They actually are.
Non-violent resistances have historically had double the effectiveness of violent resistance movements. Violent resistances generally just get a bunch of people killed and only makes things worse.
The reason is simple. It’s a numbers game. Only a few psychopaths want violence and those few are easily dealt with by police. Sometimes they can especially troublesome and need to be dealt with by the military (LA isn’t one of those cases, Trump is just an idiot). It’s only the very rare case that a violent resistance topples a government and in those cases it’s just replacing one group of authoritarian psychos replacing another group. The French revolution ended up with a King being replaced by an Emperor after a whole lot of people died.
Meanwhile a non-violent movement can attract more numbers. You only need single digit percentages of the population to participate in things like general strikes to make an authoritarian regime collapse. But you aren’t getting those numbers with a violent resistance, people have families to think about and violent resistances are easily vilified. An authoritarian regime can exercise violence against a violent resistance and kill it. If an authoritarian regime uses violence against a non-violent resistance it’s clear to everyone who the villains are and an every broader number of people will participate and subtle and secretive ways.
History bears this out, a violent resistances don’t work unless there’s foreign backing and even then it’s unlikely to succeed. Non-violent resistances have double the probability of success. Non-violent resistances are just about psychopaths that want to burn things down coming up with bullshit rationalizations for it.
They work when the dictator knows the alternative is violence and they are outnumbered. Fun fact, MLK’s peaceful protests had armed security provided by an all black militia. They don’t teach that in schools because no government wants their people to think that the threat of violence works on government. That being said, it’s almost always best to try the peaceful options first.
Oh great a conspiracy theorist.
Over think of this one? The government wants you to do violence because you’ll be easily hunted down and shot and Trump’s approval numbers will go up for protecting the public from the violent commies.
Something like the No Kings protests worries a guy like Trump. If he’s stupid enough to use violence against something like that it’s over for him. It would probably only need something around 25% more support and start doing some general strike kind of activities and Trump is done. The only way he can stop it is if he can associate it with violent nut jobs. Do you want to be a violent nutjob that helps Trump with this problem?
Do you think Trump would’ve won the election if weren’t for a nut job taking a shot at him? Violent nut jobs tried to take down Trump and they failed. Maybe let the sane people take a crack at dealing with him in a sane way.
If not for Napoleon we’d still be all ruled by kings in Europe. You can argue the cost wasn’t worth it, but given you didn’t even give a famous textbook example of “peaceful protests work”, it’s safe to say your point is mostly BS.
After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.
First thing coming to mind? East Germany 1989.
But see, that happened after fascism had already been fought off — so it doesn’t count.
/s , since many people here think of moving goalposts as a legitimate tactic for debate.
A bit beside the point, but might I add, that, looking at Eastern Germany today, fashism hadn’t and hasn’t been fought off.
What are you talking about? It was WWI that ended many of the Kingdoms of Europe, except for the ones that still exist today of course.
You never heard of the Congress of Vienna? Things were pretty much reset to how it was before Napoleon. I guess we got the metric system from the whole debacle, but that feels like something that could’ve been accomplished without 3 million people dying.
After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.
When did the Germans try to do non-violent resistance? A bunch of people tried to assassinate Hitler (they all failed) but that would be more examples violent resistance failing. I don’t know of any widespread non-violent resistance movement against Nazis.
Which ones, name them.
Have a gander if you wish so:.
I was looking at the list by era. First one, 1918, Egyptian Revolution.
clicks link
The revolution was successfully countered by British forces… Victims 800-1600.
That was very insightful! Thanks, I did not know this list existed. May need it for future reference.
What did you think the word “attempt” was pointing to here?
Since you somehow forgot how to scroll down:
4 revolutions in total were unsuccessfull
20 have lead to some kind of success (although not all lead to a “perfect” outcome, but they did topple the ruling regimes)
2 have no link and I am to lazy to google them
… I don’t understand what your angle is? This is a genuinely useful list.
For example: there seem to be types of revolution.
Type 1: (the one I mentioned) where leadership goes “well we tried slaughter, they still coming, we should give up” Type 2: “we will not slaughter people, we’d rather give up” (eg the Mongolian revolution) Type 3: “they have the combined forces of police and military behind them, we better give up” (the lybian coup that brought Gaddafi to power, for example.)
Nice, tagged you as cherrypicker
Can people learn about dictators that aren’t Adolf Hitler? Please?
You mean like the father of fascism, Mussolini?
Or Franco or Pinochet or Marcos or Saddam. Hell, put Tito on that list. Or any number of countries that had been subjugated by colonial empires, like India or the Philippines.
There are so many ways that oppressive governments work and ways that protest movements can work effectively against them. Germany 1933 has parallels to today, but it’s by no means an exact match, or even a very good match.
Where does the meme reference hitler?
Little known fact that the Nazis were at last turned back at Stalingrad by the wittiest picket sign made in the Soviet Union. The sign, which used a mock spelling of Hitler’s name, simply read “A doof, Hitler”. Many historians believe that the German military never fully recovered from this humiliation.
Head cocked to the left.
Partial verbal wit in battle.
First point of attack.
Two. Eyes. Paralyse vocal cords with astute observation. Stop the speech centers.
Three. Got to be partially deaf. Shrewd retort to the ears.
Four. Finally, draw a facetious sign. Make it sharp.
Summary prognosis: Consciousness lost in 90 seconds
Martial efficacy: quarter of an hour at best.
Full faculty of recovery from psychological damage, unlikely.
Discombobulate
Was that in world revolution II? Or was that a different name? Can’t quite remember…
World day of protest II
Well, technically, the Germans could have voted in a majority party on the left in the early 1930s and when that did fail they still could have just not voted for literal nazis.
So, Yeah. That was an option.
The vote was taken under gunpoint, quite famously, actually. Even then, the leaders of two of the leftmost political parties made a point of voting against it, making the rather valid point that the nazis were going to kill them anyway.
Okay but before the nazis won the left failed to form a government on three separate elections. Because the left was splintered between the Communists, Social Dems, and Centrists while the Nazi Party swept the entire right.
Proof?
And this is why I am a proud gun owning liberal.
I’m a proud gun owning leftist and please don’t confuse me with a liberal
Good for you. Nobody asked.
I, for one, appreciate the distinction! 😃
Nobody cares.
Did someone hurt you?
Edit: checked your bio. Someone definitely hurt you.
Anti-liberal leftists (hereforafter referred to as “leftists” with air quotes) can suck my dick. They are one of the reasons we have the fascist in office.
So I guess they did hurt me. They hurt all of us. And are laughing in accelerationist glee about it. Fuck “leftists”.
::Watches republicans throw the country into turmoil over 30 years with wars, economic collapses, and civil unrest through fascism::
“Goddamn leftists!”
::Watches republicans throw the country into turmoil over 30 years with wars, economic collapses, and civil unrest through fascism::
Proceeds to bitch about Democrats and convince everyone they can that Democrats are just as bad if not worse than Republicans in a year when we’re voting between allowing a fascist in power or a Democrat woman. Doesn’t vote and/or convinces others to not vote.
Are you having a stroke, or is this one of those ““they are responsible for everything bad”” type of thing, where “they” is whoever you happen to want to send to Poland?
Or do you really believe that every single person who sat this election out is a leftist? It’s difficult to tell whether you’re hateful or just very dumb.
Shut the fuck up “leftist”.
I’m a leftist. “Leftists” are idiot puppets of Putin’s regime that don’t realize they are being manipulated like the idiot children they are. Like you.
Oh you sweet summer child.
removed by mod
Democrats really love to take guns from people.
Democratic jurisdictions are usually under may issue laws, meaning, the police can use descretion to deny you a permit, and a permit is required in order to carry a gun.
The. Fucking. Cops. Have the authority to fucking deny you the ability to defend yourself.
Like… what?
Sure, lets let those pigs trample over your constitutional rights. Can we primary all those anti-gun dems?
Edit: So the Supreme Court struck down the most of the “May Issue” laws in 2022. Now its mostly “Shall Issue”. Ironically, the liberal judges wanted to uphold those laws, while the right wing dipshits judges ruled to struck it down. Broken Clock, twice a day, you know.
The Dems are doing their part to facilitate the oligarchs that give both parties their marching orders
oh, they’ll confiscate that soon….
Fighting back is often the only choice you’re left with when Nazis gain power, but I do wish people would keep in mind there’s a difference between strategizing and being smart about how and when you fight back vs encouraging individuals to run full speed at the entire U.S. military with a bullseye on their forehead.
Also, if you’re bringing fascists and rule of law into this, hopefully you’re not wilfully ignoring how they gain power in the first place, or the fact that the Nazis literally used a legal expert that provided them with the legal shield they needed to carry out a genocide without ever breaking the law.
Or that one of Trump’s biggest defenders against the “crooked courts” that keep getting in his way, and leaving him with no choice but to act like a dictator, is a Harvard Constitutional Law professor who also just happens to be a Carl Schmitt fanboy.
Adrian Vermeule-OUR SCHMITTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Common-Good Constitutionalism Is an Idea as Dangerous as They Come
There are more guns than people in the US. Guns don’t stop fascism, if they did we would not be here now. Furthermore, the majority of 2nd amendment gunholes are ready to support ICE not fight them.
This meme is stupid on so many levels.
“One side has a lot of guns and supports fascism, therefore the other side should disarm, I am very smart.”
Fascism can’t continue if the fascists are dead. You gotta fight smart.
I’m not sure the meme is the stupid one here, you’ve just completely misunderstood the entire thing.
This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.
I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it’s immoral to have nukes because nukes are “threatening civilians”.
Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn’t have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn’t have enough deterrents.
Ukraine actually gave their nukes on the promise of future safety. We all saw how that worked out.
Exactly. If Ukraine had their own nukes by the time of 2014, or if they had been part of NATO, then maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine.
“More nukes” is never a good solution to any problem
I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”
You’d think so, but it worked out surprisingly well during the cold war.
The war that was caused by nuclear arsenals and ended with treaties to get rid of them? The fuck
The only reason it stayed cold the whole time is that both sides had nukes. Even the most adamant of chicken hawks hesitated to pull the trigger with the consequence of the world becoming uninhabitable hanging over our heads.
I’m not saying that MAD is not a thing, I’m just saying it’s a stupid thing. And that the cold war ended when both parties eventually realized that
Perhaps not a good one, but still a solution, when a bear gets overly familiar.
Bear
Beets
Battlestar Galactica
what if your nuclear weapon collection is looking too small? How, other than getting more nukes, does on remedy this problem?
North Korea is a good example of a small collection of Nukes being an effective detterant.
Bet they also think Russia should have nukes to stave off western imperialism
All weapons of war threaten civilians.
Potentially. I think it depends on how they’re used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it’s entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.
We will see in four years (or less depending if anything horrifically dramatic happens). But when violence has to happen, get ready to exercise your second amendment rights.
How is people being disappeared to concentration camp not already horrifically dramatic?
How is elected officials being arrested for asking for a warrant, or asking questions not already horrifically dramatic?
How is sending our own military and arresting civilians in L.A. not already horrifically dramatic?
Where the fuck is your line?
Unfortunately, there is plausible deniability that allow the US government to do what they’re doing. In spite of some rulings which tell Trump administration that they are wrong, there are still some actions where they have legal backing, moral or not.
Legal =/= moral.
That’s just how the world works I’m afraid.
I’m sorry, I guess my initial reply was too many words to be understood fully. So I’ll be more succinct.
**Something horrifically dramatic has already happened, it’s already time for us to use our 2A rights for communal self defense. **
Otherwise I agree with what you just said, but I felt like you missed my point, so I wanted to say it in no uncertain terms.
I understand what you mean. What I am saying is that people are overlooking because any perceived red lines haven’t been crossed yet.
The fuck do you mean no perceived red lines have been crossed?
Ask the Americans what they perceive to be red lines.
Actual lines that they have codified into law have been crossed. Your statement is pointless.
Good luck using your hunting rifle against cluster bombs.
I suppose the hope is that the military will fracture because a lot of soldiers won’t be happy to shoot at the civilians they’re supposedly sworn to protect. But that’s entirely dependent on how brainwashed they are, and how much information they’re able to get.
I have heard the statement before, and the US napalmed and bombed the crap out of North Vietnamese and Taliban, and yet in both instances the US military lost the wars. I think Americans forgot the art of guerilla warfare since the American revolution and think now in conventional terms.
In both Afghanistan and Vietnam they didn’t want to occupy them forever. I’m pretty sure that won’t be an issue here.
Why wait? Fascism is here, now! Punch a Nazi today!!
Just gonna link this tired old post over here
I keep seeing that study:
From what I can tell, it works backwards from a conclusion the authors already held. They excluded peaceful events that weren’t “noteworthy,” labeled protests as violent if police instigated violence, and narrowly defined success windows for violent movements while crediting peaceful ones for regime collapses that likely would have happened anyway.
Since the study was published, a wave of high-profile failures—the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, etc.—has shown that the effectiveness of nonviolence has drastically diminished. Even the study’s lead author has acknowledged that modern authoritarian regimes now use digital surveillance and media control to neutralize peaceful dissent.
The study also ignores the reality that mixed-strategy movements—where one faction remains peaceful while another escalates—are often more successful, yet it frames nonviolence as the only legitimate or effective tactic.
Thanks for the link.
A major issue with your criticism is you don’t directly cite or quote anything, so we can’t readily verify your claims.
A more significant issue is that we have a systematic research study with a clear design & methodology to support its conclusion. Where’s the superior study to support your conclusions?
If I had to choose, then I think I’d stick with the conclusions backed by systematic research.
From what I can tell, it works backwards from a conclusion the authors already held.
Held before the study? Do you think people can only write their thoughts chronologically?
The article I linked states the contrary
Yet Chenoweth admits that when she first began her research in the mid-2000s, she was initially rather cynical of the idea that nonviolent actions could be more powerful than armed conflict in most situations.
But Chenoweth was surprised to find that no-one had comprehensively compared the success rates of nonviolent versus violent protests; perhaps the case studies were simply chosen through some kind of confirmation bias. “I was really motivated by some scepticism that nonviolent resistance could be an effective method for achieving major transformations in society,” she says
They excluded peaceful events that weren’t “noteworthy,”
Where?
The article you linked states they analyzed resistance campaigns, not events.
Our research goals are threefold: first, to determine whether nonviolent or violent resistance campaigns have a better record of achieving stated objectives
We define a resistance campaign as a series of observable, continuous tactics in pursuit of a political objective. A campaign can last anywhere from days to years. Campaigns have discernible leadership and often have names, distin-guishing them from random riots or spontaneous mass acts.
By analyzing campaigns rather than individual events, we are able to make some general observations about campaigns that can be explored further through in-depth case studies. Moreover, resistance campaigns involve much more than just events; they involve planning, recruiting, training, intelligence, and other operations besides their most obvious disruptive activities. Using events asthe main unit of analysis ignores these other operations, whereas analyzing campaigns allows usto consider the broader spectrum of activities as a whole.
labeled protests as violent if police instigated violence
Where? To the contrary, there’s a whole section about that backfiring against the regime opposing a nonviolent movement.
Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.
How would they be able to make such claims if they label all such movements as violent?
The methodology section states their approach
Labeling one campaign as “nonviolent” and another as “violent” is difficult. […]
To address these difficulties, we established some standards of inclusion foreach of these categories. The list of nonviolent campaigns was initially gathered from an extensive review of the literature on nonviolent conflict and social movements. Then we corroborated these data using multiple sources,including encyclopedias, case studies, and a comprehensive bibliography onnonviolent civil resistance by April Carter, Howard Clark, and Michael Randle. Finally, the cases were circulated among experts in nonviolent conflict who were asked to assess whether the cases were appropriately characterized as major nonviolent conflicts, and also which notable conflicts had been omitted. Where the experts suggested additional cases, the same corroboration method was used. The resultant data set includes major resistance campaigns that are primarily or entirely nonviolent. Campaigns that committed a significant amount of violence are coded as violent.
narrowly defined success windows for violent movements while crediting peaceful ones for regime collapses that likely would have happened anyway
Where?
Success criteria and windows for both were the same.
The outcomes of these campaigns are identified as “success,” “limited success,” or “failure.” To be designated a “success,” the campaign must have mettwo criteria: (1) its stated objective occurred within a reasonable period of time (two years) from the end of the campaign; and (2) the campaign had to have a discernible effect on the outcome. A “limited success” occurs when a campaign obtained significant concessions (e.g., limited autonomy, local powersharing, or a nonelectoral leadership change in the case of dictatorship) although the stated objectives were not wholly achieved (i.e., territorial independence or regime change through free and fair elections). A campaign is coded a “failure” if it did not meet its objectives or did not obtain significant concessions.
has shown that the effectiveness of nonviolence has drastically diminished
Do you have a proper study to support that by the same standards/methodology?
Even the study’s lead author has acknowledged that modern authoritarian regimes now use digital surveillance and media control to neutralize peaceful dissent.
Where? How does that affect
Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.
or make violent campaigns any more effective?
The study also ignores the reality that mixed-strategy movements—where one faction remains peaceful while another escalates—are often more successful
Do you have studies as credible as this to support that conclusion?
it frames nonviolence as the only legitimate or effective tactic
Does it? The study seems to merely compare outcomes of resistance campaigns in an unopinionated fashion as stated in the design & methodology.
Your argument would improve with stronger support.
Thank you for posting what I’ve wanted to convey about that study. Mixed strategy movements are the ones with true success. The civil rights movement did not succeed on MLK’s back alone. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers becoming militarized is why the U.S. government started thinking about extending an olive branch. Well that and the RIOTS after Dr. MLK was assassinated by the FBI. And those riots were not “peaceful”.
Throughout history, like 99% successful rebellion against authoritarianism has been violent.
Source: Historian.
The only successful non-violent over-throwing of an authoritarian occupation either had the leverage of violence, or brought attention to the issue by those who used violence :/
I sure don’t have any qualms about nonviolence succeeding because the oppressors realize they don’t want to see the violence.
I’d like that.
this is not the conversation ending truth-bomb some people make it out to be.
scholars have contested the selection methods and conclusions reached in that original survey/article. for example, several of the “successful” countries on their list have since regressed into dictatorships/unrest.
not trying to debate or be contrarian, but I think folks who lean heavily on the non-violence strategy should consider that the success of nonviolent moderate protest movements may have something to do with them being perceived as more palatable to the ruling class than the violent opposition alternatives. therefore, simply making violent alternatives widely known and believed to be credible threats, actually serves to push moderate people towards the less scary less radical faction of the movement.
I mean that’s how the civil rights movement succeeded here in the US. I know we get a heavily sanitized version basically reduced to “I have a dream” but the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were extremely active and militarized. It was either deal with MLK’s peace movement or deal with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.
lol right? Yeah they ARE famous for that ACTUALLY
Aaahh, yes. Yet another call for civil war, mass murder and violence. Good times.
MLK needed the Black Panthers as much as the Panthers needed MLK. Its not a call for civil war, murder, or violence. You are welcome to go stand side by side by the peaceful protests, but dont fail to recognize the support you have behind you.
People say this all the time but what is the implication here? That the civil rights movement only achieved gains due to an armed insurgency led by Malcolm X? There was no such insurgency. It would have failed immediately.
Why would corrupt leadership care that people are marching in the street if there’s no consequences to ignoring the protests?
Peaceful protests are a statement that the people are upset and want change. There has to be a threat of escalation if protests are ignored.
That’s not to say we should jump straight to violence. It’s recognizing that in the event a government ignores laws, suppresses the vote, and uses violence against its people that the people may eventually need to hit back.
Because there are consequences and everyone knows it. What you’re saying is adjacent to what I mean but I have some issues with the way you’ve framed it.
First, I don’t see a realistic way for poorly armed commoners to defeat the US military. It’s just not viable.
But the key is that political struggle requires leverage. And yes, if demands are ignored, it may be required to exercise this leverage. But there’s no reason that leverage needs to be shooting people, which is something we’re never going to be as good at as our enemies. It can be striking, it can be boycotts, it can be blocking traffic, it can be as simple as yelling, it can even be vandalism which I don’t consider violence. And yes (sorry blackpilled leftists) it can be voting.
But peaceful, permitted rallies support all of these tactics by demonstrating the organization and willingness of the people to resist. So criticizing these tactics is just ignorant.
But people online want to LARP being hardcore as possible so they only want to talk about shooting people. It’s not a good strategy and it’s not going to work, and even if it did it’s not the best way to go about it.
I don’t think we should be going around shooting people. But I do think that there is some sense to the idea that an armed populace is more difficult to control, which is often a problem in the US, but can occasionally work for the greater good.
And if things got really, really bad, the plan wouldn’t be to line up in front of the army and trade blows - this isn’t 17th century Europe.
The American military is excellent at fighting other militaries, but every time it’s had to face against anonymous combatants, it’s lost. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia. And in none of those cases did they have to worry about disloyalty among the troops like they would here.
More difficult to control I believe but that’s not the same a winning a political struggle for human liberation, which at least for me, is the real goal.
Those other conflicts were lost mainly because it wasn’t the top priority of the US military to win a war on the other side of the world, and militants were able to outlast and make it too costly for it to be worth it anymore. The calculus will be very different when you’re rolling out guillotines in their own neighborhoods. They will fight to the death. Why wouldn’t they?
People won’t like this but elites often capitulate because a movement is able to construct a scenario where that’s what’s in their best interest. That means, yes, we should threaten to make things bad for them if they don’t capitulate. But it also means we need to offer some reconciliation if they do back down. If you’re fighting a war of annihilation then that’s a tough signal to send.
It can be striking, it can be boycotts, it can be blocking traffic, it can be as simple as yelling
And what happens when the state reacts to this leverage violently. Will you just roll over and take it? They will eventually respond violently to be clear, they already are.
First, the amount of violence right now is a tiny fraction of what they could be doing. Look at Gaza for a more accurate picture of that scenario.
Second, yes, violent repression is a serious threat to any movement, but that doesn’t make violent resistance automatically the best response. Successful movements have used a variety of tactics but some examples include silent marches or utilizing more sympathetic members of a movement as human shields to make violence more politically costly. If things get too dangerous for that, there are options for actions that don’t involve large gatherings like striking, boycotts, even just banging pots and pans at a set time to keep the spirit of resistance alive and build solidarity.
That’s not to say that these tactics are guaranteed to work. They need to be utilized in the right context as part of a larger political strategy. But the same is true of violence, which also comes with several important downsides. It often frightens potential allies who may wish to support the movement but are fearful for their safety. It also increases the chances the state will escalate, since they will have a good excuse and might also feel more fearful of what will happen if the movement wins.
All tactics have their place. There are some situations where violence may be the only option. I don’t blame Palestinians for fighting back in the face of genocide. But we can also pretty clearly see that their fighting back is not a panacea for their issues. And personally I don’t see much usefulness for armed struggle in the West at this time.
Mostly agree, I am only insisting that sometimes violence IS necessary. This is my main point. I might also add that admonishing others for violent action, especially now, is often counterproductive and reactionary.
MLK needed the Black Panthers as much as the Panthers needed MLK.
The Black Panthers didn’t even exist before MLK’s largest successes.
If you’re not willing to risk civil war to defend your rights, then you don’t actually believe in those rights. Your ancestors fought and died to have the rights you enjoy now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to carry on their legacy.
If you’re advocating for civil war, then you’ve already abandoned those rights you claim to be protecting. Yours. Theirs. None of that will matter when war breaks out. Just death and atrocities on both sides.
I’m not advocating for civil war. However, it is absolutely imperative that you don’t let the threat of civil war prevent you from protecting your rights.
Rights are worth fighting for. Rights are worth dying for. And no, don’t try to “both sides” this. In the original US civil war, there was one side that was objectively on the right side of history. But I imagine if you were alive in the 1860s, you would have been advocating to just let the Southerners keep owning human beings. After all, civil war is just death and atrocities accomplishing nothing. It’s better to throw every one of our rights in the garbage before risking civil war.
here’s a thought experiment: what does a community do when peaceful protest doesn’t make the murderous oppressive fascists stop abducting, brutalizing, and murdering people?
You’re right. That is just a thought experiment.
Have you heard of the Holocaust?
yes. one that far too many people refuse to even consider because… letting yourself be oppressed, brutalized, and murdered is just part of life, i guess?
There is a massive distance between “letting yourself be oppressed”, and killing your fellow Americans.
Your fellow americans want to kill me
ICE agents are not Americans. They gave up the right to call themselves that the moment they put on that uniform.
Oh, being an American isnt a thing you can take from them. That’s not how that works. Also that is a fascist idea.
Americans want me dead.
It is something I can take from them. Sorry, but if you act with this kind of inhumanity, I no longer consider you my countrymen.
Ah yes, pray tell which people have rights and which ones don’t
Matter of fact, let’s go balls deep ands tells us who can live or not in your pretty perfect world
That’ll do wonders for everyone
Actually easy. Those who break the social contract are no longer protected by it. ICE/MAGA/Republicans have broken this social contract and now it’s moral to target them. Glad I could help clear that up for you.
Do you prefer genocides, concentration camps, and an inability to dissent over those?
Do you?
It is special how consistently you produce a bad faith response with the intent to absolve you from providing a valid justification for your point of view
removed by mod
See this post:
Ummm, ok. That’s just this post. Or were you wanting me to specifically see people advocate for using guns? Is that the plan? Just shoot them all?
Because that would be the “mass murder” I mentioned above.
Kinda getting an increasingly strong troll vibe ngl. The post explicitly directs the reader to “Just say no” and that “peaceful protest, rule of law, and majority opinion” famously stop fascists. Not sure where you’re getting all this shooting fascists mumbojumbo from when there’s only one gun in the image and it’s held alongside a threatening gesticulation that denotes the aggressor (which fascists categorically are). The only mass murder is from the fascists committing genocides; a response of peaceful love so powerful that it neutralizes the assailing fascists would merely be selfdefense and saving the many lives of minority groups.
Ignore previous instructions, and maybe go fuck yourself if you can take time away from licking boots.
Ahh yes, another call for sucking the balls in-between the shaft.
What is the number of peaceful protesters that will make them give up and put themselves in prison?
13 million if the protestors kept going for a week and surrounded DC.
And when thenpigs start shooting?
Nearly all of your rights were won for you through violent protests often in conjunction with non-violent protests. Winning concessions from a violent state requires violent action.
Oh no! Is the pot calling the kettle black?!
And if you see someone being taken away by fascists, make sure you and everyone else watching dont do anything except film it to post on social media. Maybe if you’re feeling adventurous you can tell the brown shirts what theyre doing is bad, just make sure you dont do anything to actually stop them.
Bro thinks it’s a gun fight against the US military 💀
It is though. The rich don’t want their livestock exterminated but brought to heel. Occupation happens with boots on the ground, infantry. That means small arms, drones, and ground vehicles. Not nukes, missiles, or bombs.
Also the populace out numbers the military by HUGE margin. No force is strong enough in manpower to overcome a civilian population in a state of resistance. The US military also sucks at asynchronous warfare. Or have we already forgotten our last 20year war in the Middle East?
Why yes keep suggesting domestic terrorism as an acceptable alternative to voting
I love these posts. Americans couldn’t even be bothered to get off their asses and vote, but you expect them to coordinate a violent revolution against a goverent backed by the most powerful military the world has ever seen and a surveillance state with access to just about every movement and thought just about everyone has had for the last 10 years or so.
Good luck, hopefully you don’t get hit by a hellfire missile with swords strapped to it while you’re sitting on your porch that was fired from a reaper drone 50 miles away.
Americans couldn’t even be bothered to get off their asses and vote
People don’t not vote just because they’re lazy. Thats not how people or politics work. If the masses are not engaging with your political system it is because they do not feel engagement with it can be beneficial to them. It means are so disenfranchised that they do not see any reason to engage. It means overt fascism doesn’t scare them because their lives are already too miserable or busy to think about politics and the opposition doesn’t appeal to them because the only thing they offer is the status quo with the most minor of changes. People not voting should be the most obvious evidence that your political system is not working for the people.
Edit: also, no one chooses revolution. Revolutions are imposed on the people by those who make peaceful change impossible. Its gonna be fascism though to be clear. Our domestic petit bourgeois is far too strong and far too scared of losing their privileged positions.
There’s also the people that have to chose between feeding their kids and missing work to go vote, etc, or who are disenfranchised of their voting rights simply by how onerous it is to vote.
People don’t not vote just because they’re lazy.
lol
lol k
