Full tweets with context: https://xcancel.com/hasanthehun/status/1932168427470516520
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
220 points (81.2% liked)
Progressive Politics
2791 readers
469 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I explicitly went from a less obvious example, to the most ridiculous one, deepfakes, while explicitly mentioning that's what I'm doing.
I started reading Chomsky back when he was a linguist, so yeah, I don't need some youtube shorts about his highlights, and if you can't be arsed to make an argument, I'm sure as fuck not gonna bother to watch some rando's videos.
50% correct
"Corporate media wants to twist the truth" isn't exactly as easy to punch as a strawman, is it? Oh, sorry, I meant "the media can just make the truth whatever they want".
That's my point. Your rhetoric is full of naive absolutes and you don't recognise your own strawmen, while trying to pretend you're a master debater. (Pun intended.)
Here's the thing. One of those things is legal, one isn't. If you want to live in a democracy, with rules, you'd probably agree that the government should reflect the will of the people, and that there should be established rules.
If not, then go watch this
And which one do you take me for?
"Protestors can't control public perception"
Remember when I mentioned the "naive absolutes"?
This is one of them. You genuinely think there's some hegemonic entity called "media" do you? 'There's no such thing as independent media in the US', that's literally what you're arguing. Because if there is independent media, then yes, absolutely protestors CAN control public perception. The control is limited, yes, but to argue it's non-existent is literally to argue there's some hegemonic entity controlling it all. Which is kinda childish.
Again, a naive absolute. If you all actually agreed, then he wouldn't be in power in the first place, ffs. You feel like everyone agreed, because everyone you interact with seems to agree.
I'm not complaining about any perceived optics, as I keep repeating. Rather, I'm actually reiterating Bernie's point, and again, it is not to complain about any optics. It's to instruct on the best approach to protesting.
You can tie up police resources without being violent or breaking the law. It will come at personal cost, but it the best way to approach this increasingly shitty situation. If you give in to the (justified) wrath and start acting like a fucking animal, then Trump gets what he wants; justification. If you don't give it, he will probably try manufacturing it anyway, but why the fuck would you want to make his life easier by giving it to him?
Neither, you're the one attributing protestors with the optics of their demonstration. I'm saying that even a perfectly peaceful protest can be implicated with a violent one down the street or later in the day.
A strange semantic injection to what was clearly a reference to 'we', the people protesting against him. Am I wrong in assuming you agree?
Two things: -you can also not break the law and still be implicated in other people breaking the law -we have a "moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
Because knowing you could be killed or deported to a prison in El Salvador and demonstrating against a fascist anyway sends a far more potent message than obediently staying out of the street or dispersing your demonstration when the police give the order for you to. I'm not advocating people throw shit at the police or light cars on fire, I'm saying that even those small acts of rebellion pale in comparison to a tyrant illegally deploying the US military on US soil against civilians. And complaining about minor vandalism when the US is slipping into an actual dictatorship is a little lopsided, if not entirely suspect. Would it be preferable for there not to be disorder? Certainly. Does the presence of disorder invalidate the urgency or cause for protest? Absolutely not. And expecting perfect order when the community that's protesting has been under actual assault from ICE agents abducting their friends and family is twofaced.
The problem isn't protestors being disorderly, the problem is the tyrant in power who is actively eroding what little democratic checks on his power are left. And now I'll remind you that Trump has already granted himself immunity from constitutional limitations by making spurious claims of 'invasion' at no fault to any of these people who are now being forcibly removed and sent to known torture prisons. He will take whatever power he wants regardless of how much people kick and scream in response. The fact that you'd rather chastise those people fighting against it than amplify the opposition to the tyrant they're responding to says all I need to know about you.
You're still saying, explicitly, that I'm doing something that I explicitly said you've misunderstood, and I am not doing, and then pointed out the reasons. This isn't about the optics of anything. It's about how you're gonna protest.
"We have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
That's sort of very strongly included in the concept of civil disobedience, which I have advocated for in this thread several times, but I can understand missing that implication if you're not familiar with the concept. Do you think laws that are against violence against other people are inherently unjust, so one should break them? Or which laws specifically are you talking about? Or are you talking about the right to protest? Because yes. That is indeed important. "You should emphasise the reason for these protests, more than complaining about how" I heard someone saying recently. You have the right to protest, and should they try to take it away from you, you have a moral duty to oppose that. But you don't have a moral duty to violently riot just because. That's what I keep iterating. THIS ISN'T ABOUT ANY 'OPTICS'. This is about how to protest.
What are you talking about? Remember how you just argued that the protestors don't actually get to influence how they're perceived? Then why the fuck would you choose to do violence on people and make it easier for them to enact their bullshit on you, when you can try non-violent protests to begin with? You can go on the street to protest without throwing stones in windows, you know? Throwing stones in windows makes you a worse person, not a better one.
Ah yes, "don't do anything because you can't do anything since there's nothing to be done it's all been done already by the giant absolute hegemony who's absolute and who can't be influenced in any way just give up". Remember those childish absolutes I keep mentioning? This is very much your central theme through-out your messages. "Give into apathy, you won't win anyway."
No-one has "chastised" anyone. I'm just schooling you.
Except your reasoning for this revolves around optics
I've been saying this whole time that it doesn't matter if you are sitting around singing kumbayaa, the tanks are still gonna roll in and you'll still be lumped together with the other protestors who aren't.
No. I'm saying that protests almost always involve breaking the law, and that will be used as justification for police violence. Trump planned to send in the National Guard before anyone had lit a match Being peaceful will not avoid this.
The civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrations knowing full well that they'd be subject to assault and arrest. Them doing those things knowing what it meant made their point for them. You asked "why give them a reason to punish you?", and this is why.
I've repeatedly said I don't advocate for violence. But as with many of the protests in MLK's time, well organized protests sometimes devolved into outright conflict. That doesn't invalidate the nonviolent parts of that protest.
Lmao, now who is the one using definitive language? Why does that window have any moral significance? Better send in the national guard to protect that poor window.
Jesus christ you're dense. I'm advocating against complacency you dumbass.
Nah, that's what you think you're doing, but you're coming off as a nag.
Except it doesn't, despite you trying to say it does. Ive explicitly mentioned they don't matter, and explained the reasons. You ignored them. This isn't about his protesting is perceived. It is what is achieved by it.
I feel like I've written that a dozen times now, ffs.
"The tanks are still gonna roll in and kill everyone"
Well then if you're so set on this infantile absolutist daydream of yours, why not go out as a moral person? And no, moral doesn't mean "not opposing injustice". As I've explained another dozen times, you have the duty to oppose unjust laws, (like you conveniently reminded us in your last comment, despite me going on and on about civil disobedience — almost as if you didn't understand the term or hadn't properly read the replies) and you have the right to assembly. The right to assembly is old as fuck, and if they try to take it away, yeah, it's time for a revolution. But see, you don't have the right to a riot.
So if you're actively rioting, the police are within their rights to come and disband and apprehend people to stop it.
If, however, you're exercising youre right to assembly, then they can't do that.
Now imagine a scenario in which there's active rioting. The police can go in and take every single person, no matter how peaceful, under the guide of suppressing a riot. If everyone keeps their cool, when when shot with rubber bullets, teargassed, pushed, even arrested, then the cops will have to keep manufacturing completely bullshit reasons.
If the the right to assembly is clearly revoked and a dictatorship installed, there's right to rebel. Until then, you shouldn't, if you want to live in a democracy. Because it's the best move. I know it, Bernie knows it and Chomsky knows it. You'd know that had you actually read any of his works.
Breaking the law doesn't matter. Non-violence does. Breaking the law is again very much included in the "civil disobedience" I've mentioned a couple of dozen times now. Weird how you can't reply to any of my comments about you having missed that?
Are you high on acid? "The civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrations". Why did you write "non-violent" there? Perhaps because there people had to stress, emphasise, NON-VIOLENCE, just as Bernie is doing, and who's point I'm here reiterating now for the umpteenth time in a row.
So what is it you're advocating for or arguing against?
And why would it? Where the fuck did you pull out that I implied that? Please, be specific. Except you can't, since you're just larping intelligence, linking some dumb-ass YouTube shorts, quotin shit about "we've a moral duty to oppose unjust laws" because your dumb-ass didn't understand what "civil disobedience" mean.
I tried adopting your tone for a while so you can see how writing something like that would look like I'm getting aggravated. Except I'm not. But you clearly are. Why? Do you think this is personal? I'm advocating for the best strategy for the US to get itself out of this shitty situation, but luckily, you don't need to listen to me, as Bernie made the points well enough, and I'm just backing him.
Again, just like I keep reminding you of your naive absolutes, I'd also like to remind you that just because you think something, doesn't make it true. If you don't understand the rhetoric you're pushing, then maybe it's not the rhetoric you think it is.
You are implicitly advocating for complacency with your naive absolutes. You just don't realise it. You're perpetuating apathy. And apathy is the greatest tool of the opressor. Anywhere.
Oh, like your mom, when she tells you that girls won't like a boy who doesn't bathe or shower and wears dirty undies?
Yeah, that's called schooling you.