representative body) and safety were always mutually exclusive. So to use such an example to say that people need the freedom to endanger multiple lives even though the safety provided by the regulation isn't just temporary is an absurd misappropriation. Dying in a car accident because a selfish asshole decides not to wear a seatbelt or removes the seatbelts from his vehicle isn't very free.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 29 points 10 months ago (7 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    They eliminated mandatory inspections in Texas too. Now there are going to be a bunch more cars with bald tires on the road killing others for nothing. They still collect the inspection fee though so no money lost :/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    The NHLP is... they've broken off from the main LP party which already had some stupid ideas, but even the main LP has distanced themselves from the NHLP because of how absolutely batshit they are. They're not really LP anymore, it's more of a group of racist/bigoted sovereign citizen types who banded together because they figured they'd make some fucked up utopia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I should have been more clear. People can still get their cars inspected, it's just no longer required by the government.

    I assure you, when people hear a weird noise coming from their cars, they still go to a mechanic. 🙂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago

    They eliminated inspections in Texas too. Now the road we all share will be far more dangerous made by the idiots who don't know how to check their own tires for worn tread. A pretty dumb move that will cost others lives while providing no liberties.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    So you're not denying they are racist fucks then

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -6 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    They are not 🙂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Then why did you deflect and talk about something else?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Well for two reasons:

    1. When someone makes a blanket statement calling an entire group of people "racist fucks", I don't think any amount of reasoning will change their mind.
    2. The second half of their comment was "No one takes them seriously". Now that is a point I am willing to debate. When a political group controls roughly 20% of the elected seats in the state house and they have legislative victories to point to, I don't think it's fair to say that no one takes them seriously.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    Sweeping racist accusations under the rug makes them seem valid. If they weren't racist you could easily show how they weren't, by seemingly changing the subject it looks like you can't defend them.

    I don't know much about them but now I'm pretty sure they are racist fucks only because of how you have responded to people here.

    Edit: looked them up, leader is paused by the heritage foundation and they are associated with the tea party, so yeah, probably racist fucks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Who represents Grafton?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Lex Berezhny and Don McFarlane .
    Both are members of the Liberty Caucus! 😀

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You know what, I strongly disagree with your political views, but seriously, good for you for staying respectful and positive when I was trying to be an ass

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 10 months ago

    Thanks! This post went much further down the comment rabbit hole than I expected!

    My interest in posting on Lemmy is to educate people on the liberty movement in New Hampshire (which cannot be done effectively with insults). It's either not known, or there is a lot of misinformation. People think it ended with the Free Town Project, but it has grown 10x since then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 63 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    “Activists”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 37 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    Art is a conversation. The next "statement" should be to paint the dick Israeli flag colours, imo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago* (13 children)

    Uuuuhm, so Palestine is jerking off Israel, you mean? Or what message would you say that would convey?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    You could draw it in a way that it looks like it's hurting. I dunno, figure it out. Nobody said art is simple

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    figure it out

    lol you made the suggestion

    Difficult not to send the wrong message of laying your hand on another man's penis when it comes to Muslim societies, perhaps 😅

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Why are we assuming it is a male hand?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Because it looks typically male. 🤷‍♂️ But a Muslim woman's hand on an Israeli cock might not be loads better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    It could also be a girl dick. Just saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    A what now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Why are you assuming it's a male penis?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    It doesn't matter what gender I think it is, you guys... It's the image the Palestinians will find acceptable.

    This is about Palestine. Will you guys forget about your privileged world where you can define your own gender for a second and put yourself in someone else's perspective? Gosh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 27 points 10 months ago

    What a shit post, are we supposed to fall for this shit or something? Activist, yeah right

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    What an obviously dumb and biased post and article. This isn't news. If you put on the glasses from They Live it would just say "YOU ARE IN THE IN GROUP, LAUGH AT THE OUT GROUP. YOUR POLITICAL POSITIONS ARE VALID. IGNORE THE DEAD CHILDREN."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •