It’s different now. Now Republicans don’t want people going to school. School just forces the lib’rul into kids brains.
I like how the child in the first panel grows up to be the protester in the second panel, and the child in the second panel grows up to be the protester in the third panel.
And the protester of one panel becomes the reactionary in the next panel. The person with red hair can be seen in every stage throughout the panels.
I didn’t catch that. Neat!
I think that’s what they mean that “you become conservative as you grow older”. To me, doing so means you succumbed to the system.
Exactly! I’ve seen it in the workplace over the years. Most give up and go-along-to-get-along or face shitty jobs and get passed over for advancements.
On the contrary, this conflict has made me go from a liberal to a hardline leftist.
That is something to be proud of! Welcome to the cause.
What does that mean?
I might have grown more right-wing in certain topics. I don’t think I’ve succumbed to the system. But I’m not sure.
I’m thinking more socially. I grew up learning about the counterculture and hippy movement. And yet, the same generation, i.e. Boomers, that brought those activism now have become (and being stereotyped as) conservative.
I came from a conservative culture. The media from the boomer generation teaches to question authority figures (there was dictatorship at the time). Despite that, many boomers demand unquestionable loyalty respect from younger folks.
Now that I mentioned it, maybe people become conservative once they get to be in position of power.
That’s what they mean and what they hope you do.
In reality, only a small amount of people make that transition, and usually it is because of brain rot combined with propaganda like Fox news.
Most people do get milder and more realistic as they age, but not necessarily more conservative.
You can still find a lot of leaft-leaning old hippies. I guess Bernie Sanders would be the most famous one.
In previous generations, people did on average become more conservative as they got older; people like Bernie Sanders are the exception.
It’s less true with newer generations because we aren’t accumulating wealth like our parents and grandparents did, and it’s the accumulation of wealth that encourages conservatism
I think it’s more like criticizing how people didn’t learn from the past. The title is about history repeating itself.
well im 40 and I’m a lefty as shit. when does it kick in?
when you fall for the peer pressure and propaganda of conservatism
when does it kick in?
About the time greed, senility and selfishness kicks in.
Maybe “becoming conservative” as one grows older means differently to other people. Personally for me, as i grow older, I think it means looking for more stability. Which i can get behind but it doesn’t mean i will vote to cut taxes for the rich and austerity. Same as you, I’d stay leftie because i support social justice.
I’ll be honest, the older I get and the more I realize just how fucked the whole system is, the less I desire stability lmao
I have become more leftwing as I have grown older.
Same.
I think I’ve gotten more conservative in that I now think a democratic system of law and slow progress for a better future is possible via peaceful means, which technically means I’m no longer for radical reform progressivism, and also I’ve been considering arming myself to protect my family (from Maga terrorists in the event of a civil war). But I’m still left as fuck, bro.
You should, firearms aren’t just for the lunatic conservatives and the more liberal minded people who are willing to learn to defend themselves the better off society will be.
The conservative side loves to pretend they’re the only ones willing to fight for something, and I’d rather them not be correct if they ever tried something large scale.
Conservatism the political stance isn’t exactly compatible with some aspects of “democratic” or egalitarian ideals. It would be more accurate to say that maybe you consider yourself less progressive but the main throughline of “Conservative” political philosophy since it’s establishment as “the right” has been one that has argued that power should not be entirely egalitarian and that the only the “right” people are the only ones who should weild authority. In a monarchist society it’s the nobility, in a post monarchist society it means the wealthy intelligencia or the landlords, in a capitalist society it favors the rich and business elite and in a facist society it favors an “us” as opposed to a “them”. Another feature is that It also tends to attempt to empower select individuals and focuses on expanding the executive command at the top.
While the right constantly apes the language of the left and it’s tactics regularly change when you lay open the very core of the thing it’s always got the same authoritarian objective. I posit that “conservative” meaning ‘not prone to excess’ and “Conservatism” the branch of politics really should stop being conflated at all as everyone and their dog believes that they are rational and not prone to excess and gives the false impression that one endorses the objectives of Conservatism. Since Conservatives thrive on the idea of being a moral majority depriving them of any notion that you actually endorse them is kind of nessisary to combat them.
I’ve seen a few people go from brown nosers, to union men, to “mad about capitalism”. Some of them even graduated to “this guy’s been reading books”, I know only one who’s begun pitifully stockpiling arms and ammo and another who joined mutual aid. I’m still quite young, but most lefties of my early adulthood bourgeios white educated American caste are only considering action as a result of Israeli Imperialism and fear of a another world imperial struggle. The vast majorities of these are still socially tolerant neoloberals.
The protestors also become the parent in the next panel. The child in the first panel is in every panel.
And the child in the third panel is arguably the child form of the first pulling-parent. Excellent design!
butter dust turn wing dear hook shame train mixed vessel development chalk attempt pull authority slow full before boiling person net selection sweet not new pencil mass camera equal mist view and industry ear bright violent deep flower oven push journey rail representative electric out picture produce relation oven destruction
spring feather expert move grain powder cough again I warm wrong death song elastic arch free event cork by transport able sheep tired attraction comfort war discussion education heart sand invention summer chin other certain shock cloud house distance near ball sharp keep religion cough rule slip harmony power death
advertisement last young wide machine sun fat probable long chain spade church bright cruel prison egg time shock equal frame green tail news sister glass automatic potato dirty oven plane flat sharp jelly lip orange school touch view true wood cork fish safe healthy seed then authority east general chin
And look how far we’ve come.
If Biden gets reelected and we do the “each party gets two terms then switch” dance that has been going on now for decades, it will be 2036 before we have a chance of electing a president that will hold Israel accountable for its actions.
Which president would that be?
prezgpt
Unironically the preferable option. I, for one, welcome a robot overlord for a change.
Please reconsider, it would be trained on reddit users data.
Oof, yikes, didn’t consider that. Well, at least it can’t be bribed with money or power, can’t be intimidated, and won’t go senile. Though it may hallucinate.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
vermin supreme
I’m holding out until 2043 when the average age of presidents is around 100 and they’re so senile that they communicate with grunting noises. Then we can have their personal support worker interpreting it like a fucking geriatric oracle of Delphi.
That’ll be much better. PSW ain’t got no lobbyists.
“Educate yourself”
removed by mod
Really as simple as that.
These people would cry in their basements if they were sharing a border with Hamas
Gee, if only Gaza would vote them out of power. If only they held an election. What is needed for an election? Voting machines and money. Wonder why they can’t get voting machines… wonder why the money for the election is frozen…
But no, bombing hospitals that you yourself built bunkers under and “imprisoning” (not hostages!) women and children sound like the cheaper, more effective and morally high ground way of getting rid of Hamas.
Wtf are you talking about? Elections aren’t held because Hamas won’t let them happen. Money is frozen because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Voting machines won’t be useful because Hamas will dismantle them for rocket parts and money.
Yes, because plastic boxes and paper slips can easily be turned into rockets, and there is no way of selectively unfreezing money for particular purposes in Gaza without Hamas stealing it.
And why wouldn’t Hamas want elections NOW, after the population has been bombed and genocided into supporting them? Just imagine right after 9/11, could you fathom voting for someone that wanted to “work toward peaceful relations with Al qaeda?”
Hamas doesnt want elections now because they want elections in the West Bank as well. They need no elections in Gaza because they have total control of Gaza either way.
Hamas didnt do elections in Gaza for years, and they Sure enough didnt do elections when the people of Gaza protested against them this summer.
You know how MLK is famed for nonviolence in his protests?
This is how they treated him in his time
I don’t get what you’re saying here tbh.
Sometimes war is necessary because some people want to ruin things more than some people want peace.
Making war on their neighbors will not bring peace to Israel.
Well that’s just clearly historically false. Israel wouldn’t even exist without them making war on their neighbors. Or as it initially played out, without winning wars against their neighbors who started those wars.
About Palestine specifically, it doesn’t seem that not making war against them worked brilliantly either.
Suggested reading: HISTORY OF MODERN PALESTINE: ONE LAND, TWO PEOPLES. by Ilan Pappe
Free on Library Genesis or your local library
No it will only multiply the human chaos and misery in the middle East. And guarantee future retaliation from terrorist cells.
deleted by creator
I dunno, but I’m totally anti-war even if there are some people (terrorists, criminals, republicans) who want to ruin things for everyone else. I’ll never support Israel in their brutal retaliation against Gaza but I could never support any Palestinians who lug weapons around or use them to hurt others either. What is clear is that giving men guns or weapons guarantees an outbreak of war (they aren’t going to use them to make nice lamps for the living room). My bumper sticker says, to make peace you have to prepare for peace. I guess that’s too hard in this world.
I think that is a 100% admirable position and its only weakness (sadly a big one) is that not everyone thinks like that.
Thank you and I agree that is the fatal weakness of my argument. But, in a way that’s why I feel the need to make it. It’s like putting a pat of butter on an ear of corn, hopefully some of it will melt and sink in if people think about it enough.
This is Chamberlain in October 1938, returning from Munich to London, waving the Munich Agreement, confident to have appeased Hitler by betraying Czechoslovakia and to have secured eternal peace for Europe. Worked like a charm for 11 month.
Pacifism is always an unpopular stance, because always, always, always, THIS war is different! THIS war is justified!
The way pacifists are treated right now, when they criticize involvement in the Ukraine war, is pretty similar to how pacifists were treated before the first World War.But also, we shake our heads at the war enthusiasm before WW1, and don’t realize our own today. Cause this war is different.
(For the record, I’m not personally against supporting Ukraine. But I also realize not everyone who is against involvement is a Putin-bot)
But we must also look at pacifism as a convenient shield at times. There were “pacifists” in the Second World War who clearly weren’t ideologically opposed to war but were opposed to fighting hitler. I see letting putin continue as utterly chamberlainian.
Ok that’s not really fair. Declassified docs have revealed that Chamberlain knew damn well what was going to work and intentionally played down causus belli because he was buying Britain time to rearm, the problem was that time is a resource you buy for both sides, and the axis used theirs a lot better.
Not really comparable. If in 2003 the US did nothing Iraq would still be doing what it was doing and there would have been no war. If Ukraine stops fighting for even a day the country no longer exists.
It isnt special pleading when you can point out major differences between cases.
Kraut IMO made a pretty good argument based on exactly that point that Iraq would have been doing what it had been doing already,
That being that what Iraq was doing was plenty horrible on its own, and that Bush and co could have made an argument for US involvement just on the merits of stopping a genocidal dictator. The question with no answer is if the public would have accepted that argument for going into Iraq at the same time as Afghanistan.
The war was illegal and justified by WMDs that weren’t there.
But I also realize not everyone who is against involvement is a Putin-bot)
Yeah, like 1 out of 100. Ukraine was invaded by Russia and Russia will keep going if we don’t help Ukraine. The other wars mentioned like Vietnam and Iraq, the American people were lied to. The differences are staggering.
I don’t that’s what he meant. He meant that many Russian soldiers are brainwashed by propaganda as well.
Why would you think that? He wouldn’t justify his statement if he was thinking that way.
With all due respect, you’re literally replying to a post saying that it’ll always be “This war is different, this war is justified” by emphasising how this war is different and this war is justified.
The war in Ukraine is not justified. Supporting Ukraine’s defense is.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking the opponents of any particular military action are pacifists.
I agree?!
I’m honestly not sure what would make you think otherwise.
The words you wrote, primarily
Hanlon’s Razor, my dude.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
I realised that I’m in the bad here - I missed the connection between the specific wars in the cartoon (i.e. that the US was/supports the aggressor). I thought it was just anti-war in general.
Then you should say that to Russia because they started it. Regardless, this is about Isreal and Palastine and not the Russia invasion.
I should say what to Russia? I don’t understand.
I agree that the world has a duty to stop any attempts a country might make to annex another country’s territory.
That war can end when Russia stops invading another country. Ukraine defending its citizens and territory is right and proper.
Where are you from?
But that’s not what is happening.
What is happening is directly pointing out that this was is NOT different. That this war is ALSO unjustified.
In war, the aggressors are the problem. Period. And lending support to the aggressed is not the same as supporting war.
It would work, simply letting Russia finish a genocide against Ukraine or Israel finish a genocide against Palestine. The conflict would certainly be resolved that way. But if you think it is an acceptable outcome, you value peace too highly.
Oh, I agree. Personally I think the world has a duty to stop any country attempting to annex parts of any other country.
I was just tickled by that exchange.
When you’re talking about war vs invasion and defense, every word matters. I’m not saying that war was justified at all because Russia invaded and started attacking them. So yeah, you’re making a poor comparison.
Ah, ok, I see what’s happened.
Ok, misunderstanding. I’m not American - I didn’t see the connection with the US being the aggressor in the examples in the comic. I was just interpreting it as ‘Anti-War’.
The rest of the exchange makes more sense now!
I was honestly baffled, it felt like I was having a different conversation than everyone else.
No worries, I appreciate you explaining and not deleting so people could understand what we’re all talking about.
Wasnt anything ticklish about the exchange, so kinda creepy that you were
Back when iraq was invaded, Saddam was the aggressor who bad WMD, it all turned out to be a lie.
How do you know that American government is telling it’s citizens complete facts about Ukraine war?
Yes I know Russia is the aggressor here and I am completely against the invasion. However, everyone knew that NATO expansion will trigger a war and US actively pushed for it. American governments hands are not clean when it comes to Ukraine war and American citizens don’t question it at all.
Which brings me to the cartoon here where if you say the above mentioned statements you will be called a tankie, Putin bootlicker etc.
removed by mod
of course you are right. because this is high school and not eastern Europe with a complex geopolitical history.
removed by mod
predicted it.
You’re not even comparing apples and oranges
Yup. Support for the Iraqi war was at like 80% in the US when it started.
