The eastern bloc was mostly dismantled by peaceful protests. So you don't really seem to know that much about peaceful protests, it can be very effective. Of applied correctly and consistently and not only once in a blue moon. Here are some things for reading for you
You can interpret it how you want, that wasn't your statement I refuted. Matter of fact remains, that those were peaceful protests and they reached their goal.
Read about Serbia. There are very effective peaceful protest going on for months.
Edit: Vučić‘s men are trying to use violence against the protesters, but the mostly just disperse immediately and meet up somewhere else to do more protesting. Protest have to be disruptive, but not violent.
And whst is really the point of not being violent when things are this fucked? Like, how are you refucing toral violence? Like wearing a baseball cap in a monsoon.
I'm not going to bother looking it up, so I'll ask you instead since you seem to care about it. What have they accomplished through those months of protesting?
Exactly. Everyone also forgets what a civil war looks like these days. It wouldn't be North vs South, it would be in every direction, everywhere. Nobody wants this.
Everything meaningful we will do will be labeled as "violence". The point is that the things that will not be labeled as "violence" will be meaningless.
"Violence is when I can't get on with my life and ignore everything bad that has been happening quietly"
Like, Euromaidan here was definitely what most would label as "violence". It's also how the place I live in is still not a part of the imperialist shithole that is russia.
I think they might have mumblemouthed it but you bastards have decided among yourselves that their mispoken statement cannot merely represent an ignorant and misinformed read of history but an intentionally violently racist viewpoint. The screenshotted user was I warrant correct in their historical analysis and absolutely fucking wrong to put words in the thread-OPs mouth, as if earnestly trying to alienate instead of persuade or fact check a damn thing.
Like yeah, abolition wouldn't have happened without black people, from freedmen writers to rebelling chattel slaves, advocated for themselves. All the well meaning white people (on average rarer then anyway) wouldn't have meant much without black people wanting to be free and making it known.
Why would you go out of your way to read a person's response in the worst possible way? Maybe I'm just a fukken airhead but I didn't see any dogwhistle that justified how you lot are speaking to them. You simply decided to tar and feather the fucker for being kind of wrong about labor history. Then you springboarded into a merciless bed of assumptions.
Banjo deserves to be mocked as they have had years to learn better. But instead they double down on support of the Diet Fascism party.
He's a racist piece of shit who thinks brown people deserve to be mistreated when they break any law, no matter how stupid or purposely racist they are.
you think fascists need something to be emboldened and empowered? They are doing as they please right now, dismantling system after system. currently they simply take away your chance of a blue congress by gerrymandering (and even imprisoning texas dems because they don't want to sign stuff). Peaceful protest only works when democracy is still working. You are beating a dead horse.
American revolutionists would like to have a word...
And even though after the French revolution times were bad you can ask yourself whether they would have been any better off if the revolution hadn't occurred.
Even if the French themselves weren't better off, fear of revolution triggered other authoritarian monarchs, like the Dutch king to agree to massive reforms. It's not always a simple A-leads-to-B connection.
::: spoiler Long. (click to show)
the Suffragettes are instructive. Their tactic of choice was property
destruction. Decades of patient pressure on Parliament to give women the
vote had yielded nothing, and so in 1903, under the slogan ‘Deeds not
words’, the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded. Five years
later, two WSPU members undertook the first militant action: breaking
windowpanes in the prime minister’s residence. One of them told the police
she would bring a bomb the next time. Fed up with their own fruitless
deputations to Parliament, the suffragettes soon specialised in ‘the argument
of the broken pane’, sending hundreds of well-dressed women down streets
to smash every window they passed. In the most concentrated volley, in
March 1912, Emmeline Pankhurst and her crews brought much of central
London to a standstill by shattering the fronts of jewellers, silversmiths,
Hamleys toy shop and dozens of other businesses. They also torched
letterboxes around the capital. Shocked Londoners saw pillars filled with
paper throwing up flames, the work of some activist having thrown in a
parcel soaked in kerosene and a lit match. The civil resistance model? More
like the methods envisioned in Lanchester’s paradox.
Militancy was at the core of suffragette identity: ‘To be militant in some
form, or other, is a moral obligation’, Pankhurst lectured. ‘It is a duty which
every woman will owe her own conscience and self-respect, to women who
are less fortunate than she is herself, and to all who are to come after her.’
The latest full-body portrait of the movement, Diane Atkinson’s Rise Up,
Women!, gives an encyclopaedic listing of militant actions: suffragettes
forcing the prime minister out of his car and dousing him with pepper,
hurling a stone at the fanlight above Winston Churchill’s door, setting upon
statues and paintings with hammers and axes, planting bombs on sites along
the routes of royal visits, fighting policemen with staves, charging against
hostile politicians with dogwhips, breaking the windows in prison cells.
Such deeds went hand in hand with mass mobilisation. The suffragettes put
up mammoth rallies, ran their own presses, went on hunger strikes:
deploying the gamut of non-violent and militant action.
After the hope of attaining the vote by constitutional means was dashed
once more in early 1913, the movement switched gears. In a systematic
campaign of arson, the suffragettes set fire to or blew up villas, tea
pavilions, boathouses, hotels, haystacks, churches, post offices, aqueducts,
theatres and a liberal range of other targets around the country. Over the
course of a year and a half, the WSPU claimed responsibility for 337 such
attacks. Few culprits were apprehended. Not a single life was lost; only
empty buildings were set ablaze. The suffragettes took great pains to avoid
injuring people. But they considered the situation urgent enough to justify
incendiarism – votes for women, Pankhurst explained, were of such
pressing importance that ‘we had to discredit the Government and
Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to spoil English sports, hurt
businesses, destroy valuable property, demoralise the world of society,
shame the churches, upset the whole orderly conduct of life’. Some attacks
probably went unclaimed. One historian suspects that the suffragettes were
behind one of the most spectacular blazes of the period: a fire in a Tyneside
coal wharf, in which the facilities for loading coal were completely gutted.
They did, however, claim responsibility for the burning of motor cars and a
steam yacht
This is from How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm,
:::
the liberals have been ridiculed by the media for the last 15 years. It's time for them to do something to be taken seriously - if they want that to happen, anyway
idk, seems more like you can end up in an authoritarian hellscape either way, because efforts to establish it have to be defeated constantly. as soon as ppl stop paying attention, authoritarianism creeps in the back door. so i think it's a different issue that just seems related, because after (violent) protests they will use those as an excuse for their coup, but they would just find something else otherwise, like crime rates or illegal immigrants or so.
The eastern bloc was mostly dismantled by peaceful protests. So you don't really seem to know that much about peaceful protests, it can be very effective. Of applied correctly and consistently and not only once in a blue moon. Here are some things for reading for you
Are you saying the Eastern Bloc was more democratic and responsive to public pressure than the liberal democracies of the West?
You can interpret it how you want, that wasn't your statement I refuted. Matter of fact remains, that those were peaceful protests and they reached their goal.
In the sense that they gave up and became liberal democracies, yes.
Read about Serbia. There are very effective peaceful protest going on for months.
Edit: Vučić‘s men are trying to use violence against the protesters, but the mostly just disperse immediately and meet up somewhere else to do more protesting. Protest have to be disruptive, but not violent.
Tell me when anything actually changes in Serbia
At which point the state will make them violent.
And whst is really the point of not being violent when things are this fucked? Like, how are you refucing toral violence? Like wearing a baseball cap in a monsoon.
I'm not going to bother looking it up, so I'll ask you instead since you seem to care about it. What have they accomplished through those months of protesting?
Funny how Luigi and Crooks are the only ones who actually attempted meaningful change and both are conservative.
Nice
So you mean we’re just standing in groups doing nothing? I thought we were shooting YouTubers at debates en masse…
Also in this image: Russian propagandists trying to get us to kick off a civil war
Yep you got it, everyone who can see reality is a Russian now. You got us skippy.
Exactly. Everyone also forgets what a civil war looks like these days. It wouldn't be North vs South, it would be in every direction, everywhere. Nobody wants this.
For comparison, here's Myanmar. This started back in 2021: https://myanmar.iiss.org/introduction
yes, meaningful changes towards fascism...
Progressive change has always had to face violent reactions. From abolition to the 40-hour workday, to child labour, to civil rights, to LGBT rights
I'm real glad we got those 40-hour workdays, 8 hours just wasn't enough! 😄
lol, I meant to say workweeks :D
You're so close to getting it...
Now guess who starts the violence in all other instances of progressive radical change. Hint: It's not the ones making the change.
Everything meaningful we will do will be labeled as "violence". The point is that the things that will not be labeled as "violence" will be meaningless.
"Violence is when I can't get on with my life and ignore everything bad that has been happening quietly"
Like, Euromaidan here was definitely what most would label as "violence". It's also how the place I live in is still not a part of the imperialist shithole that is russia.
I think they might have mumblemouthed it but you bastards have decided among yourselves that their mispoken statement cannot merely represent an ignorant and misinformed read of history but an intentionally violently racist viewpoint. The screenshotted user was I warrant correct in their historical analysis and absolutely fucking wrong to put words in the thread-OPs mouth, as if earnestly trying to alienate instead of persuade or fact check a damn thing.
Like yeah, abolition wouldn't have happened without black people, from freedmen writers to rebelling chattel slaves, advocated for themselves. All the well meaning white people (on average rarer then anyway) wouldn't have meant much without black people wanting to be free and making it known.
Why would you go out of your way to read a person's response in the worst possible way? Maybe I'm just a fukken airhead but I didn't see any dogwhistle that justified how you lot are speaking to them. You simply decided to tar and feather the fucker for being kind of wrong about labor history. Then you springboarded into a merciless bed of assumptions.
Banjo deserves to be mocked as they have had years to learn better. But instead they double down on support of the Diet Fascism party.
He's a racist piece of shit who thinks brown people deserve to be mistreated when they break any law, no matter how stupid or purposely racist they are.
You're less of a troll and more of a clown we keep for amusement.
if you want to upset tankies you are wrong here, those are on the other side of town in authoritarian direction.
gestures broadly to America today
And this was the fault of the black panthers, I’m assuming?
Okay cracker, glad to see you bought into all the historical revision that the rich made up to scare white people.
Lol.
Lmao even.
Thank you for summarizing how pointless it would be to engage further so succinctly.
Thanks, village idiot, I needed a laugh today.
you think fascists need something to be emboldened and empowered? They are doing as they please right now, dismantling system after system. currently they simply take away your chance of a blue congress by gerrymandering (and even imprisoning texas dems because they don't want to sign stuff). Peaceful protest only works when democracy is still working. You are beating a dead horse.
American revolutionists would like to have a word... And even though after the French revolution times were bad you can ask yourself whether they would have been any better off if the revolution hadn't occurred. Even if the French themselves weren't better off, fear of revolution triggered other authoritarian monarchs, like the Dutch king to agree to massive reforms. It's not always a simple A-leads-to-B connection.
I highly recommend you read this excerpt.
::: spoiler Long. (click to show) the Suffragettes are instructive. Their tactic of choice was property destruction. Decades of patient pressure on Parliament to give women the vote had yielded nothing, and so in 1903, under the slogan ‘Deeds not words’, the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded. Five years later, two WSPU members undertook the first militant action: breaking windowpanes in the prime minister’s residence. One of them told the police she would bring a bomb the next time. Fed up with their own fruitless deputations to Parliament, the suffragettes soon specialised in ‘the argument of the broken pane’, sending hundreds of well-dressed women down streets to smash every window they passed. In the most concentrated volley, in March 1912, Emmeline Pankhurst and her crews brought much of central London to a standstill by shattering the fronts of jewellers, silversmiths, Hamleys toy shop and dozens of other businesses. They also torched letterboxes around the capital. Shocked Londoners saw pillars filled with paper throwing up flames, the work of some activist having thrown in a parcel soaked in kerosene and a lit match. The civil resistance model? More like the methods envisioned in Lanchester’s paradox. Militancy was at the core of suffragette identity: ‘To be militant in some form, or other, is a moral obligation’, Pankhurst lectured. ‘It is a duty which every woman will owe her own conscience and self-respect, to women who are less fortunate than she is herself, and to all who are to come after her.’ The latest full-body portrait of the movement, Diane Atkinson’s Rise Up, Women!, gives an encyclopaedic listing of militant actions: suffragettes forcing the prime minister out of his car and dousing him with pepper, hurling a stone at the fanlight above Winston Churchill’s door, setting upon statues and paintings with hammers and axes, planting bombs on sites along the routes of royal visits, fighting policemen with staves, charging against hostile politicians with dogwhips, breaking the windows in prison cells. Such deeds went hand in hand with mass mobilisation. The suffragettes put up mammoth rallies, ran their own presses, went on hunger strikes: deploying the gamut of non-violent and militant action. After the hope of attaining the vote by constitutional means was dashed once more in early 1913, the movement switched gears. In a systematic campaign of arson, the suffragettes set fire to or blew up villas, tea pavilions, boathouses, hotels, haystacks, churches, post offices, aqueducts, theatres and a liberal range of other targets around the country. Over the course of a year and a half, the WSPU claimed responsibility for 337 such attacks. Few culprits were apprehended. Not a single life was lost; only empty buildings were set ablaze. The suffragettes took great pains to avoid injuring people. But they considered the situation urgent enough to justify incendiarism – votes for women, Pankhurst explained, were of such pressing importance that ‘we had to discredit the Government and Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to spoil English sports, hurt businesses, destroy valuable property, demoralise the world of society, shame the churches, upset the whole orderly conduct of life’. Some attacks probably went unclaimed. One historian suspects that the suffragettes were behind one of the most spectacular blazes of the period: a fire in a Tyneside coal wharf, in which the facilities for loading coal were completely gutted. They did, however, claim responsibility for the burning of motor cars and a steam yacht
This is from How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm, :::
The suffragettes literally threw rocks at windows and commited arson.
the liberals have been ridiculed by the media for the last 15 years. It's time for them to do something to be taken seriously - if they want that to happen, anyway
idk, seems more like you can end up in an authoritarian hellscape either way, because efforts to establish it have to be defeated constantly. as soon as ppl stop paying attention, authoritarianism creeps in the back door. so i think it's a different issue that just seems related, because after (violent) protests they will use those as an excuse for their coup, but they would just find something else otherwise, like crime rates or illegal immigrants or so.