Is that from Fahrenheit 451 by chance?
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
446 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
8745 readers
3636 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I did Google F451 fireman to make this
I guess why the bottom right one is holding a book?
That's Montag
That was my first thought
This looks like Fahrenheit 451
Yes
*firemen
I assume that's a reference to what the book-burners in Fahrenheit 451 are called, and not a weirdly misogynistic gatekeep, lol.
Yes. That's exactly it.
Thought so-- Sorry about all the downvotes :(
It's ok. They're just imaginary points. And if people wanna be sensitive about the gender neutrality of a term from the book that the source image is referencing, that's their problem.
I'm all for gender neutrality, but c'mon.
They did at one point set houses on fire though. I listened to a podcast on the history of firemen in the US. Mad stuff. Can't remember the name of the podcast though.
There's a nice scene in Gangs of New York, where rival Fire teams would fight it out whilst robbing the houses they were "saving"
Firefighting shenanigans go all the way back to ancient Rome: Marcus Licinius Crassus formed Rome's first fire brigade, which would basically extort the owners of burning buildings to buy them on the cheap. Per Wikipedia:
The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Crassus. Fires were almost a daily occurrence in Rome, and Crassus took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the firefighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire; if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground. After buying many properties this way, he rebuilt them, and often leased the properties to their original owners or new tenants.
When you get paid to stop something bad that is happening, prevention is not in your best interest.
I know in like ancient Rome they'd haggle for payment while the house was burning.
If you guys wanna defund the fire dept because some GqP says it sounds edgy WHILE saving tax money for the rich, then please let me not live there. Having lived through a devastating house fire, I'd like to not repeat the experience.
Like I know firefighter put out fires, but in the US at least departments are often instrumental in making sure city streets are as unsafe as possible so they can drive their enormous trucks down them.
They will even do shit like narc out renters who have too many roommates in single family neighborhoods to city authorities, like they're not cops but some of them try really hard.
Like an order of magnitude more people die in car crashes than house fires, and more often than not fire departments are just responding to some dumbass crashing their car.
That's the Fire Marshall. They are the enforcement arm of fire services. Do you think there is a reason so few people die in fires and maybe its tied to a strong regulatory regime? Like make sure occupancy limits are respected and fire exits aren't blocked?
load more comments
(25 replies)
TBF, occasionally sending in a murderous idiot armed with a gun is actually the correct solution to a problem.
When?
When guerrilla warfare attacking another sovereign nation (so not on home soil)?
No, I don't think there is a problem I want solved that way (the "murderous" part I mean).
For every problem, there is a sufficiently improbable scenario where it's a benefit.
Yes, sufficiently improbable!
But the og reply I'm replying to said "correct" (not best, or appropriate, or practical), that's why I don't want a raging natural murderer doing any murdering (not even as executioner).
That's why you don't usually have hero movies where heroes heroically kill people & enjoy it - but rather heroes that oppose killing (but still kill a buch of evil™ people).
What definition of "correct" are you using that makes it significantly different from those others words?
Well, since it's not exact science we are talking about the "correct" can only mean something totally subjective.
So I might not think ever the correct solution to use a murdering idiot with a gun.
Not least because that implies having (and keeping) murdering idiots.
That's one example why I would label that as an incorrect solution.
Terrorists and school shooters. Frankly, if cops were as gun happy towards Nazis as they are everyone else, we wouldn't have quite the fascist problem.
Now, I'm not saying an idiot with a gun is the best solution to those issues, but it would be a solution.
It was a pleasure to burn.
view more: next ›