cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/28441984
Definitely surrounded by family, friends, teachers, media, and many others who are super nice as they passively support fascism and genocide.
Those who don’t act on their values aren’t exactly nice people in the first place imo
So much of the bullshit society faces now is because people are afraid to step up and punch someone deserving in the mouth
So much of it is because everything from the concept of workers rights, to civil disobedience and protesting, all the way to armed insurgence is taught as only valid in history.
They were only necessary in the past. Never in the present of future. Now you must always comply with every state as though their rule of law is just and paramount.
The state holds the monopoly on violence to achieve its means, and it is always just; always the will of the people.
They were only necessary in the past. Never in the present of future. Now you must always comply with every state as though their rule of law is just and paramount.
This is how it’s always been, in every society and generation. The status quo is always upheld as the common good until it is not.
The ends justify the means. Not an excuse to abandon morality. A lesson in the order of political operations.
The means are never justified until the end.
I call it the cult of civility, basically folks buy into the idea that civility is a virtue rather than a tool and thusly the counter tool that being savagery atrophies in society. It’s partially why I am so openly bloodthirsty, I want to put dents and cracks into this dead end concept of civility before it fucks US all over. After all the Romans were rather civil the Ostrogoths not so much.
Aight bro then lead by example. Record a video of you walking up to someone that deserves to be punched and go punch them.
Record it?
The first thing to establish is that nobody is filming, and that anyone around agrees that whatever they see, they didn’t see it
Nice cop out.
If you’re hungry, I have a dick you can eat
Sorry I only like big dicks, not tiny twigs that yap about punching someone while being behind the safety of their screen.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
OK, tough guy
Removed by mod
Go for it. Lead by example rather than grand stand like you’re not hiding behind the screen like the rest of us are.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The fact that we’re having this conversation means we’re both very online and will probably never do anything crazy. We’re both cowards but the difference is I don’t pretend that I’m not.
This is so stupid.
It’s a common phrase. It means knowing your enemy and standing up to them, it doesn’t mean literally punching people in the face. Though it can mean that, resistance comes in many forms.
You literally just debunked yourself by saying it can be taken literally or figuratively. Are you dumb? 🤣
Nazi lives don’t matter.
It is why organized groups are being targeted now. Gays are organized. Anti-Genocide protesters are organized. Can’t have people knowing and trusting others.
Removed by mod
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.
Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.
Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field. They primarily considered attempts to bring about regime change. A movement was considered a success if it fully achieved its goals both within a year of its peak engagement and as a direct result of its activities. A regime change resulting from foreign military intervention would not be considered a success, for instance. A campaign was considered violent, meanwhile, if it involved bombings, kidnappings, the destruction of infrastructure – or any other physical harm to people or property.
“Nonviolent protests” are a myth. That article has been debunked.
In 1986, millions of Filipinos took to the streets of Manila in peaceful protest and prayer in the People Power movement.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-05-mn-4360-story.html
In 2003, the people of Georgia ousted Eduard Shevardnadze through the bloodless Rose Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
While in 2019, the presidents of Sudan and Algeria both announced they would step aside after decades in office, thanks to peaceful campaigns of resistance.
JFC. Sudan? This propaganda did not age well. Algeria is not much better. I’ll stop here.
This is an opinion by an anarchist.
I think the thing that is most important from the study, is that getting 3.5% of the population works every time and you can ignore the rest. That works with what you just posted. In my opinion, he’s focusing on the wrong thing.
One of the key things is that if 3-5% working adults start protesting and a general strike, you don’t need violence. Because that would cause most countries to stop functioning.
It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it will impact enough different jobs that at least one link in almost every supply and service chain will break. It wont immedately stop, but give it some time and “everything” will be impacted.
Excellent point. This threshold for action is also affected by the related societal events.
Willfully fracturing the global market, dismantling the largest employer in the country, and violently exiling the ever-exploited backbone of the economy will force those potential disruptions and dysfunctions to the surface much faster than it would have otherwise.
We are about to see a lot of goods and services and fundamental aspects of society that we take for granted suddenly become unreliable, unsustainable, unaffordable, or literally just unavailable.
We had around half of the 3.5% (6 million+) at the Hands Off protest. If it had more coverage, it probably could have been 75% of that.
If you can set up a jury of their peers to convict them, then you’re on the right track.
The main moral argument against it would be lack of due process. While that should involve the courts, morally or ethically it probably doesn’t have to.
o dear, so russians are nice…
Wellll… agreeable?
Depends where you are lol
Thank you, what an amazing song!
I will send this to an otherwise left leaning friend of mine then next time he goes apoplectic because protesters have blocked traffic. ❤️
Good song. Mostly good takes in the comments.
