A lot of the gay elders i know are tired of history being changed when they were actually there. Unfortunately the biggest myth is that [Marsha P. Johnson] started the stonewall riot and kicked off the lgbt movement.
But in fact she wasn’t even there when it started. She also referred to herself as a drag queen/transvestite… not trangender. Sylvia Rivera is the one who is trans not mpj.
If anything it was likely a big butch lesbian who started it.
There wasnt even a brick that started the riots. A lot was happening at once, but it most like started when cops began harassing Butch Lesbian Stormè DeLarverie and someone, no one is sure who, stepped in to her defense. Violence broke out and next thing we know, we have the stonewall riots. Maybe bricks were thrown with Molotovs, but no one can be credited with doing anything first except maybe DeLarverie asking for help.
I tend to check social media much less than the average person, so this might be a really dumb question, but…
Why is it a brick? Does it symbolize something? Is it tool? Or a weapon? Or just some form of art?
LGBT history, I believe - the Stonewall Riots were a pivotal event in LGBT awareness and fighting for their rights. As it was a, well, riot, bricks were used, as is common for people spontaneously deciding to fight the power - a sort of “We didn’t come here to brawl, but we’ll tear up the streets if you want to make it one” energy.
Man i loved the middle.
It was extremely relatable
It reminded me a bit of surviving Jack, fortunately this one did lock more than one season
Actual bricks are rough and crumble a little bit occasionally, you’d probably want to coat that in some epoxy.
Which will make it easier to clean!
🥱 Brick
☺️ Brick with built-in sling for maximum control and power
Or, maximum range.
To paraphrase, shout proudly and carry a brick.
That’s no brick; it’s a universal multi-tool.
Mmm, layer cake
I like cake.
The cake is a lie?
First I was sure these were kitchen sponges.
Yep, my first tought 🍰
It identifies as a tile.
edit: based on the douchevoted I assume this joke is being labeled as anti-trans. Newsflash y’all: trans people can have a sense of humor as much as cis people. Give the hate hunt a rest.
It identifies as a projectile
It’s multipurpose, it celebrates pride, and it can be used to smack a fascist with if they get in your face about it <3
I don’t think violently hurting people is a good idea.
Totally depends on who you’re hurting.
No.
Even animals don’t deserve to be treated violently.
“Just turn the other cheek, be the bigger person, take the high road, and as long as you give everyone the benefit of the doubt good things will come to you”. All phrases used by abusers to manipulate people into taking abuse. After all if you keep being a good person and don’t retaliate you will be rewarded with an eternity of paradise and those who hurt will eternally suffer ::snickers with the collection plate::
Tell that to the fascists.
I tell it to everybody, whether they are actively violent or not.
That’s a lovely sentiment, but in reality some people just need to be beaten violently. All you’re doing is putting that responsibility on someone else.
I don’t believe in justifying violence on humans or animals.
Fascists only know one language, and that is violence. They firmly believe “Might makes right” and so, we must show them strength such that they fear to challenge us ever again.
I agree, that’s why we need to violently harm those who would violently harm us, our loved ones and others like us and our loved ones.
That’s the greatest justification the government needed, do not complain when it is used against you
Fascists arent people, so i agree.
Or do you mean we should protect fascists? Because no. That is not how we get and keep our rights. We get and keep our rights by negotiating, and political power, un fortunately, is stored in barrels. I think that’s how that saying goes.
Fascists arent people
What is the point of this? Fascists are obviously people. There is no non-person fascist. What do you gain by pretending otherwise?
Not in any of the ways that matter.
Dehumanizing a fictional enemy lets collectivists and terrorist supporters feel like they are in a real war without being in one and also let’s them balance the cognitive dissonance of a discourse that claims to accept others while in practice they just want to get rid of others
It’s fascinating, actually
I understand this statement in principle but unfortunately thats not how the world works. If you tolerate intolerance you will just end up opressed or dead. Fascists don’t have any problems hurting and killing whoever they deem not worthy of living, they should be met with the same prejudice.
This. Violence against fascists isn’t really violence, it’s enforcement of the societal End User License Agreement.
You understand how circular that reasoning is right?
You have two opposing groups, let’s call them a and B. Group a says “we dont think group b has a right to exist and we are prepared to get violent” and group b says “we will never use violence”. How long do you expect group b to last?
Fascists are mercifully not common where I live, but if I hear one mouthing off they’re going to get a savage beating.
deleted by creator
Unless they’re fascists. Because punching nazis is a net positive for the world
Punching Nazis is always self defence, since being a Nazi in public is an act of violence.
in fact, not punching a nazi when you have the opportunity is in itself a net negative, so we can say it’s immoral to not punch a nazi whenever possible.
I don’t think violently hurting people is a good idea.
A lot of people forget, due to the exceptionally stable nature of modern Western society, that society is built on violence. We, as citizens of a polity, subcontract out our violence to a central state. And this is, to at least some degree, a good thing - there’s a central entity which can be observed and judged and regulated, rather than a million people all trying to enforce and judge one another’s usage of violence as justified or unjustified.
But ultimately, such subcontracting of violence is conditional - as long as the central state represents our rights adequately, to at least some degree, people are willing to continue to surrender their own sovereign right to commit violence to it. Whenever the central state does not represent a citizen’s rights adequately, the citizen often withdraws that surrender of sovereignty - either in total or, more often, conditionally - to protect their own rights.
When you make a contract - even in something as small as buying an apple - you are relying on the threat of force from the state to back it - “We will forcibly remove property or freedom from you if you violate this contract.” Violence is a part of everyday life - what’s important is to act in such a way that minimizes the need for it. In the case of defense of LGBT rights, sometimes that means using violence as a means of deterrence against the violence of bigots that is insufficiently deterred by state action.
Or, when the state threatens us, as it so often does.
As indicated at that first pride.
Gotta remind the complacent goons that oppression has consequences. 👍
Political power is, as they say (i think they say this) kept in barrels
And you should drop those barrels on cops.
Pork barrel spending is a saying, I think you’re describing the Four boxes of liberty. Jury doesn’t seem to do a damn thing when they just get pardoned shortly after conviction, we are somewhere between jury and cartridge.
No, im pretty sure political power is kept in barrels, and we take it out when we need to use it. Because it comes from there.
Oh shit, maybe we don’t just store it there, but we make it there? Like whiskey?
Old saying from… Korea, i wanna say? Maybe mongolia?
I don’t remember exactly, but damn i wonder if its tasty, like whiskey.
Fuck, this is an insanely good comment!
deleted by creator
Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
deleted by creator
It’s not their theory. If someone explains basic theory of relativity to you, will you call it their theory?
Name checks out. Hit me next!
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
What?
Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
It’s not, though.
I get what you’re going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I’ll drop a nuclear bomb, and let’s see which was more destructive.
It’s a direct quote from Gandhi.
Fascist lives don’t matter.
How do you think Pride managed to become a reality? With “thank you” cards?
With “thank you” cards?
“Thank you for respecting our identity :)” written on a brick.
Show it to friends, ‘show it’ to foes.
They won’t think twice about violently hurting trans folk though so… Yeah
What would be the issue with that.
What justified this instance of your violence vs one instance of their violence?
They might when folk gotta brick tho. :P
It is an objectively good thing for the world when a violent bigot gets their head caved in.
Nazis arent people
Not for long if you have a brick handy anyway
I do
Yes, it’s a shame fascists are so hell bent on doing that to us. But perhaps if they experience consequences, they may elect to do literally anything else with their life than harass queer people.
But I know I’m being too optimistic.
Some fascists would rather die than be better human beings… So it is only generous to oblige them.
Unfortunately, showing a brick to a fascist’s face will likely just reinforce their bullshit. Still effective though.
Fascists are cowards. A brick to the face will keep most of them from putting themselves in situations conducive to future bricks to the face
I’d certainly hope so, but the idiots that I have the unfortunate necessity of dealing with are way too dense to make that connection.
I agree. But you have to defend yourself against people who are violent against you for not being up to their standards and beliefs.
But if you are attacked for being who you are, feel free to use words like “please stop, don’t do this” instead of a brick.
Yeah, you’re right. I really wish these fascists would stop trying to hurt people who did nothing to them.
Nah, Nazis don’t deserve respect or peace. See the paradox of tolerance.
When those people want me dead it’s mere self defense.
Fascist lives dont matter
Then the rest of us will handle it and accept thank-you’s later.
Sounds like you’re fine with watching others get hurt as long as it isn’t you.
Fascists aren’t people.
neither do i. good thing fascists aren’t people.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Crazy responses huh? If it makes you feel better, after they chase off any voices of reason, these type of people resort to eating eachother.
Indeed. One has to understand that the people calling for violence in these threads usually never get to the stage of wondering what happens when their circular reasoning is used against them
Fascinating
What is the voice of reason for fascists?
looks tasty I know it isn’t tasty, but it looks tasty
“Do you have stones in your purse?” “No. It is a stone!”
What events are you going to where they ask people if they’ve got stones in their purse?
In germany at least, if someone else’s bag is heavy, we ask if they’re carrying stones in it.
In Slovakia we also ask about bricks in the same way.
Rock concert
Gottem!
Damn
Stone convention
Geologists get it.
Geologists are just professional stoners.
They’re called minerals Marie.
I want one and I’m a straight man.
that statement still doesn’t exclude you from being trans :)
Yup, plenty of straight trans men!
Brick phone and brick wallet are also good options. Wear pants with big pockets.
And just like that, cargo pants made yet another fashionable comeback.
Fuckin… JNCOs fulla bricks.
Bricks! So hot right now!
Is that a cake? I know everything is a cake, but is that also a cake?
Literally EVERYTHING!
It’s a long range brick.
Flail moveset, deals blunt and emotional damage. Inflicts dysphoria buildup. Scales with dexterity and intelligence.
Ok, go on, what Ash of War?
Good old Spinning Strikes
