These protestors understand how change works. Good on ‘em.
🤨
My mind immediately went there.
Immolation is too much, but in general yes.
It’s objectively a horrible thing to do to anyone, for any reason, and inhuman and condemnable.
That all said, if you’re reading this and you’re married to someone advocating or supporting the execution of students and teens via assault rifles in the street, and a lot of people are angry about it, you should probably fucking leave.
I don’t know anything about the ex-wife or her involvement with anything, but I know the Nepalese ruling class have been flaunting their wealth and the videos going around showing kids getting shot in the head and slumping over as blood pours out of their bodies and their friends crying and trying to pull their limp bodies out of the line of fire, have been circulating and it made MY blood boil and I’m on the other side of the world.
I think maybe our “ruling class” in all nations need a wake-up call that they are our servants, not our masters.
It’s not ex-wife. It’s wife of ex-PM. As in the former first lady of Nepal, I guess, just as an analogy to US’s titles.
I think immolation is a good idea for the “ruling class” as the working class is struggling and dying daily.
The occupy Wallstreet really changed things for us, right?
What isn’t too much, but also creates the necessary drastic changes?
Billionaires won’t let you vote away their power, mind you.
I mean, if she’s committed crimes bad enough to warrant death I’m not gonna object to the killing itself, but still there would’ve been better execution methods than burning her alive. Hanging or firing squad, for example. Reveling in brutality is generally not something you want in a resistance movement.
What isn’t too much, but also creates the necessary drastic changes?
You know, kill or imprison those responsible for the people’s suffering, take or burn their stuff, etc. I’m in no way against violent revolution; I just believe even the worst people should get a relatively humane death when possible. Whether the billionaires and their lackies are killed or not really has no bearing on the end result; it’s the actual seizure of power (or threat thereof) that gets things done.
Sometimes you need to make an example.
Nope. It’s impossible to intimidate the elites into submission through violence against them; you have to seriously threaten their power. The lesson the Nepalese ruling class will learn from this is to never fall under the protesters (though at this point “revolutionaries” is probably a more appropriate term), not to be better people. There is literally nothing productive about this.
They don’t need to be better people. They need to be put down.
Shoot them, THEN hang the wealthy for all the other bastards to see.
See this, you “No Kings” parade do-nothing virtue signalers?
This is “action.”
Bear in mind that the riot in Nepal only started after the peaceful student protests was shot at by the police first. The No Kings protest hasn’t been tried to be violently quelled to warrant a public riot, yet.
Are you sure this is the position you want to take?
I highly doubt the fascist tRUMP and his like-minded cronies give a shit about people waving signs once every few months or so.
Or any form of peaceful protests.
They are probably laughing their voluminous man tits off about it.You’ll need to either get violent.
Or shutdown certain systems, such as roads, on a countrywide scale for extended periods of time before they even think about giving a shit.I will respectfully reject your suggestion to turn to violence and encourage others in this thread to also not be incited to do so.
Ha, there is no incitement because most americans are too complacent and mollycoddled to do anything. Maybe they’ll go for a walk once every few months and wave a sign, but that’s it.
The orange buffoon knows this, which is why he gets away with all his shit.Anyways, what about the other option I mentioned?
Your first proposal was to use violence, so let’s explore that thought.
Would you take pride in living in a nation where political opponents are assassinated when half the country dissents? This doesn’t sound like a better society than what we have today.
And you are dodging the question even after I told you why I think mass violence will never happen.
“Would I take pride blah blah blah?”
That’s, frankly, a daft question. No, obviously, I would not take pride in that.
Christ, no sane person would take pride in that. Silly.However, do I think it is sometimes necessary, yes. Furthermore I think it was necessary for something (that’s something. Not necessarily burning buildings etc) to happen in the us since around 2016, though it was demonstrably broken before, but I’ll stick with 2016 as that was when the obese imbecile was first voted in.
“Why? Blah.” you’ll ask. It’s because it is now blatantly obvious that if the us population will vote in a person so obviously corrupt AND so obviously compromised then the whole system is just totally broken, and needs a serious rethink.
Also the Bush jr presidency wasn’t exactly great either. It was terrible for a lot of countries.Anyways, again, what about the other option I mentioned?
You’re right, this is a half-measure. But I’ll be banned for speaking my mind, so we’ll stick with this.
Some of us can’t do anything because we’ve got people depending on us to provide. Believe me, if there was ever a time where I could be more active, it would be right fucking now. But unfortunately, that kind of protest is the most I can do at the moment.
Put your money where your mouth is, go out and find those who are able to do more, and stop vilifying those who can’t afford to.
Right. Nobody in history who ever fought a righteous cause had a family or anything to lose. They were all just Disney characters whose victory was guaranteed because they were the good guys.
Inciting violence again, huh? How much do they actually pay you?
Yeah, you’re right. Waving signs and voting will totally fix things in the US. Just usual GOP misbehavior, those wily scamps.
For anyone out of the loop (from the AP / quoted in the article) :
Why are people protesting in Nepal?
The demonstrations—called the protest of Gen Z—began after the government blocked platforms, including Facebook, X and YouTube, saying the companies had failed to register and submit to government oversight.
But they spiraled to reflect broader discontent about a lack of opportunities and corruption.
In particular, many young people are angry that the children of political leaders—so-called Nepo Kids—seem to enjoy luxury lifestyles and numerous advantages while most youth struggle to find work.
Cops firing live rounds at kids, killing almost 20 and injuring about 100 might have something to do with them snapping as well…
it’s not her house, right?
That’s Parliament
This is not about social media bans, it’s against the corrupt government. It’s being reframed. If you think about it, if the only problem was social media ban, they’d just all get vpns. They’re not stupid. They’re trying to frame it as silly kids, (because they’re all gen z and Gen alpha, in their school uniforms, so as to be less likely to be shot) who can’t live without social media. But it’s not, it’s protesting deep government corruption. If word gets out that it’s a protest against government corruption, other people facing similar oppression, may become emboldened, so it’s being buried.
