Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

MercurySunrise

@MercurySunrise@slrpnk.net

Hello! My name is Rykah, call me Mercury if you prefer. I’m into punk (the cultures and the genre) and I’m a multi-media artist. Check out some of my work and my link tree over on Tumblr: in-a-field-of-paper-flowers.tumblr.com/about/

Listening to: Panda Eyes - I Am Undead

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

MercurySunrise ,

I am constantly dumbfounded how many of the highly capitalist nations pretend to have such a focus on family when it's so clear that they care so little about them. More time working = less time with your family. They also push for bigger families too, so that individual children receive even less attention. It's so weird.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

This is more specific to capitalism than just corporatism but I do agree with you.

MercurySunrise ,

Hahaha, that's fucking awesome. Good on 'em. Break Shell. Break petrochemicals. Disgusting, nasty, lying abominations of industry.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

You're a shill. The entire petrochemical industry should be obliterated, and anyone who says different is arguably an enemy to the planet.

I don't fucking joke about this shit. This is a blood feud on a scale the planet has never encountered before, and it's only going to get worse as the industry causes everything's extinction. This abomination of corporation will be destroyed, one way or another.

MercurySunrise ,

Big oil motherfuckers should get the guillotine.

MercurySunrise ,

It wasn't a good one because that isn't even the right term. Doesn't really matter, the point stands. I'm not gonna chill about innocent people dying for these greedy corporations and you thinking I should is fucking sad.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

I am embarrassed, for you all. The planet's dying, and y'all are fine with it. Nothing more embarrassing than that. Y'all genuinely make me wish I wasn't part of the human species. At least the people that care enough to take action like in the post remind me that not all of us are stupidly evil. Hard to tell that from the internet, anymore.

Update: this is why you use /s, on the internet. Unless the comment is so incredibly outlandish it can without doubt not be taken seriously, it's liable to be misinterpreted. I've heard arguments like you made before "in genuine" because people are paid to say terrible wrong shit by this industry. Anything that can be construed as support for them or an attack of their competitors must be clarified as a joke if you don't want people to get (fairly) pissed.

MercurySunrise ,

No, I'm being upfront. If y'all really feel this strongly for beating around the bush, good luck getting anything done in time.

MercurySunrise ,

I didn't realize grass had reached such an advanced evolution. Obviously it must be exterminated. (/s)

MercurySunrise ,

Along Came Pollen

MercurySunrise ,

Speaking of ACP, the affordable connectivity program just recently got cut.

MercurySunrise ,

Seems relevant /shrug

MercurySunrise , (edited )

I totally agree that "outside" protestors shouldn't be considered any kind of reasoning for dismissing a movement. It does imply the movement is bigger than local or territorial lines and therefore should be taken more seriously than not. In regards to anti-national revolutionists, that's actually a very specific point of pride, and it should be. We are all people regardless of the territorial lines we are forced into. If we can reach outside the scope of the nation, we have in a sense, beaten it. This is why I see internationalism, or as some say, globalism, to be a very important goal for all movements focused on human rights. We are more than just where we are on the Earth. Humanity is a connected species, and in my opinion, that does go beyond just tech and state structures. I feel that reactionary solidarity should not be dismissed, though. Class warfare, for example, has a certain level of necessity for movements against oppression. I do not disagree with oppressing the oppressor. I think it's a tactic we've actually seen too little on the left and perhaps could explain some of the incrementalism we've seen so far. I am, however, an accelerationist. Personally, I feel the more I am fought, the more I can fight back - and I do think that's really important to allow others on the left to utilize too. We must find ways to equal the playing field, and I think literally all forms of solidarity have their roles in that. I think to say we cannot alienate those that alienate us leaves us as the only ones alienated. Those that disregard the use of reactionary solidarity disregard the use of tactics used against us. This is actually a larger philosophical argument of pacifism. I like to call it the batman argument. You're putting yourself on a moral high-ground that only hampers your effectiveness. The "bad guys" keep going and keep coming because they are not actually stopped. They are not, as some of the more intensive left likes to say, "stomped". The right-wing stomps, and they also steal from us constantly. We should stomp and steal back, while also using transformative tactics. Never disregard the importance of diversity, not in anything, but especially not in warfare. Honestly, I see this argument against it as dividing the left up more. There are aggressive leftists. They have their right to be, because of self-defense. The right-wing fucking murders us, to say we should not be angry and that such anger somehow makes us weaker... I just simply disagree.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

This is an awesome information resource! Also, free Palestine, and THE STATE CANNOT ERASE THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE WILL ERASE THE STATE! THE PEOPLE MUST ERASE THE STATE! YOU WANT WAR? YOU'LL GET WAR, MOTHERFUCKERS! Ahem. This is a very important subject that shouldn't be ignored. The military industrial complex and their relationship to silencing protests has to be dealt with by the people. It's completely unacceptable. The government (the state) won't, because they're fucking weak and greedy. It's been going on for so long now. Always the time for the people to use that second amendment. Equalize American weaponry or the weaponry must be destroyed, and it has to stop being sent to murder people in unrelated countries. The state can't keep doing this to people, It has to be stopped if it won't stop itself.

MercurySunrise , (edited )

A mother, angry about state motherfuckers, downvoted on mother's day. Damn.

The second amendment: "WELL REGULATED MILITIA", which is quite specifically a citizen's army. I'm literally just advocating rights we were guaranteed at the beginning of our constitution. This shouldn't actually be controversial. If you can't regulate to an equal playing field, the only way to "well regulate" is by destruction. "Arms" isn't exclusive to guns just as it isn't exclusive to bombs. It is however made exclusive to THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT to "bear arms". The people can find equality in arms that aren't totally insane (such as the arms they had when the constitution was written), and that is an important part of saying "well regulated". They designated the military as not an official part of "the people" (the citizenry), and the military itself technically has no right to bear arms. That is why it is within the purview of the second amendment, and arguably the government's job, to destroy all arms not accessible to the people (and in the case of the military, arms not accessible to ALL PEOPLE). The very point of it is to assure equal weaponry so that the people are not forced from their freedom by the power of the larger societal structures, whether that be a state, a military, or capitalism.

The government owes the people respect, not the other way around. They put food on their table with our money, our work, whether we agree or not. The government's money isn't the government's money, it's the people's money, distributed. If they're going to take our money with or WITHOUT CONSENT and put it towards something else, especially something like murdering innocent people for what mostly seems to be a religious cause, we have to be allowed to complain. We have to be able to shut them down if they won't change, as the people. The founding fathers intended for our system to change, or we wouldn't even be able to make amendments. The constitution itself was an intended change from the static religious monarchy of Britain, which required civil war because it was static (it refused to equitably change).

The state, especially the federal government, technically only exists to regulate currency (and resulting industry) as the people need for maximum well-being. So the state needs to get their heads out of their ass and do it instead of trying to silence protestors during national crisis and every war or they'll be, in a sense, fired. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Then again, if they were actually doing their fucking job, none of this shit would be happening. The constitution isn't an unreasonable structure. The biggest problem is that we have let capitalism completely overwrite it, which is quite literally the opposite of what the constitution intended. Once again, "WELL REGULATED".

MercurySunrise ,

🫡

MercurySunrise ,

That's a hell of deep dive on the subject. Thanks for sharing.

MercurySunrise ,

War never changes. ;(

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • random
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •