For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
Hoping to hell that's an AI or a bot because this might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard
Before you get depressed, know that there are people who actually are calling this shit out and there are people who are suggesting actual helpful techniques in that sub. But damn, that particular post was wow.
Anyway, I'm not going back to the reddit mines for a while.
Silly costume apparently.
To be clear, I wasn't just asking a purely rhetorical question. I think there is a real answer and it matters.
My own answer to the question is that a non-violent protestor being martyred is mainly useful because it shows people the futility of clinging only to peaceful protest, because if one side is dogmatically peaceful and the other is not, the other will win. So it's useful to have them (not that we should be throwing people's lives away, of course), but acting like we need to just be in the business of endlessly producing martyrs until the people are finally awoken and this means things change without violence is complete nonsense. Martyrs facilitate uprising, and Good is already a martyr, so telling people not to take up arms over Good because they would not become adequate martyrs is simply silly.
It just tend to be
, when ICE was murdering brown people since Obama it was crickets but one white woman and suddenly libs go mad about it.