This is precisely the wrong approach. All it’s going to do is generate sympathy for Elmo. One of the most basic tenets of any resistance is to be sure you don’t make the other side martyrs.
It’s too bad the crazies can’t control themselves, they just harm the cause for the rest of us. I would love to see Tesla collapse, not because it’s a bad product (I love EVs), but because Elmo deserves it. This is not the way to go about it.
To the person responsible: get help, read a few books, maybe you’ll be able to avoid doing exactly the wrong thing from now on. You’re not helping us, you’re helping Tesla.
All it’s going to do is generate sympathy for Elmo.
I don’t believe so… Most people are laughing at this story.
But, on that note: What are you doing? Propaganda of the deed has a long, and storied tradition amongst the left.
I hate this fear of making the opposite side a martyr. I’ve been hearing it for arresting and prosecuting Trump for so long. People making that claim basically let him face no consequences and look where that got us. As opposed to “making him a martyr” and who knows where we’d be. At the very least, they’d have had to regroup and change their game plan.
We can’t keep being paralyzed into inaction by the fear of “making a martyr.”
Not from the USA. How common is it for the fbi to meddle with simple shootings in which no kids or others were harmed?
I mean, shooting at Nazis is one of the only productive ways of interacting with them.
Uh-oh. Maybe the right doesn’t get a monopoly on violence anymore. Looks like lefties have guns too.
Rightwing influencers immediately leaped on the incident (and the questionable image) to claim that the “crazy left” was responsible for the attack, despite the fact that most liberals have an aversion to guns.
Jeez, what’s it gonna take to get the media to learn/admit the difference between “liberals” and “the left” if not even literal gun violence can do it?
It’s intentional. As Noam Chomsky said:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum
There has been a deliberate effort to limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion to relatively moderate liberalism (the left) and relatively moderate conservatism (the right). The intent is to create the illusion that no political ideologies or possibilities exist outside of this narrow spectrum.
I think you meant to say extreme conservatism.
Extreme conservativism is not meant to be within the acceptable spectrum.
The acceptable spectrum is supposed to be centered around neoliberalism. Neoliberal technocrats have sought to steer the “Ship Of State” through narrow waters between “Revolution” (the far left) and “Reaction” (the far right). Neoliberals might be willing to steer, from time to time, nearer to reaction than revolution, but the intent is to stay as close to the neoliberal center as possible. Here’s a graphic that the neoliberals came up with to illustrate the concept.
Obviously, the neoliberal technocrats have failed, and the US federal government (the Ship Of State) is now nearly completely captured by various far right reactionary groups. But the mainstream media, in general, is still operating in the mode of neoliberal, centrist thinking. Which is understandable, since that’s the mode they’ve been in for more than half a century.
I understand what you are saying and that many in the media may even believe this is what has been done over the last half century. But that is not true. At least not for the last 25 years. They have been steadily veering farther and farther right and this is the result. They changed what they saw as the window, the Overton window you might say, and didn’t even realize it (some did).
And the result is that now, when someone pushes back against crashing the ship into the cliff of reaction, they are pushed back against just the same as if they were trying to steer us directly into revolution. It’s all a farce.
The neoliberal technocrats didn’t deliberately steer toward the reactionary side. When the ship was moving more to the right, it was when reactionaries were in power, and thus “steering the ship.” In 2000, Al Gore, who is very much a neoliberal technocrat, was supposed to be president, but he lost in a kind of mini coup to George W Bush and the neoconservatives. The neoliberal technocrats wouldn’t take back power - control of the ship of state - again until 2008 when Barak Obama was elected president. They would of course lose control once again in 2016. They would regain control in 2020, but quickly lose it again in 2024. It is likely, I think, that the neoliberal technocrats have lost control of the ship of state permanently. I don’t think they will ever steer it again.
I think you are misunderstanding what I meant. The “neoliberal technocrats” absolutely do not, understand any circumstances, steer the ship towards the center. They steer it towards power. That power as of late has been reactionary.
To be clear the neoliberal technocrats never lost power. They are Republicans and Democrats both.
Neoliberalism is the center, of the spectrum of acceptable political opinion they had established, and tried, but ultimately failed, to maintain.
To be clear the neoliberal technocrats never lost power. They are Republicans and Democrats both.
That was true in the late 70s, 80s, and early 90s. However, the Republican party became less and less neoliberal through the 90s, and by the early 2000s the Republican party had been taken over by the neoconservatives. There is overlap between neoliberalism and neoconservatism, but they are distinct ideologies. Then, in 2016, the Republican party was taken over by Trump, who is neither a neoliberal nor a neoconservative. Trump doesn’t seem to have a guiding ideology. Trump is a useful idiot for multiple groups (Christian conservatives, silicon valley tech bros, far right accelerationists, and foreign powers), all of whom are vying for control of the federal government, for various reasons.
despite the fact that most liberals have an aversion to guns.
I was surprised they linked 2017 data…
But I was even more surprised to see that up to 2024 nothing changed.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
Really expected to see a spike for “lean Dem” who owned guns over that timespan, but numbers are steady.
Smart people aren’t talking about it.
Why would they advertise stuff like that? I feel like for the Left generally, it’s not an entire personality trait like it is for the Right.
