• kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m not sure how to feel about the level of support shown for Bushnell, when previous self-immolators have been thoroughly ignored.

    Part of me is glad that his death is not in vain, and his friends and family can take some solace in that fact.

    But part of me is terrified that 20 more people are going to try similar stunts and achieve… less-than-nothing.

    There are already too many martyrs. We need agitators. You can’t agitate if you’re dead or otherwise removed.

    Please: If you’re considering Aaron Bushnell an inspiration, be inspired by the fact that he did something unusual, not that he did something self-destructive. Go throw some soup on a Van Gogh instead.

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      previous self-immolators have been thoroughly ignored

      Arguably a self imolator ended the war in Vietnam. He absolutely got the ball rolling.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Arguably a self imolator ended the war in Vietnam.

        No, he fucking didn’t. The Vietnamese breaking the US military through the use of force ended the war in Vietnam.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I hate to be the one to break it to you… but the Vietnamese broke the US military. Swallow all the cope the propagandists have been spoon-feeding you about this since the 70s - it doesn’t change anything.

            • Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              What do you mean by “broke”? I’m quite literally in a class on the Vietnam War this semester, writing a paper about how ineffective our policy of bombing an agrarian society that only needed to supply its forces 50 tons of supplies a day.

              Please, elaborate.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                ineffective our policy of bombing an agrarian society

                “Ineffective” at what? The indiscriminate carnage that the US visited on SE Asia from the air was possibly the most effective mass-slaughter campaign ever perpetrated by a colonialist power - it was even more effective than the colonialist slaughter Germany visited on eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during WW2.

                So no… as far as the tenets of colonialist warfare is concerned, it was perfectly effective.

                • Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  At stopping supplies and people from moving south?

                  So, our goal was genocide? I’m not saying we were the good guys, but clearly we weren’t comparable to the fucking Nazis eastern campaign.

                  You still didn’t answer what it meant to break the US military.