1651
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
1651 points (97.8% liked)
World News
38573 readers
4664 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The idea that nonviolent protest works has been the most harmful idea in history
I mean nonviolent protests DO work.
Non-disruptive DOES NOT work though.
MLK Jr didn't peacefully sit in a park. They ran boycotts, sit ins, shut down streets, trespassed into white only areas, and drove businesses insane.
If MLK Jr was your enemy you were going to have a miserable time when he rolled into town.
Ghandi had people illegally burn documents and basically smuggled salt against all regulations.
MLK had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as looming threats. Gandhi is also the one who said "pacifism without violence is not pacifism, it is helplessness." A violent counterpart to a non-violent movement helps by being the stick to the non-violent carrot.
That's fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense.
Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn't do anything and why it's encouraged.
See US Constitution, Amendment 2 for another example of backing peace with capability of violence to earn respect.
I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal.
Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man.
Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder.
But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it.
Surely they teach this distinction in military training?
No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all.
I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone.
It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup.
Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly.
I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder.
That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man.
What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself.
I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops.
It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes.
I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls.
Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation?
I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best.
What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach.
It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition.
My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir.
My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are.
You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line.
Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns.
I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you.
It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works.
Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person.
Oh yeah? Tell that to Gandhi
You are aware that besides Gandhi there was a lot of violent protest?
Only violent protest makes the demands of the nonviolent acceptable to the ruling class. Without a violent part of a movement, the demands of the nonviolent are always ignored. Which is perfectly logical, because why accept the demands of someone you can ignore without consequences.
Disruption can be non violent
Gandhi was a UK agent and delayed Indian independence by decades. Also he was a pedophile.
Thanks for those insights even if they're not really relevant to what was being discussed
Yup, the only real revolution is a violent revolution.
Violence is a sometimes (even often) unavoidable byproduct of revolution, not an essential characteristic. Don't confuse the two.
George Jackson would disagree.
And Michael Jackson would disagree-hee-hee.
You know, now that a good portion of people are on Lemmy, it just might be the perfect place to start organizing, whatever you feel that may be...
Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution would suggest otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option.
But I don’t think we have that much time
How much time do you think we have?
In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal"
Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years
Sounds like history as usual then.
The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening.
Personally I’m most worried about starting a family.
And how the heck do we know that it have any reasonable chance of working out well and that it won't be brutally suppressed or co-opted by reactionaries? And how would anyone even organize such a thing? ~Strawberry
We don't have any idea if it will work out or if it'll be snuffed out.
However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world's people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities.
The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action.
As for organizing one, that's way too long of a conversation to occur here.
So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry