Trump is baiting it to get violent. That’s why he pardoned the Jan 6rs. They are his goons.
Don’t feed the troll king.
So much energy expended on discussions of violence. Do not worry about if you should or should not do violence. Violence is merely a question of who has the power to allow or forbid it. And if you protest long enough to make political progress, violence will find you, doesn’t matter one bit how you personally feel about it.
Liberals be like “But what about the law??”
Our species has spun its collective wheels for millenia because people broadly think someone or something is in charge. Thinking people believe there’s some kind of objective good, a rule-of-law. Non-thinking people think there’s a ruling power, a human system of hierarchy that all beings must submit to. The purely reactionary, emotionally-leashed bottom of the barrel believe in supernatural forces like God or Lizard People pulling strings from the shadows.
I sometimes wonder how much progress we could make as a species if we all just suddenly woke up with the deep and unshakable knowledge that nobody is coming.
Would we take care of things better? Would we collectively work to build that ruling power or would human minds break at the very notion of real agency and just rip each others’ throats out?
we shouldn’t be waiting for violence to find us. it needs to find them.
question
I’ve been thinking today.
it’s illegal to block the road, you can get in trouble for a sit in, or by parking on the road.
but how about just driving on a road and respecting the speed limit?
how many drivers do you need to all agree to drive on a specific road, in circles to congest it and create a nightmarish traffic jam.
it’s better to be strategic and do so during rush hours. 50 protesters could easily halt the traffic of some main arteries. and really hurt the economy.
Stop giving a shit about what is illegal. It was made illegal because it was effective. The establishment doesn’t want you to be effective.
If the punishment for breaking a rule is a fine, then it’s not a rule meant to help people, it’s meant to give the wealthy power to do what they want.
if I’m detained I’m not getting arrainged and released, im getting deported and never seeing my daughters again
or maybe end up in an Salvadorian prison
You forget the fact they are doing this to countless people regardless. They don’t get to make that choice to just sit this out.
It’s called having solidarity with those being targeted, accepting the same risks they are being subjected to by simply existing, in order to help defend them against oppression. Part of that oppression is how the State has designed its laws to inhibit the ability of people to fight back against it.
If you allow the opposition to dictate how you are allowed to resist, then you already lost because they will never just allow people to effectively resist their authority. Change requires mass civil disobedience.
Or, continue to follow the rules of the oppressors, fail to effectively resist, and when they are done coming for their current target, they will eventually get around to coming for you, except by then you won’t have anyone around to help defend against it.
I’m sorry, but I’m calling you bs
it’s not called having solidarity, I’m one of those at risk.
that’s like saying vulnerable people at risk of COVID need to have solidarity to other people and go out without masks.
I’m going to protests, I’m doing what i can, I volunteer in mutual aids, and I fear every moment that ICE will detain me and I’ll never see my daughters again.
I’m not your pawn, and I’m already doing whatever I can while keeping myself safe. It’s American voters who put me in this situation. and now they want me to put myself at risk even more?
Then you should already understand that keeping your actions “legal” doesn’t guarantee protection, and that forgoing effective means of resistance only helps the oppressors to have an easier time oppressing your fellow people.
The voters are not responsible for your oppression. The regime that is engaging in oppressive practices is.
Only doing things that are legal won’t protect you, us the point. If that were the case, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.
Not ‘you must do crimes’.
Edit: i get it. Its fucking scary. I have a lot of critiques for ‘society of laws’ stuff, but i can appreciate what the benefits are supposed to be, even if it’s not my favorite. We just… Don’t have that right now.
Isn’t that what truckers tried to do a few years ago?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/us/trucker-convoy-protest-washington-dc/index.html
What’s the winning strategy? If violence is escalated until everybody is incarcerated not much will change.
how exactly are they going to incarcerate every single leftist?
Political change is driven by 3% of the population. 1/3 voted for democrats. So 1% of the population would be incarcerated. Peak prison population was 0.7%. Doubling that capacity is possible, especially if prison camps can be used.
Seems like they’re just deporting people to random countries that you won’t be able to return from safely
Non Violence only protects the state and state approved protest means nothing. The most violent people are police at protests. Dr. King’s character is always stripped down to the peaceful Black leader, and look how that went for him. He was still assassinated.
To be fair, so was Malcolm X
…after he turned away from violence
Perhaps, but I’d guess the risk of assassination rises with influence as opposed to their own views on violence
Um, a lot gets done without violence, including regime change. In fact, nothing swells the numbers of a movement like state brutality on peaceful protests, and that is amplified with the ubiquity of the cell-phone camera and the internet.
This is not to say a movement by violence is bad, just that it can detract sympathizers.
But don’t worry, when the regime has to choose between giving up (say in the face of a general strike) and sending out the goons, they’ll always choose the latter. No one tosses the One Ring into the fires of Mt. Doom. It’s the same paradigm that leaves us with senile geriatrics unwilling to relinquish the power of office until it is pried from their cold, dead hands.
Usually, by then, the military has realized the regime is illegal and as luney as Aerys II Targaryen (The Mad King, who Jamie slew, SoIaF) and is willing to do the wet-work. By artillery if necessary.
Then again, destruction of property like burning the Waymo cabs, is a common necessity. That wasn’t the act of rioters, but saboteurs. Waymos are snitches and have been reporting to ICE the location of targeted civilians.
in the grand scheme of world history, a hell of a lot more has gotten done with violence than without.
You obviously haven’t seen the litigation tracker for this particular regime. Lots has been happening.
Going violent is what trump has been baiting for. He’s looking for a reason. Don’t feed the troll king.
Democrats drove away all the fighters by attacking anyone who was the slightest bit controversial or politically incorrect for the last 40 years. Basically the party was taken over by fools and cowards. This is our opposition party, and this is why we’re screwed. Ban Fox News.
I’ve seen lemmings both advocate for gun restrictions, then turn around and say we should use violence… I’m like: pick a side, you can’t hold both opinions
Nah, when someone says they’re against gun rights I prefer to at least give them the benefit of the doubt regarding ideological consistency and assume they’re against all protests that involve violence and are happy when protestors can’t defend themselves or deter against individual acts of state violence. I don’t like to just assume that a stranger is a hypocrite or critically underdeveloped merely because I disagree with them. Believe a person when they tell you who they are.
Someone finally gets it. But get this. All that gun control is literally helping the other side Dems are helping the auth regime and voters are too dumb to have that epiphany.
All WHAT “gun control”? My sibling in Christ, do you perceive there to be insufficient access to guns in america?! Really?
If criminals do not follow the laws re guns why should lawful owners be required to?
Also if one political side is allowed to own accuracy by volume, why is the other political side not allowed to?
Why do democrats want to help the authoritarians via gun control? Because that is exactly the situation that is now in play.
It puts you in an ideological lock to say the least and when the purity tests start about which in group is “correct”, the debacle begins
as we all know, meaningless purity tests are the best way keep an already fragmented ideological movement cohesive and not totally in a permanent state of full fragmentation
I agree that we have reached a point where things will only continue to get much, much worse without widespread and overwhelming violence against the authoritarians. Both those in power and those following them.
The problem is that authoritarians are primarily motivated by the irrational fear of violence. This fear justifies their violence, but nobody else’s. And they currently control the government, military, etc and therefore overwhelmingly more violent force than any resistance is likely to muster. On the other hand, authoritarian followers are predisposed to accept what they are told by the leaders of their in-groups, so when peaceful protests are called “violent riots” they will believe it unquestioningly and nothing whatsoever can or will change their minds. Hence, peaceful protest is no defense against the accusation of violence and subsequent right-wing violence. This is why abortion is such an easy topic for social dominators to leverage when inciting their authoritarian followers: it’s “evidence” that their opponents are inherently violent, against babies.
And again, reason and rationality have no part in this. The followers want to believe their out-group is violent and evil, they fear violence, so they will believe it because it reinforces their existing beliefs (a fear of violence, etc).
BTW, Democratic politicians in Missouri were assassinated this morning, and it’s not currently being widely covered by the news. So that take that how you like.
BTW, Democratic politicians in Missouri were assassinated this morning
By “someone dressed up like a cop” as the media put it. Which I guess is newspeak for just “a cop”.
That’s not a problem, that’s why it will work. They are scared to death, and we have not made an example of any of them. Yet.
the police conduct “an extensive manhunt involving hundreds and hundreds of assessors and SWAT teams,”
Wow.
If you see an oppressed people protesting against their opression, and your first instinct is to lecture them on the optics of their protest, you’re not really an ally. You’re just using “optics” as an excuse to not do anything to help out but still think of yourself as a good person. I don’t think anyone falls for it.
No one gives sympathy to protestors who fire the first killing shot on the authorities. Syrian peaceful demonstrators turned rebels have sympathy from the world because they were fired at first by Assad. Many people soured on the French Revolution at the time when The Terror occurred after the people started executing just about anyone deemed enemies of the revolution.
No one is against violence if it has to come to it, but on Lemmy it is the usual suspects (I probably don’t need to mention what political ideology they tend to be) who want to pull the trigger first on the army and police without ever thinking of consequences (they wilfully ignore the existence of Insurrection act). They are like the 2nd amendment right wingers, looking for any opportunities to fire their guns and live their fantasies, but on the opposite extreme end of the political aisle.
Or, it could be anti-Western actors stoking violence on Americans to maximise political divisions because it will tremendously help if US is thrown further into chaos.
Edit: wording
May don’t use violence now, but when they start pulling a Tiananmen, you kinda have to.
Yeah man not really happening. You keep projecting tho
I think Gene Sharp characterized it nicely in his essay, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Notably, this essay has been cited as a major influence on the Arab Spring uprisings, so it’s especially relevant to the Syrian protests.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you’re at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?
If violence is off the table, the state is free to apply violence.
Always has been. We literally elect them for that
Here in America the police have already been shooting and killing us - without repercussions - for years. The weapons they’re using on protesters right now are called “less lethal” for good reason.
How many killing shots do the police need to take before we can take one? Should we just wait until the first murder at each city, or at each individual protest within each city, or until we see one personally?
The only time I can think of where the army and police killed protestors was during the Vietnam war, and those incidents further delegitimised US involvement in Vietnam.
The weapons they’re using on protesters right now are called “less lethal” for good reason.
They are being used for decades now. It is not unique to the current LA protests.
The only time you’ve heard of. Over a thousand people are murdered by US police annually using the 2020 protests as an example there were multiple instances of protesters being killed by police/national guard. Some of the more egregious ones: 1 2
Don’t forget the MOVE bombings where police literally bombed a residential area in Philadelphia.
In that case, there is only so much the public could tolerate. The military and policing action in LA to rightful protest against grievances to the government is the culminating point.
Syrian rebels, the guys who ended up joining ISIS and Al Nusra, had your sympathy because the media told you they were angels fighting for freedom the right and proper way.
People soured on the French revolution because it turned on its base of support once the bourgeois made the progress that benefitted them, and further progress was against their interest.
You do realise there are other Syrian rebel factions?
Except the kurds, they were insignificant.
It isn’t just the Kurds.
It’s always the Kurds except when it isn’t
Removed by mod
Alright you can start killing them instead of being a keyboard warrior
Oh wow the “you first!” defense; totally never heard that one before
It’s not a defense it’s a call out. Put up or shut up.
The “you first!” defense just says you know that revolutions are gross and icky and you want someone else to do it instead of joining as A GROUP and doing what has to be done. Lone wolves are doomed to failure so the Status Quo appreciates your solidarity with them.
People in this country have forgotten how to protest effectively. They have allowed themselves to be defanged and relegated to the sidelines where their actions will be inconsequential to the establishment they are protesting against.
Too concerned with “optics”, legalities, and trying to naively appease the opposition by asking nicely with a sternly worded letter.
people have forgotten that non-violent protests aren’t fucking effective.
Effective is the right word, doesn’t have to be violent like the other new account is trying to stir up.
Now that a crowd of people are tuned in more-or-less to the issues: If I were to lead these things (I don’t), I think the next stage would be to organize non-violent, less-destructive civil disobedience. It is already happening, for example like mass reporting the presence of ICE (which is legal btw).
Violence can be considered depending on the circumstance, but many who are voicing the need violent resistance aren’t really showing a coherent plan for what happens after. Sure, where guns show up first, the local police may stand down. But then the big guns are going to come out, and civilian blood in the streets will not get more than a passing look in the goal of clamping down on political enemies.
Democratic forces have the upper hand in the narrative. Why tarnish it? Encourage people instead to use it! Violence vs. Feeble Non-violence being the only two options, is accepting the framing of your oppressors!
It’s not an either/or situation.
In the (supposed) words of Al Capone
You get a lot more from a kind word and a gun than from a kind word alone.
Critically however, a gun without the kind word is also far less effective. They are like the tip and shaft of a spear. The shaft has the range, but lacks the punch. The tip has the punch, but lacks the range. Together they are far more than the sum of their parts.
In terms of protest. A peaceful protest is like the kind word. It’s a polite but forceful delivery of a message. Radical action and violence are the gun. They work best as an implied threat. The target much know that you are willing to escalate, if required.
Too much violence, and you have a riot. These can be put down with force, and have little to no public backlash. (This is what trump currently wants to happen).
Too little violence, and the protest can be safely ignored.
The perfect balance has enough to keep the government on their toes, but not so much as to drive away supporters, and burn off the anger powering things.
Currently, Trump and co are trying to goad people into over reacting and justifying an aggressive crackdown. In light of that, a message of don’t take the bait, err towards passive over violence isn’t so bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
This one was only made possible after war was fought 100 years prior
This one came about as the final straw in the British Empire’s back that was started off by the American Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
This one was was caused by the USSR suffering multiple setbacks after its war in Afghanistan, multiple proxy wars (e.g., Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War; the Angolan Civil War; Somalia and Etheopia; Nigerian Civil War; etc.), putting down attempts at reform in the eastern bloc (Praque Spring the Polish Crisis), the massive unrest that had plain-clothes secret-police beating protesters just before the Berlin Wall fell, a violent revolution in Romania, and the August Coup failed.
That doesn’t really refute the point, at all?
I thought you were making the point that they were peaceful , and I was refuting that stuff was peaceful.
“There were violent acts previously” does not refute “These groups achieved success with moral persuasion”
Fuck’s sake, you’re connecting Gandhi’s success with the American Revolution, MLK Jr. with the Civil War, and the fall of the Soviet Union with every major war it was involved in throughout the Cold War.
Mandela led the ANC, hardly a peaceful movement. Heard of necklacing?
The dissolution of the Soviet Union came paired with a shelling of parliament. Hardly a peaceful act. Bonus fact: they held two referanda, one for the baltic member states early in the year, and one for the remainder. The Baltic states voted to dissolve, and they left. The outcome of the second referendum was that by and large, people wanted the Soviet Union to remain intact. This was ignored, and parliament shelled.
The ousting of Pinochet involved assassination attempts on Pinochet. Maybe they were peaceful assassination attempts, so I gotta hand this one to you.
Mentioning Ghandi and pretending the uprising of 1857, which inspired and propelled forward the movement for independence (including Ghandi), never happened is deeply dishonest, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives for the cause.
MLK jr., much like Ghandi, was paired with violent methods as well. Ignoring their contributions is ahistorical.
I’m assuming you’re using “etc etc etc” (etc) to mean “I can’t think of any other examples, erroneous or otherwise”, so I’ll do the same:
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Mandela led the ANC, hardly a peaceful movement. Heard of necklacing?
I’m so glad you know nothing about Mandela’s leadership.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union came paired with a shelling of parliament.
Do you not understand what the attempted coup was for, or who it was by? Hardliners trying to keep the Soviet Union together.
Jesus Christ. Utter tankie delusion.
The ousting of Pinochet involved assassination attempts on Pinochet.
Oh, is that what led to the referendum? A head of state having what every major head of state has to deal with?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Mentioning Ghandi and pretending the uprising of 1857, which inspired and propelled forward the movement for independence (including Ghandi), never happened is deeply dishonest, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives for the cause.
…
MLK jr., much like Ghandi, was paired with violent methods as well. Ignoring their contributions is ahistorical.
And ignoring the contributions of the moral persuasion that MLK Jr. pursued, instead pretending like some edgelord fascist that only violence creates change, is ahistorical.
The difference is that I don’t deny that violence creates change. I only pointed out that moral persuasion can too.
I’m assuming you’re using “etc etc etc” (etc) to mean “I can’t think of any other examples, erroneous or otherwise”, so I’ll do the same:
I’m sorry, how many examples do you want before the principle is established?
Oh, what am I saying? It would always need to be just one more, because what you’re interested in its validating your own bizarre red fascist worldview, not reality.
Your style of arguing is really comical.
I’m so glad you know nothing about Mandela’s leadership.
What am I supposed to do with this? There’s nothing of substance here. Nothing to refute. But the funniest thing to me are the constant expletives like
Jesus Christ
and whatnot. They’re completely out of place and make you come off as overly dramatic. Very cartoonish.
Anyway, I saw your discussion with the other poster, and it seems pretty pointless to engage with you. Maybe take a community college class on critical thinking or rhetoric or something.
MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.
Mandela was also literally the head of a paramilitary revolutionary force
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it’s probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust
MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.
What alternative method did they present, again?
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it’s probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust
Jesus fucking Christ.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Holy moly! I never looked at it that way! Thanks!
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
It’s almost like a bank robber with the BLA may not be a great authority on how change is achieved.
Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
Okay? What does that have to do with the blatantly false assertion that no one has ever achieved their freedom by persuading their oppressors on moral grounds?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign, and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers. I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination. And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Mahatma Gandhi was also helped by the fact that India had been waging INCREDIBLY violent resistance since the late 1800s. Like, there were ambushes that wiped out whole companies of soldiers in the mountains. His campaign of non-cooperation was just the last straw for a war-weary empire that saw little use and even littler public will to dump more soldiers into India.
Also something about colonies being too expensive to maintain and focusing on the economy back home post world wars
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign,
Okay, so we’re going to ignore literally every quote of his about convincing the British and that the point of his nonviolent campaigns was to highlight the moral aspect of the conflict. Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers.
Jesus fucking Christ. What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination.
…
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1968 was a minor addendum.
I’m really not fucking sure you should be telling me to ‘learn more about this stuff’.
And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Oh, so violence was the main factor? I’m sure, then, that opinions in the US were changing at the time because no one was persuaded, they were just scared. After all, that’s how ethnic resistance movements so consistently throughout history persuade the majority of a country, definitely not resulting in long-standing ethnic conflicts and enduring prejudices with literal centuries-long irregular warfare.
Good thing these brave revolutionaries knew that moral persuasion was worthless!
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
Oh, so violence was the main factor?
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Liberals aren’t leftists.
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
I sound like a ‘liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history’ because… I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit is this?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn’t some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you’re at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn’t an option, there’s no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn’t benefit the oppressors.
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
So your argument is… what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate… doesn’t count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would’ve gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we’re talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
‘Coercive nonviolence’
Lord.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn’t have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
True left praxis. I am in awe.
that’s a good quote and all, but i’m sure somebody in the world, somewhere in history, did do that.
Source?
Jesus
Except the part where he started flipping tables and whipping money lenders
He literally was tortured and executed
And then he got his freedom!
some literally downvoted you for stating this fact. lol
🤷♂️😅
And, how did it turn out in the USA? What is done under his name? Asking for a friend…
Remember when the founding fathers held a peaceful protest in Boston and the British were like, “Woah, we better Bach the fuck up”?
Yeah, you don’t fuck with Bach. If it was Beethoven, we wouldn’t have stood a chance.
It was peaceful? I mean, it has party in the name, not massacre. Also, it led to the revolution over time and gathered more and more people.
Disguised as Native Americans the night of December 16, 1773, Sons of Liberty activists boarded the Dartmouth, a British ship that had docked in Boston carrying a major shipment of East India Company tea, and set about throwing 342 chests of the tea into Boston Harbor. The British government considered the protest an act of treason and responded harshly.[3] Nine days later, on December 25, at the Philadelphia Tea Party, American patriots similarly protested the arrival of a British tea shipment, which arrived aboard the British ship Polly. While the Philadelphia patriot activists did not destroy the tea, they sent the ship back to England without unloading it.
In addition to proving one of the most influential events of the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party has proved an enduring historical symbol. In the 21st century, drawing inspiration from the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party in 1773, the Tea Party movement drew its name from it and has frequently cited the principles associated with it and the broader American Revolution as inspirational and guiding principles.
So if some random group comes in your home and throws all your stuff outside in the rain to destroy it, According to you they are being peaceful? Very peaceful behavior, Indeed.
I mean, yes. Violence involves physically harming people (or threatening to), not property. At least by WHO’s definition. So I mean the point being that most of these protests are not violent, just maybe destructive (and even then, most people are not being destructive.) the violence comes from the police, or literally florida saying they WILL kill you.
That’s what has been infuriating me about any news coverage of any protest anywhere. They treat property with the moral equivalence of newborns. They treat property with more compassion than the common people.
So you’re defending the East India Trading Co and the British Empire?
Really?
So much for anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism I guess. Literally the worst examples of either: But don’t destwoy de pwoperty boo hoo!
Guys please, whatever you do, do NOT throw water balloons filled with liquid ass at ICE, that would be a REALLY bad idea…
