lol india literally had a war of independence for centuries against the british which was what made the "non-violent" national liberation movement able to take the W. this reduction of the entire history of anti-colonial struggle in india to "gandhi led the salt march and the british decided to let india go :)" is really disgusting. of course, when it's white christians resisting oppression (as in Ireland), then it's justified in this moron's view.

I must confess I perhaps may be a little baby with no understanding of the world... but I will keep tweeting my dumbass opinions as that is the only thing that makes me feel like I have any sort of connection to other human beings

Full thread

Screenshot

If infuriation could be weaponised I swear it would be over for all these "ah well, nevertheless" fucks.

President Xi please spend all your research and development budget on emotionally powered psychic weapons.

Look, they were talking about the countries; you know the ones that are valid under

Dudes a knobhead but I do think people are generally too quick to analogize anti-colonial struggles and anti-settler colonial struggles. It's a lot easier to get the French to fuck out of Algeria, because they can go back to France.

I know why they think N Ireland is the exception

But without that, how would you justify that as the only violent struggle that worked? They didn't achieve a united Ireland. No offence to the IRA or Sinn Fein obviously, but the Good Friday Agreement wasn't considered a resounding victory in my recollection, and led to the Real IRA splinter group.

All of human history and that's the one time violent struggle against oppression worked? Assuming their American they can't even remember their own bourgeois rebellion?

I mean, how did this guy miss the American, Russian, Chinese, and French Revolutions? I'm genuinely in awe of the blinders.

hot take: if you've used the fragment ", but" then you are in the process of fucking up and should log out for the day