Tumgik
#punk libertarian
anturus · 1 month
Text
Political apathy is a privilege reserved for people who aren’t constantly being attacked by politicians and their insane policies.
159 notes · View notes
lennielou444 · 10 months
Text
parents: *worried the schools will turn their kids gay and trans and liberal*
schools: *grooming children to be compliant and conformist and prepared for either prison or factory work*
399 notes · View notes
revindicatedbyhistory · 3 months
Text
this website´s whole worship of the concept of punk culture is weird because most people in punk culture or music ive met have been a bunch of whiny edgelords
42 notes · View notes
blackwolfmanx2 · 17 days
Text
Real Talk:
Voting is extremely important. As American citizens, it is our civic duty to choose who should rule our country. We all have rights, and who better to give us permission to use those rights than the government? The State is so caring for the people, unless they have been voted in by the opposition, then those people are very bad. Together, we can make a difference by choosing the lesser evil. We're all in this together and your voice matters. If you don't vote, you're the selfish one when a mean President gets elected. So do everyone a solid, get out there and vote.
Tumblr media
6 notes · View notes
bread-bloc · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
117 notes · View notes
thedeepweb · 3 months
Text
it kinda is insane i was about one degree of separation from the guy that ""tried"" to shoot the ex-president here. and funnier its that i wont ever come close to that circle and learn who sponsored the media circus bc i stopped talking to the sole link for being a libertarian
2 notes · View notes
fluidsberlin · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
#anarchy #anarchism #anarchist #freedom #punk #socialchange #libertarian #antifa #politics #acab #liberty #revolution #ancom #ancap #leftist #anticapitalism #anarchocommunism #art #marxism #socialist #memes #democracy #antifascist #a #punkrock #liberal #queeranarchy #rageagainst #nazisraus #humanrights https://www.instagram.com/p/CkEXg5SsNPP/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
16 notes · View notes
nbsidestep · 10 months
Text
like im sure living in Los Diablos sucks so bad in so many ways but just imagine all the cool subcultures to come out of it tho
3 notes · View notes
grossbabygoblin · 1 year
Text
“Left wing or Right wing?”
No wing…I’m grabbing a parachute and getting tf off this plane.
2 notes · View notes
haymarketvtubestuff · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
What in the Kentucky Fried Fuck ...
This Libertarian Party cunt thinks she's PUNK???!??!?!!?!
1 note · View note
thorne1435 · 1 year
Text
The idea of "Tyranny of the Majority" makes me so fucking mad.
I'm sure at least one person who believes in that has a good reason to, but all I hear when someone says that is "Noooo, democracy would lead to not-my-positions! That's bad!" I do not think that the "Majority" is capable of "Tyranny." Those things are fundamentally, diametrically opposed. If almost everyone likes something, it just...can't be tyrannical! And I mean that unironically. Most examples of "tyrants" (hitler comes to mind) don't win by popularity. They win by their opponents infighting or their government's system being flawed in a way that they can exploit, or both. You can see how Donald Trump took advantage of this too, given that he lost the popular vote back in 2016 (to Hillary. Fucking. Clinton. need I remind you).
Like, I get that we think "The Public" is kinda stupid sometimes, but hear me out. Do you really think that the majority of people in a direct democracy (i.e: no representatives, one vote per person for everything) would vote for things that would cause human suffering? Particularly, suffering onto you.
If you think that they would, I want you to be honest with yourself and ask one question:
Why would they do that?
Is it because you realize that your political views are unpopular enough that the majority of people would not vote for them? (In other words, are you an "Ideological Minority"?) Why should we give ideas like that an advantage? They've already failed, if the majority doesn't agree. You're just raising the chance of the largest possible amount of suffering to be brought about by the vote. If your beliefs are good enough, people should be able to come back around to them, and if they can't, well, then either your ideas are bad or the education system is flawed. Those are both serious issues and both have solutions.
Alternatively, is it because you don't have faith in the majority to look after a relatively uncommon identity? In other words, are you a Demographic Minority? This is the only point that I actually respect. Personally, I don't think the majority of people would vote to oppress a racial or sexual minority as long as the ideas are presented fairly. But, how do we guarantee that those ideas are presented fairly? We need to be sure of our education system and our news media and, on a much broader level, our researchers in every field. Right now, with so much corporate involvement in all of those areas, I think it's very hard to trust any of that. But that's something to strive for a solution to. Separating corporations from education, news, and especially the sciences is a good idea, and I admit that I'm not sure how to go about it. If that's why you think we need institutions like the Electoral College or Congress then, I guess I can respect that. I still don't like the electoral college, but your concerns are noteworthy.
Here's the thing, though. The shitty right-wingers who dare to call themselves "Libertarians" don't really seem to care about that. They aren't demographic minorities, they're ideological minorities. They want the electoral college because they're afraid of liberals caring enough about other human beings that the Republicans never win again.
But that's a good thing! If the people agreed with Republicans, then Republicans wouldn't be so afraid of the loss of these things they've come to rely on, like the Electoral College. And they defend it with "Tyranny of the Majority" because they think that Tyranny is when the government disagrees with them.
0 notes
blackwolfmanx2 · 4 months
Text
Real Talk:
Democracy is the best excuse tyrants to have ever come up with for violent coercion. Tyrants pretend that the violence they inflicted is in the name of “the people” and statists eat it up. Democracy is not about liberty nor morality, it's a mob mentality.
10 notes · View notes
max1461 · 1 month
Text
I do take a little bit of pride in, like, feeling that my political ethos is unpalatable to the kinds of people who consider themselves one-standard-deviation-above-the-mean thoughtful about politics. This is something I share with twitter communists, but because of my personality I take it in a different direction.
I'm, you know, like 30% "don't tread on" libertarian—and that part of me gets deeply irritated at the more "thoughtful", "educated" type of libertarian who talks about the efficiency of markets and so on. No! You've got it all wrong! This isn't about optimal distribution of resources or whatever, it really is about muh freedom.
On the other hand I'm like 30% absolute bleeding heart pacifist progressive etc. And this part of me gets deeply irritated simultaneously at all bloodthirsty twitter leftists and the globe emoji neoliberals and whatever. Again: no! You've got it wrong! It's not about all the refined and learnèd shit you say it's about. It really is just about can't we all get along, we're all part of the same human race, universal love and compassion.
And then the other 40% is other stuff. I really am quite a materialist in my typical mode of analysis; I keep coming back to socialism for a reason. And I have some strain of Chestertonian conservatism in me, and some appreciation for high modernist technocracy, and a deep sympathy for the Amazonians and the Sentinelese, and a punk anarchistic "screw the Man, man" tendency too. I don't really think any of these attitudes conflict; they're additive upon one another.
But I really... the things people turn to when they turn away from pure gut intuitions, when they turn away from "muh freedom" and "can't we all just get along", are so often worse. You could have stuck with those intuitions and tried to flesh them out, if you thought they were right-but-incomplete. But this posture of like, I don't know, unjustified refinement, I hate it. I really do get along with the guys who say "the damn GUB'MENT better get off my property" more than 90% of the people who think they're better than those guys. I don't know.
101 notes · View notes
steampunkforever · 9 months
Text
To be clear, and I bag on it enough that it should be, Solarpunk is a nothing-genre working as a synthesis of generational Toyota Prius stockholme syndrome and the consequences of corporate and social reduction of “punk” to mere aesthetics.
Though littered with trashy romance novels (thanks to its high percentage of bodices ready for ripping) Steampunk had antiimperialism at its core. Dieselpunk, which I’m less familiar with, provides opportunities to critique industrialization* and nationalism by its inherent interwar setting. These are ‘punk genres that, though often misused (insert debate on efficacy of cyberpunk here, or at least copy and paste it from my capstone paper) have a sort of basic ideological discussion baked into them. It might be just a dusting of commentary, but its ingrained into the genre.
Solarpunk has none of this! It’s sci-fi with a kudzu problem! There is no punk. It’s just futurism with extra trees. 
Look at you, you’ve managed to place some shrubs on top of a tower. unfortunately, that does not a genre make. It’s not even a new idea architecturally. The city of Lucca’s had that on lock for centuries.
Tumblr media
Fixing Solarpunk and making it earn the title of genre means putting some substance in the aesthetic and filling the hollowness with some conflict, be it against social engineering/ecofascism (Logans Run, a bit of a reach), or greenwashing (Soylent Green, also a reach) Or government over-regulation (Red Barchetta, right on the money). But that’ll never happen, because the solarpunk aesthetic is inherently built on a naive ever-smiling idiocy. And you need the cynicism of counterculture to be punk.
Solarpunk has no counterculture. Its entire aesthetics point to there being no counterculture. The literal architecture of the “genre” tells us: “the establishment has accepted and is actively supporting sustainable living. You have nothing to fight for, the war on pollution is won.”
Solarpunk is to its twee fans what The Libertarian Free Market is to guys who think we should privatize healthcare MORE or what the “Revolution” is to tankies who treat it like a Government-funded-rapture-utopia. Everything will be all right, Society is on our side, and the sun comes out precisely when we tell it to.
That’s not a genre, and it certainly isn’t punk.
*By this metric, Dieselpunk would’ve been the logical wellspring for cottagecore, but funnily enough the cottagecore aesthetic actually owes more of its existence to the same cultural impulses that popularized Solarpunk stock photography. I’m gonna say the word “hopepunk” here because you can only look at the word solarpunk so many times before written language has ceased to maintain any semblance of coherence so why not embrace my role as a monkey seated at a overused typewriter?
195 notes · View notes