this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
2089 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

9172 readers
1373 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] febra@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gramsci talked about this long before the 24/7 news cycles even existed. This is what the bourgeois hegemony is. Hegemony isn't defined only by the brute force of the state to enforce itself onto the people, but encompasses the ownership of cultural, political, and intellectual institutions too. The role of hegemony is to shape the views and values of the underlying classes as to make said values seem normal, organic, and timeless. This in turn will manufacture the consent the owning class needs in order to pursue its interests. As of now, the bourgeois hegemony has decided that Charlie Kirk needs to be brought on equal footing with other political activists. They have decided that the subordinate classes need to accept that Charlie Kirk's very real and tangible political activism is nothing but "opinions" in "the marketplace of ideas" and the consequences he has suffered at the hands of the system he helped build are unexpected. This is why everyone from the democrats to the republicans, from the liberal media to the conservative media is suddenly calling out "political violence" and mourning Kirk publicly. The bourgeoisie is trying to instill a new Zeitgeist and the people calling it out are a thorn in their side.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is the absolute worst instance of what you're talking about that I've seen. I have no idea how you can say he advocated Christianity at his best. He was an effective political organizer of the conservative youth movement able to take oppressive messaging and wrap it in the vaneer of liberalism and Christian marginalization. He did this for some very powerful and monied institutions. He created a monster.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I didn't say any of that. I have no clue where you got that from

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

I should have been more clear. I posted the article as an example of what I understood you were pointing at.

When I said "you", I should have said the author of the article. I wasn't being clear enough.

I think your take is right on the money.