“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.”
- Angela Davis, for those who didn’t know the reference
I love Angela Davis. I really need to learn more about her. I saw this video posted somewhere during 2020, and for folks who can resist the urge to impatiently skip past what she’s setting up in the beginning, the payoff at the end of her response to the banal question of whether she supports violence for her cause is (IMO) exceptionally powerful.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/2HnDONDvJVE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Thank you for the reco. I will check this out and keep your comment in mind.
It’s actually kinda short, but the first time I watched it I think I didn’t expect what she describes at the beginning to play so directly into her final words, nor to be so very personal at one tragic point. I think I was kinda going “OK I know awful things were happening back then” I’m embarrassed to say. Once realizing that she was putting all that together for a specific purpose, I had to go back and watch it word for word - so I could have been projecting my own general impatience with video clips onto others. :)
So what is that supposed to mean?
Changing everything you can’t change?
What does “not accepting those things you cannot change”, means? It feels somehow like very self centered gibberish.
Please enlighten me.
You’re being downvoted because people people think you’re being obtuse, but, as a person that overuses logical thinking to a diagnosable degree, my suspicion is that you’re doing that. Also because your tone is kind of…not good.
The whole point of the Serenity Prayer (“accept the things I cannot change”) is that it includes “change the things I can” – so the things Davis is changing are things she CAN change, by definition.
But her point is that she is reframing what she believes she can and cannot change. Recategorizing, if you will.
She’s invoking the third part of the Serenity Prayer: the wisdom to know the difference. As we grow and learn, our wisdom increases, so the things that belong in the first two categories will shift.
Things that used to be things that can’t be changed are becoming things that she can.
To understand the quote, you just have to give it some space to breathe, and not be so logical about it.
Correct analysis 😁 too much logic made it non understandable (I’m not familiar with the prayer so that didn’t help either).
Thanks for the rundown!
Yeah, the Serenity Prayer context might help.
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I can’t change
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference
There is a common prayer called the serenity prayer that includes a line about accepting the things you cannot change. The idea being it’s not worth stressing out over aspects of your life that you have no control over and to instead focus on what you can do something about.
She is playing off that by saying she’s no longer going to accept those things and is now going to fight to change them. I’m not familiar with her but presumably this would be regarding fighting injustices in the world.
Here is the full prayer (or at least the version I’m most familiar with):
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference.
Oh please. This was witty for about 10 seconds 10 years ago.
It’s about as clever as answering every comment with “you could find the answer for this on Google”.
Make better decisions.
isn’t this more broadly a reference to the Serenity Prayer than any one person?
It’s her reversal of the Serenity Prayer, changing it into a call to action instead of acceptance of the (seemingly) inevitable.
I wouldn’t describe it as a reversal, the actual serenity prayer as stated already has the “courage to change the things I can,” so anything that is within the speaker’s ability to change should already be covered. And the last part, the wisdom to know the difference, already asks to have the ability to discern the two categories, and seeks to avoid accepting the things that can be changed.
It’s clever, but doesn’t actually say anything the serenity prayer itself doesn’t already say.
I dont think she understands the Serenity Prayer then.
Did she use an AK to effect her change?
At least once, yes.
In 1970, guns belonging to Davis were used in an armed takeover of a courtroom in Marin County, California, in which four people were killed. Prosecuted for three capital felonies—including conspiracy to murder—she was held in jail for over a year before being acquitted of all charges in 1972.
Yikes
An armed left is like base level marxism, how are people still surprised by that at this point?
Because American media keeps pushing the idea that the Democrats are “the left” and because Democrats oppose guns because the Republicans promote them, they equate owning a gun with being a part of “the right”.
Also far right conservative men are given all the permission in the world to threaten violence whereas many groups of people on the left, and leftism in general are defined by conservatives as inherently dangerous which both makes it practically much more dangerous to own guns and carry them (because you will just got shot by a cop and the cop won’t even get in trouble they can just say “they looked dangerous”) and also makes a culture of responsible gun ownership way harder to grow because the societal conditions around it are aggressively hostile to leftwing people owning guns.
Listen to the way centrists talk about the threat of violence from the far left and far right in the US, of course there are shitty, dangerous people on the left, but to compare the two as if there were similar amounts of violence coming from both is a ridiculous misstatement of reality.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…if they want to shot you they will. Being a responsible gun owner also has nothing to do with politics, get strapped and keep the 4 rules in mind. There are a ton of us on the left who own guns and more and more are arming themselves on the left.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…
As someone who noticed the difference between how police treated BLM protestors vs Jan 06 insurrectionists I think it’s pretty clear that if they do have an inkling of your leanings it’s gonna make a difference, at least in preconceived notions as they enter into their interaction with you, and how aggressively they come at you in the first place.
Well, it’s worth noting that one group was armed, and the other wasn’t.
Depending on what you are implying regarding which was which, I have a hunch we aren’t going to agree on that detail, and I’m doubtful either will change the others mind, so I’m just going to cut this off here.
Edited because my original wording was nearly gibberish.
I’m saying the insurrectionists were armed, as well as the idiot protestors outside of many State Capitol buildings, and so the cops are a lot more apprehensive about harassing or confronting them than they were towards BLM protestors. There was a lot more at play on January 6th than just being armed though, including ideological alignment, and support from high level politicians.
Whats funny is I keep hearing about bots and operatives on Lemmy that go around promoting things that arent the status quo like we are the next social media. And the kind of people saying it thinks everyone needs to stick to a party line or else! Like or else what? If I do not love every thing Big Dem is pushing, I am a Russian shill bot trying to destroy America. The downvotes you have are from people barely able to form thoughts past doing what they are told.
Yeah - in non US places gun ownership only means one thing: you own a gun. It says nothing about your politics. And yes, US democrats being referred to as “left” is ridiculous. The Democrat party wouldn’t even be a centrist party in most (western) democracies.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of Democrat and Republican gun owners alike who view gun ownership the same as you do, and don’t make it their entire identity, political or otherwise. We just don’t get constantly exposed to that reality, because it doesn’t make for interesting headlines, or divisive online debate.
Good. I’m glad. I had my suspicions that was the case but it’s nice to have it confirmed by an insider. I always struggled to believe that an entire nation of so many millions of people would have a one size fits all pro/anti stance on any one topic; it’d be absurd.
Shit in Amerika the kind of soda you drink can get you called a commie libruhl
Pepsi - the choice of a new generation… of woke, pronoun-shifting libtards. As an aside I like your spelling. It’s reminded me to listen to Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most Wanted again.
the ussr worked with pepsi and almost gave them a naval force
I remember that now you mention it. Bartering with a super power seemed crazy to me back then. It’s amazing how little seems to have genuinely improved for Russians (specifically) since the fall of the USSR - we had high hopes of a new age but… gestures broadly at the current state of Europe and shakes head.
Some day you’ll have an original thought and it is going to scare you.
Are you familiar with sarcasm / irony / satire? I’m quoting and subsequently mangling a slogan from 1985. (c. Forty years ago) Surely you haven’t taken that comment at face value?
Honestly I think its just that you overestimate how effective your satire is.
Republicans “support” guns up until black people start marching with them.
Democrats “oppose” guns except for the police who shoot black people.
Democrats don’t oppose guns. Democrats are for base-level gun control. Republicans are insane, NRA-supporting fools who would rather 5 year old children get massacred weekly instead of have any potential gun controls.
We have lots of gun controls. Are you satisfied with the gun controls we have in place?
Gun control is for the quiet majority to disarm the minority through things like false charges and disqualifying their opposition.
Really? Yeah, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with, you know, actually keeping kids safe. No, that actually makes sense, and even worse, isn’t about “me”!
For the record, even if there’s anything to your absurd statement, I’m all for gun control. I care more about kids’ lives than yours.
You’re not making a very good case. Historically speaking, American gun laws have universally been about disarmament as opposed to harm reduction.
If, for example, the awb had included free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
You mean what used to be taught in high schools? But slowly over time was removed from every school in the whole nation?
We had archery in our high school. Years prior to mine had classes on guns… Years after mine, not even archery.
I can’t help but notice that you are simply making the argument that we’ve done it wrong before, therefore I want it done wrong again.
Okay, sure. What a strong case you made. You win, or whatever.
R always deflect to mental health. But Reagan dismantled our mental health infrastructure, and R consistently votes against spending in that area. (Probably because they won’t ever seem to vote for anything that helps people, only for taking things from people.)
So R needs to support gun control, OR support funding mental health services, OR come clean and admit that school shootings are a price they are willing to pay as long as they get to keep their weapons and do as they will with them.
(They did like the mulford act, but we all know what that was really about. The one thing more important that guns to that crowd.)
It’s always one political party’s fault, never the clear result of what a system of government was designed to do.
The nfa was bipartisan, gca was bipartisan, fopa was bipartisan, the Brady bill was bipartisan.
The majority of child gun deaths are accidental or suicide.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay to prevent the government from massacring civilians like they did in Myanmar recently.
If we really want a gun-free society we need to make sure the government doesn’t have guns. Given that’s impossible, the next best thing is letting citizens have guns.
Are you aware of this little place called “The entirety of Earth except 'murica” ? Gun control seems to work pretty well, there.
What does that have to do with whether Americas gun laws are intended to reduce harm or disarm different segments of the populace?
Well not so much in Myanmar. Or Nanking. Or Germany. Or Gaza.
But sure. All the places the government isn’t massacring unarmed civilian populations, gun control is working out great.
It’s as much for keeping kids safe as the kids online safety act. You think the police keep them safe? Watch out for fireworks.
So just your average gun nut willing to keep stacking the corpses of children.
An armed left is like base level marxism
And then what?
Suppose you get falsely charged by the state because of your politics, what are you going to do? Get into armed conflict against the police officers coming to arrest you?
Is that what Steven Donziger should have done?
It’s not like armed insurgencies don’t happen in modern countries. Look up the IRA. Even if you are not keen on blowing up billionaires, you can still shoot meal team six as they try to bring back lynching and the KKK.
That said, disarming the country including the police, especially the police, would be more conductive to a peaceful life. So would actual democratic representation.
So then the government just sends the military in to quell rebellions by unarmed/poorly-armed citizens.
Yeah, and they kill them and also some others, and some guy’s wife. The guy takes up arms in revenge and the cycle continues.
It’s not an open armed rebellion, it’s constant terror attacks. How do you send in the military to quell a car bombing or an assassination?
Absolutely not, I’m all for defunding the police but if your idea of a peaceful country doesn’t involve someone owning and being willing to defend themselves with firearms you’re just living in a fantasy where crime just magically doesn’t exist.
In my part of the world, people grow up just fine without owning firearms. This whole gun worship is mostly a US thing.
In your part of the world there’s no cops, no one owns firearms, and there’s just no crime?
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family, and thus establish a military goverment. Because it’s apparently it’s 19th century now.
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family
Sounds good
thus establish a military goverment.
Nah, I just defeated the military. I would prefer a less authoritarian system
When you killed everyone in a coup, you are by definition a new military. You might prefer less authoritarian system now, but all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power, it’s just how the selection process goes, for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
We know that, because actually I deceived you earlier, it’s not 19th century now, and we already saw how that happened. And also, both technologies and situations are different nowAlso the final movie of the hunger games.
When you killed everyone in a coup
I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals
you are by definition a new military
No, I am a member of one of many militias
all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power
Not all of them, but I understand what you mean
for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
Yes. Thats how war works.
both technologies and situations are different now
Exactly
I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals
Not how civil wars work unfortunately
No, I am a member of one of many militias
Which makes you a part of the military power of the new rule. So yeah.
Yes. Thats how war works.
Yes. That’s my point actually.
Exactly
Ok, but that’s worse. You do get how that’s worse, right?
Liberalism is considered “left” to most people
'murica moment.
The impression is that the left is the only side calling for gun control.
Despite the most sweeping gun control implemented by Reagan, and Trumpty dumpty literally floated illegal search and seizure for firearms.
perhaps at the federal level, but California and Washington liberals have passed sweeping gun control laws that severely impinge on law abiding citizens, and the AFT under Biden criminalized brace pistols, turning millions of law abiding citizens into criminals overnight. Only a SC ruling kept them from pursuing arrest for people who legally purchased their firearms, including a full background check for their purchases.
Liberals aren’t leftists
When people are discussing American politics and Democrats and Republicans, they most certainly mean liberal Democrats when they say “the left”. The accuracy of that statement doesn’t change the intent.
It’s never been about left and right. It’s always been a war with the owner class and everyone else.
We occasionally forget; until everything falls apart and greed ruins everything. That’s when the fight starts again.
Perpetual war is a big feature of the society in 1984
Spoiler: it’s an Israeli settler on her way to the West Bank
Unlike Ukrainians they don’t have kalashnikovs, nice try
I don’t like this twist
She cute tho 😨😨😨
Good work, detective…take the rest of the day off
that’s how the IDF gets people to accept their war crimes, they have a division of cute women posting photos on social media (this was an actual problem they had a while ago)
Another settlement needs her help.
Removed by mod
I hate your choice of font. Completely detracts from your comment.
I couldn’t even fucking read it.
Must be a millennial /s
On the flip side, the font caught my eye and made me want to read what it said.
Which then took 5 minutes because I couldn’t easily read what it said. But still, good marketing of a comment
“Good marketing of a comment” is a concept I would like to remove from society, please.
It’s a pity both concepts are from the fuckin stone age though
Removed by mod
𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕾𝖊𝖈𝖔𝖓𝖉 𝕬𝖒𝖊𝖓𝖉𝖒𝖊𝖓𝖙
𝔄 𝔴𝔢𝔩𝔩-𝔯𝔢𝔤𝔲𝔩𝔞𝔱𝔢𝔡 𝔪𝔦𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔦𝔞, 𝔟𝔢𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔫𝔢𝔠𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔞𝔯𝔶 𝔱𝔬 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔰𝔢𝔠𝔲𝔯𝔦𝔱𝔶 𝔬𝔣 𝔞 𝔣𝔯𝔢𝔢 𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔱𝔢, 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔯𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 𝔱𝔬 𝔨𝔢𝔢𝔭 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔟𝔢𝔞𝔯 𝔄𝔯𝔪𝔰 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔩𝔩 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔟𝔢 𝔦𝔫𝔣𝔯𝔦𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔡.
𝓚𝓪𝓻𝓵 𝓜𝓪𝓻𝔁
𝒰𝓃𝒹ℯ𝓇 𝓃ℴ 𝓅𝓇ℯ𝓉ℯ𝓍𝓉 𝓈𝒽ℴ𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒶𝓇𝓂𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒶𝓂𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓉𝒾ℴ𝓃 𝒷ℯ 𝓈𝓊𝓇𝓇ℯ𝓃𝒹ℯ𝓇ℯ𝒹. 𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝒶𝓉𝓉ℯ𝓂𝓅𝓉 𝓉ℴ 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝒶𝓇𝓂 𝓉𝒽ℯ 𝓌ℴ𝓇𝓀ℯ𝓇𝓈 𝓈𝒽ℴ𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒷ℯ 𝒻𝓇𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉ℯ𝒹, 𝒷𝓎 𝒻ℴ𝓇𝒸ℯ 𝒾𝒻 𝓃ℯ𝒸ℯ𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓇𝓎.
this was a struggle but ran it through a word processor, its a great quote and when most of the world have failed to stand by, many have also forgotten or never knew. sadly guns now have a political agenda strapped to them and i wish they didn’t
spoiler
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
― Karl Marx** **:::
How do you do that, like change the font?
Average U.S. school trip.
Gorgeous. Where can I get one?
A girlfriend or a gun?
Yes.
It’s a package deal.
A gun that is your girlfriend? Or a girlfriend that is your gun?
SIR THE RIFLE’S NAME IS CHARLENE SIR!
I found mine at a women’s college in Massachusetts. We’re putting a lifted rally suspension on her Subaru today.
Nice is it a crosstrek?
Why would a crosstrek need a rally suspension? It’s a WRX.
To do rally…
Edit: I have a 2024 crosstrek and while it’s good on dirt roads it’s definitely not a rally vehicle.
Rally is far more than just being able to go offroad. A crosstrek is fine at going offroad, but it is far from ideal for anything rally.
Holy shit dude read my comment. 🤦
Cringe
Whatever suits you, she’s the girl of my dreams and we’ve been married more than 10 years now.
I don’t know I’m Canadian haha.
True story for Americans: You should exercise your 2nd Amendment right unless you want only the Right to have guns.
If you actually listened to the Right’s leaders, they’re openly telling you that you should be picking out your favorite at the shop now.
Yeah I’m becoming increasingly nervous with the blue states systematically trying to disarm everyone and the red states are trying to whip everyone into a traitorous frenzy over the dumbest shit while arming everyone with a pulse.
Otoh, and this probably sounds absolutely fucking nuts, I’ve found republicans tend to understand “strength” and they are strangely respectful of liberal and leftist gun owners because that’s a dynamic they can comprehend. It’s not a good state of affairs but it’s better than them believing they can just run things because they’re the only ones with “strength”
A militia made of a bunch of greasy brainwashed boomers would be put down in a couple days at most, even if it consisted of the entire population of republicans.
They won’t be a regular army doing regular army stuff like taking land and stuff. They would be like the Taliban. How did that go again for the US? The Troubles were no picnic, look it up.
A militia made of a bunch of greasy brainwashed boomers
Put down by whom? The vast majority of the military and police force is right leaning. The would be ideologically compliant with the “greasy brainwashed boomers” they’d be putting down. If all the people who were trained on how to fight are on the “other” team… There’s going to be a clear winner.
If the military and police are the right leaning ones who agree with the greasy brainwashed boomers, I’d think more that said military and police are the major problem in that circumstance, and not the greasy brainwashed boomers.
It would be an insane mistake to underestimate that group. Like the other comments said, they are the Taliban and the military/police. However even if they somehow weren’t, it still means we have potentially tens of millions of domestic terrorists running around armed to the teeth and that’s not a great feeling.
Would you really be down with dipshits like the proud boys and 3%ers acting like brownshirts and pulling a modern day krystallnacht? They already did a thing pretty damn close to the Reichstag Fire back in the beginning of 2021, and that crowd was not, shall we say, our best and brightest. You don’t have to be smart to be a thug.
…everyone you dislike?
If I only had the guts lol.
If I would only not just use it to log off.
Be well, friend.
I will, thank you. Sincerely.
Our horses are covering miles trotting swiftly, For us liberty is priceless
Lovely, everyone in this thread is exactly the same as a trump supporter but a left version of it. You guys are a wet dream for the NRA
Yeah, nobody but people like you make these false comparisons
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
You’re just as bad as the other wing, you just happen to be on the other side
Look at those nails. I can guarantee she has not fired a gun in her life.
You’re firing guns wrong
If you say so.
Ah, the classic “U” argument, that the fringes of the right and left are the same. It’s a cute but damaging myth.
This is explicitly not horse shoe theory.
Ok I hate all of this.
They’re not the same, but they’re kind of the same personality type. They frequently care about the same things, they just want very aggressive change to fix them. The issue is the path to get there and those are wildly different in terms of what the problem is and the underlying world view.
The horseshoe theory is a bullshit idea cooked up by politically deficient liberals to cope with everyone thinking they’re a joke
