politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
How come one side apparently MUST remain nonviolent but not the other
Because of propaganda and state power. It’s not a symmetrical conflict.
It certainly isn't
They don't have to, but data shows over and over that non violent ones more often end to being more successful at regime change.
Benefits for the non violent:
We actually have more power than them, they only succeed if we get scared and think there's nothing we can do. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
I've seen many statements to that effect. I have not seen political science studies that support it though.
It's a little more nuanced.
Violent resistance tends to swap one regime for another.
Non-violent resistance tends to create more positive social change.
If the only goal is to get rid of Trump, either one can work. If the goal is to have a brighter future then a revolution with minimal violence is preferable.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452292924000365
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
Thank you for the links
Not much history to support it either.
Because there is none. The state always preaches nonviolence to keep us passive and not a threat to the status quo. They want peaceful from us but subject the working class to violence with every action.
Solidarity movement in Poland was a peaceful protest and last to end of the communism there.
Color revolution (including orange revolution in Ukraine)
Euromaidan (it was peaceful, although the government wasn't).
Statistically peaceful protests succeed 53% of the violent ones succeed 26%
Note though it isn't just showing up one day and be done, it's about having a sustained protest with at least 3.5% of population involved.
What data is that, exactly?
Just look how stupid the administration is sending troops to Portland because all of the "violence". If Portland was more violent then they could carry the narrative rather than people dressed up in costumes. People will remember the frogs and the absurdity of the situation.
Basically, if we start shooting, that will result in a military response, and the US military is really good at massacres.
"Give me liberty or give me 40 more years of wage slaving consumerism and hoping my demographic isn't next"
Not sure if you are aware but the military are already responding
They are fucking begging for violence to break out so they can start a massacre. They're doing some heinous shit. It can get infinitely worse.
Has to be better than letting them slowly boil the frogs
What we want is to create a broad understanding of popular support for antifascism so that the military takes the side of the people. A huge public rally is part of that
Im aware. The Guard did in a few Republican-controlled places last time too. But what they did was stand around instead of massacring the crowds. And that's a good place to bem
There's an Adam Friedland Show episode where he pitches Richard Kind on a movie about the story of The First Jew to die in the Holocaust. And its just a guy complaining about how long he's been waiting to take a shower.
That's the energy a lot of these protests give.
The Germans didn't have any kind of huge protest movement. They executed people for doing things like holding a private dinner in honor of Einstein.
Big protests are a key part of how we avoid that situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising
That's well before the Nazis had power
Because violent revolts elevate violent leaders. Because violence is the last, worst option for influencing the behavior of your fellow humans. Nonviolence isn't more effective than violent political action if all you want to do is swap out who's in change, but it is more effective (I would argue necessary) if what you want is a nonviolent society governed by a nonviolent democratic government. Once both sides have devolved into violence, really the only thing that sets policy is which faction is able to inflict the most pain. It also proves the fascist rule of "everyone is ultimately violent, so your best bet is to stick with the violent team that shares your religion / skin color / flag / etc." and dominate through might, rather than trying to build a genuinely peaceful coalition that could, if empowered, build a genuinely peaceful government that makes its citizens' lives better.
Or, to put it another way, you can use The One Ring to defeat Sauron, and you may succeed in defeating him, but you will corrupt yourself in the process and become the very thing you sought to destroy.
Both should, one does. Don't sink to their level.
“When they go low we go high” got us Donald Trump
If your country doesn't sink to their level soon you won't have the right to protest them any longer
Until when? The world wars are clear evidence that eventually violence is the correct response.
Where's the line?
For me there is no line. I do not have a military super power at my disposal.
If the US military is on one side of the violence, there is no force on earth I'm aware of to counter that.
We have to protest peacefully and in larger numbers to be sure if that time comes, they are on our side.
You're 98% of the way there.
There is only one force on earth that can counter the US military, and that is the US citizenry.
Despite how little power people think they have, the citizens of the united states in large enough numbers can stop the US military dead in it's tracks. Preferably through democratic means, but they could also do it physically if they wanted to.
Americans outnumber their military by over 100 to 1, and with enough cultural pushback, you'd see a lot of those military members resigning, refusing orders, or just strait up walking out on top of that.
A general strike that lasts a month will stop all of this nonsense.