Dont we all wish magic was real?
But it would really be amazing if the fighting WOULD stop. Even for a little while. We’ve all been at the breaking point for a long time (liberal, republican, and everyone in between). We are all paranoid about so many different things and suspicious of our own government.
While the meme is just a silly joke, magic would be nice.
you can have peaceful protests, you can have violent protests, or you could have… voted for kamala last year
Yeah, cause she’d be deporting people too just like Biden did (4 million iirc) but nobody would be protesting because it’s fine when Democrats do it.
But she’d still be shutting down pro gaza protests, don’t worry!
There’s slowly more evidence coming out to suggest the elections may have been rigged in some states.
So maybe we did vote for kamala. Either way, we need to dig ourselves out of this hole.
People tried the electoral option in 2020. It didn’t work.
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
Yes, but a radical flank made the proposals of non-violent activists much more appealing in some of those historical examples.
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.
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!
look for India’s independence year, and gandhi’s last protest year, something seems not good
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr
This one was only made possible after war was fought 100 years prior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
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.
gandhi succeded at nothing, his last movement was at 1942, and India got it’s independence at 1947. Delayed effect ig
deleted by creator
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…
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.
blah fucking blah. good fucking luck.
Seems like they’re just deporting people to random countries that you won’t be able to return from safely
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.
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!
people have forgotten that non-violent protests aren’t fucking effective.
I’m just waiting for the moment that shots are fired by one side or the other, because once that line is crossed we can finally get real change.
I get what you mean but you shouldn’t be waiting
I’m not merely waiting, I am preparing, arming myself, for the day when the revolution begins.
if we are not prepared to run things differently, they won’t. Destruction is not enough
There are some amongst us who already have plans for how to run things once the revolution is over.
If you think you plan will work without the social organization to make it work (and amend it), then you try to think for others. That kind of misunderstanding end very badly during revolution
A revolution of the people will need many minds, with many ideals and inspirations. No one person has all the knowledge to fix everything, we must be a collective and work together for the destruction of the oppressors.
https://anarchistnews.org/content/hostages-gun-militancy-and-militarism
Also @[email protected]
Look at what Chile achieved without firearms in 2019:
This liberal will be fucking armed and on target tomorrow. Do with that information what you will.
Laudable but illiberal means. Good on you.
Americans kill nazis.
Ah yes, Marxist revolutionary larpers preaching for violence on Lemmy. Come back when you don’t freak out over funko pop collections.
Guys please, whatever you do, do NOT throw water balloons filled with liquid ass at ICE, that would be a REALLY bad idea…
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
God, I can hear these guys having this conversation in that lilting Kiwi accent. This is exactly the sort of absurdity they used to lampoon.
No to violence. I would prefer the union break apart peacefully, like the Czechs and Slovaks. The Blue States should be annexed by Canada and the Red Run Turd Holes can figure out their shit on their own.
And I wish for peace in the middle east. I’m sure it will happen if I just wish for it hard enough.
This has been such an upsetting week. I genuinely thought Trump was about to give us peace in the middle east through the power of openly taking bribes and getting his feelings hurt.
I was nearing the point of unironically supporting soup brained Trump, he’s united so much of the world against us, he genuinely seems to hate war, and it seemed like he was losing power. Hell, somehow he landed on degrowth as an economic policy
He even caved on bringing back Garcia, so it seemed like a matter of time before the courts put him back in his place.
I thought I could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but now? Such an upsetting week.
I am a proud liberal, I am supportive and willing of violence against ICE if the prospects of winning are good.
However, there are those among us who want violence against state and federal congress and town halls. Who want to dismantle every police station. Thats not gonna happen.
Sounds lit tho
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.
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.
deleted by creator
You can’t? Why not?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
