QuietCupcake

In addition to just how wrong this loser is about all of that obviously being around in the 90s too, what really gives away his privilege and almost certainly his bourgeois politics is the line "wealth was something to aspire to not scoff at." He doesn't like the fact that wealth disparity is something being discussed and criticized. "In the 90s the poors just looked up to us noble rich folk like they're supposed to. Not like now where they're getting all uppity about the well deserving billionaires and complaining about not being able to pay for food and basic shelter. In the good old days they just would have gotten another job and worked harder, so ungrateful!"

Might be neat if, in addition to the chant, dd2idf became a popular acronym kinda like acab.

Or not even a stupid ass one but just some innocent kid out playing around where they were told they're not supposed to.

20-odd years ago I thought Amy Goodman was the pinnacle of leftism.

Amazing what actually reading Lenin will do to open a person's eyes to the world.

Some that come to mind that might fit the request:

Shoplifters

Burning (edit: or maybe not since you said no downers. That narrows the field.)

District 9

Good Night and Good Luck (explicitly about red scare shit, but very normie-friendly + George Clooney)

Matewan (similar issues to above, not very subtle)

The Motorcycle Diaries (about Che of course but still just a beautiful film for anyone who isn't already anticommunist)

The Wind that Shakes the Barley (Though that one is very heavy/downer, maybe could still work for the later showing)

But I also want to mention that it's always a good idea to talk to libs (or just people who aren't leftists) about the film afterward and emphasize the stuff that was actually leftist. I dont mean blatantly explain to them the left messaging in the film, but just casually mention a left-leaning theme or even relate a scene to something political irl "weird how much reminds me of <y current/historical event>. Because the sad reality is that most "apolotical" people and definitely libs will take the exact opposite message from what was intended, often relating the bad guys to communists (Star Wars' Empire was the Soviet Union!) or misinterpreting something satrirically critical as being an endorsement (Starship Troopers shows us how important it is to have a strong military!) etc. To be effective with your film choice, you also have to goad them in the correct direction (leftwards) or it will go over their head or have the exact opposite effect.

Here's an old comment from @dead@hexbear.net that I spotted saying the same sort of thing and also includes more suggestions:

The problem with movies that are not explicitly leftist is that wormbrained viewers will misunderstand the message or side with the bad guy. You can't radicalize somebody with consumption.

dr strangelove - satire of the cold war

they live - I am eating the trash all of the time

starship troopers - openly fascist america begins interplanetary imperialism and starts a war with a bug planet

network (1976) - news network controlled by evil corporation

full metal jacket - in case you ever wondered how films get access to film with military equipment or military bases, the USDoD provides equipment to movie studios in exchange for censoring and propagandizing the script. the USDoD has altered hundreds of films since the early 1900s. if you've seen a hollywood film with military equipment, the USDoD probably had their finger in it, including most of the capeshit. full metal jacket was not approved by the USDoD. Kubrick acquired the military equipment from military surplus stores and foreign militaries.

From a strict class analysis perspective, yes. As others have said, their social role is to serve as enforcers of capital, just like cops. They may not have the level of power and reach that cops have and are quite a bit more constrained from doing the serious and egregious things cops do, like murdering people of color with impunity - cops obviously do this, but with grocery store security, that isn't a systemic issue like it is with cops. So the magnitude of their class treachery is not anywhere near the scale that it is at for cops. But scale aside, the role they play is still one of using force to defend capital and uphold the capitalist order. And that definitionally makes the people from the working class who fill that role class traitors.

There is another caveat though, another one that sets them apart from cops and provides some wiggle room that doesn't exist for cops. A person can get the job of grocery store security guy, but not actually do the job. The ones who don't actually do what they signed up for, and knowingly avoid doing what their job description would have them do, these are "the good ones." I would contend that there are no good cops because any cop that does not fulfill their duty simply doesn't last as a cop. With cops, as with fascist gangs (same picture I know), if you don't demonstrate your loyalty to the system and your complete adherence to the blue code of silence, you are immediately ejected (or even killed). as a classic example - he reported other cops for excessive force, it was ruled that he was lying and he was kicked off the force. All that happened long before he... became famous. You don't get to be a cop if you don't do cop shit. Not the case with grocery store security, though.

The store security people who actually do their job and play the role they're supposed to play are traitors, as established. But the ones who are there just to get a paycheck and who purposefully look the other way when someone at the self-checkout is bagging 5 items for every 1 they scan, these ones are fine. They're not class traitors because they're actually being a traitor with respect to the job/role of capital enforcer. It really is a double negative sort of thing. 1 minus -1 = 2. There is no grocery store security culture like there is cop culture that prevents this from happening sometimes. Some chud security guys might like to pretend there is, but in actual practice, it's just not there. So grocery security people have a lot more room to just not do what they were hired to do and in that way, it is possible for someone to get that job and not be a traitor. Unlike cops.

I don't think they would use a nuke yet either. I agree what you said is the most likely thing to happen at this stage. But the question I was addressing was what the entity meant or what they're trying to project by saying "we will act alone" if you, Trump admin, don't do what we want.

edit to add: When I read the "act alone" thing, to me that sounds like they're saying "we'll go all the way and use our nukes, so you'd better help us now before we do something that would hurt you as well." It doesn't mean that is what they would actually do, but it could be some telling posturing. Even then it's an open question if saying they'll "act alone" is really a threat aimed at a genuinely reluctant Trump admin or just something they're projecting to give the US even more cover to make it look like the poor, calm, rational US is in a tough spot but just has no choice but to strike Iran directly.

Isn't this a thinly veiled threat they would use a nuke? Not to give the fascists credit for an ounce of intelligence, but since it is so clear to everyone that they have already been "acting" without direct US involvement, to me it sounds like they're saying they will act by using that one thing they never outright say they have but have been holding over everyone, even their allies, as a threat for decades. Aren't they saying "we'll do the ultimate escalation if you don't escalate by joining us"?

In my experience they'll usually have a retort for that with some bullshit about "authoritarianism" and how the Soviets were forcing the population to work focused only upon the will of the party. It doesn’t make sense of course, but it doesnt have to, it only has to fit with the narrative they already believe.

There was that post the other day with someone at the protests propping up a sign saying "If Kamala were president, we'd all be at brunch" or something like that. To me, it was very clearly a criticism of the liberals there who would not have cared if a dem were in office, the kind of thing one of us might put on a sign for these protests, but almost everyone commenting on that post was assuming the sign was meant to be taken at face value. The top comment said:

"this place is beyond hopeless. i don't have the words to describe the despair that these lib "protests" are engendering in me"

That is the kind of doomerist, nihilistic, non-dialectical nonsense that I think OP is addressing here.

When I pointed out that even the olive cocktail cutouts made it obvious it was irony-protesting, I was berated for "giving a white american the benefit of the doubt." Like wtf, what percentage of this very site is white american again? Some of them are capable of being comrades. It was weird to me how much people in that thread just wanted to think everyone at those protests are the equivalent of .world libs. One of the predominant sentiments on hexbear about the prostests are to be ridiculed and nothing more. That they are worse than ineffective, they are somehow only heling the bourgeoisie. And don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the many completely valid criticisms of these protests and their inadequacy to effect real change. But the kind of attitude that jack is addressing in this OP is absolutely something that is prevalent here and needs to be addressed.

Apparently there's a contingent of people here who are happier believing no one outside of their niche internet forums are capable of using irony to laugh at libs. Also especially no cracker can possibly be a leftist and make a sign that ridicules brunch libs (unless they're one of the crackers on this site which is like 85% mayo). Its almost like a form of except inversed, refusing to see the potential coolness of others and denying that comrades do exist out there who do funny things things offline.