- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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 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.
Telling people to exceed the bounds of their own threat model is exclusive as hell. When you tell others to put themselves at more risk than they’re willing to take on you’re pushing them away. You’re giving them the impression they’re not wanted because there “not dedicated enough”. Don’t do that.
I think peaceful protesters should encourage armed protestors as a form of disruptive protest, but with rules of engagement as a requirement. It simply boils down to: “Don’t shoot first.” That is a fair and reasonable rule that can be easily observed, that protects both protestors and police. Of course, if police choose to riot, they should get their own bitter medicine in return.
When police are running down people with horses, vans, batons, smoke, and bullets, they shouldn’t have a monopoly on the violence.
You’re either missing the context of the thread or you replied to the wrong comment?
The police/bootlickers should be the only antagonist one has to deal with, not fellow protestors. If someone is in the group which the protest is there to protect then they should be encouraged to prioritize their survival.
The very presence of armed protestors is inherently disruptive. Police, the KKK, and other enforcers of malice typically don’t engage non-violent protestors when the risk of being harmed themselves is a possibility. Armed protesters are guardians, who simply promise that violence will be met in kind.
Unfortunately, there are many “moderate” members among peaceful protesters who can only think in binary: There is either peace or violence, and being armed defaults to full-on violence in their eyes. Personally, I am of the opinion that such a position is worse than useless when demanding for peaceful reform.
If you cannot retaliate against the opposition if they decide to use force, they have no incentive to negotiate. Those who enjoy power only respects power. Purely peaceful protest movements that drive out those willing to bear arms from the cause, will result in two things:
1: Less unity and power for the movement.
2: Reduced ability to lay out rules of engagement for armed members of the movement, because the armed and unarmed wings of the reform movement don’t interact.
It is very important for peaceful and defiant wings of reform to cooperate, not to be isolated. Without both wings, the movement cannot fly.
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.
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.
My city’s municipal code forbids dangerous items…like helmets, armor, gas masks, impact masks, social distancing masks, disguise masks, shields, umbrellas, signs that are durable enough to protect against inclement conditions, and more. To say the least, I decided to just abandon the notion of law concerning such things.
These rules are plainly designed to favor bullies. I can understand (reciprocal) restrictions on firearms, but you can’t tell me that eye protection or ballistic armor isn’t a good thing for peaceful protest. A reporter got shot by a fucker in the back, for having the temerity of doing her job!
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
You guys really don’t get it.
There is no scenario where they won’t blame this on everyone but themselves. It does not matter. Their end goal is violence. Full stop.
Fascists only relent when they are met with direct physical force. They will not move until they are afraid for their lives.
Hard disagree. He’s not afraid for his life. Far from it. Notice how exposed he left himself yesterday during his parade and that was all after his so called ‘assassination attempt’ where his ear magically mended within hours
He will double down where he can. The only thing that is stopping him going full swing is the federal arm right now.
Mark Esper book A Sacred Oath. He’s baiting the dems hard so he can get what he wants and that’s a free ticket to kill dems on sight. If it makes him look a victim that only makes him look lis a martyr to his MAGA crew which will only make them think it’s justified violence.
Don’t justify it.
This is a really dumb notion that still keeps popping up. There wasn’t a staged attempt, and the best reason is simply that there’s no way to fire a fake bullet or intentionally miss with a real one that wouldn’t put Donalds life in danger. And Donald cares about his own life more than anything else. It’s a stupid idea and just because it was kinda weird doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy.
Yes, he values his life more than anything. That’s the point. If he actually were a surviving victim of a targetted attack he’d never not be behind bulletproof glass. If he actually thought his life was ever in danger.
so far as he’s become president he’s put himself out there in full view for a sniper. Including driving around race track. And stand up in various places out in public.
You are making a lot of assumptions that a bullet existed at all. Or a gun.
An ear doesn’t heal in a matter of hours. Which is the biggest problem with that entire story.
the guy cannot resist making a drama no matter how poorly staged it is.
They are killing us anyway.
Die ad democratic politicians, sherrifs telling protesters “we are gonna shoot all of you” or something like that. Violence is already there, it’s just that one side uses it and the other doesn’t.
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
You can’t? Why not?
knives don’t make effective weapons…
are people gonna overthow tyranny by force with… knives?
People aren’t going to overthrow our military by force, ever. Wake up. Our only chance is to change the system with reason. Or watch it burn, and try again next time people get a chance to create a government.
Restrictions doesn’t mean no guns. A guy that’s going to shoot schools shouldn’t have a gun, but a guy that’s going to shoot fascists should.
Background check are fine, but dems are getting too draconian.
Example:
The Sullivan Act
For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class
So… cops have discretion on who to give permits to…
The. Fucking. Cops.
Sure thing. If your skin color is darker than hitler, no guns for you. If you are a progressive, or BLM protester, or anti-genocide protester, they will just use their discretion and be like: “No, gtfo”.
Meanwhile, an alt-right white kid would have no trouble getting a gun their rural town where his dad knows the sherif.
Luckily, that law was stuck down: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Oddly enough, this is a rare instance where I actually agree with the right wing shitheads in the court. (Although, the court probably had ulterier motives)
Tell me: how is giving cops discretion to deny your constitutional rights ever a good idea?
ACAB
I agree with you 100%
Things could be improved drastically. However, conflating gun control proposals with taking away all guns from everyone everywhere doesn’t help anything.
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?
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
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.
I’ve got bad news for you. Most of the guns are in the hands of the enemy. This was caused by not having gun control. The scared loonies are stockpiling them. Now do you get it?
TIL I am a scared looney as a mostly liberal gun owner.
That’s some wild logic lumping us with the looneys. We aren’t stupid liberals so we know when it’s likely a good idea to not be defenseless against the looneys.
I didn’t say all of them were looneys. Go to the south sometime if you want to meet who I’m talking about.
I know people in the south that stockpile that are not looney. Not even close. Some are liberal too. I think you have a problem with stereotyping people out of convenience. You should stop doing that.
Disagree. More gun control would make the sides more even.
Criminals don’t follow the laws. Every time something happens, you all fail to understand they are criminals.
So let’s just kneecap lawful bc criminals follow the laws. That’s not even close to logical at all. Not even by a million miles.
Very simplistic reductionist substitute for actual reasoning.
K.I.S.S. exists for a reason my dude. We’ve been doing the overly complicated workflow long enough to understand it doesn’t work well, creates confusion and usually it’s a cost overrun for taxpayers. I don’t understand why the wheel ever needed to be reinvented. Our government tries way too hard to do just that.
Guys please, whatever you do, do NOT throw water balloons filled with liquid ass at ICE, that would be a REALLY bad idea…
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.
he hasn’t seen violence yet. when he does, he won’t be hoping for more of it.
Oh yes he will. He wants to literally shoot kneecaps of protestors(ref: Mark Esper book A Sacred Oath). He’s been firing and hiring for the right secretary of defence to get this exact wish met.
California was a test run.
https://youtube.com/shorts/tsJHV0mwTVE Very interesting.
I need to say this. If you are capable of going to a large protest in a major city you are privileged. Please exercise that. I would love to go to the ATL protest, but it is impossible unless I pay exorbitant parking fees (which I can’t).
Park at a Marta station where parking is free and ride down to gsu Station?
Short walk from there
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?
Seems like they’re just deporting people to random countries that you won’t be able to return from safely
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.
blah fucking blah. good fucking luck.
Removed by mod
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!
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.
