How about taxing the wealthy instead of food? Taxing cars is nice too.
M1ch431
joined 4 months ago
Me: What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?
In your eyes, what protests or events in the civil rights movement (that generally threatened violence or resulted in violence) led to a significant shift or significant movement?
I was expecting you to fill the gap in my American public school education. You can also direct me to a book or any resources that help me to understand your perspective better, particularly from a historical standpoint.
What is your perspective worth?
My perspective is worth just as much as anybody else's. Everybody who cares about the present and future likely wants solutions and change in some form or another. Some people think violence is necessary, some people don't.
MLK did his best to be the change he wanted to see. Not everybody listened and he isn't responsible for everyone's actions. There is no mistaking that many in power found MLK to be a threat... why was he seen as dangerous though? Why was he targeted so viciously if he only championed nonviolence and civil disobedience?
The rich and powerful do not want people who bridge gaps and advocate joining hands in solidarity, that's why. We are far easier to control and lord over when we are fighting each other, especially over differences and inconsequential things.
Everybody is free to express themselves however they wish. I'm merely pointing out why people are calling the poster I was responding to AI or reducing their arguments down to "not containing any rational thought". Their comment speaks to people who are already radicalized, people who already know the Democrats are playing everybody - it doesn't speak to the people deeply entrenched in the propaganda and tribalism that the Democrats invoke.
Here's some unsolicited advice: you'd probably get your point across better if you found a way of expressing yourself with less perceived hate, less name-calling, and less labeling - don't dilute your passion, but speak to the reality and to the solutions that aren't being put on the table. Speak to people's silent struggle and find a way to not be polarizing.
Instead of calling out the US as being imperialistic, shed light to the real effects of US imperialism (e.g. US reliance on supply chains that revolve around slavery or child slavery, third-world exploitation, effects of US regime change etc.) and complicity on both sides.
Instead of calling Democrats fascists, explain that they don't have any power or energy to fight fascism, authoritarianism, oligarchy, imperialism (effectively making them complicit). They have no plan and no solutions.
Instead of calling elections bourgeois, explain that political teams and this tug of war game is a pointless exercise and gets literally nothing done — e.g. speak to election/voting reform, the dissolution of team politics and political parties that take money from non-small donors, term limits, and speak to concepts like direct democracy. Bernie Sanders and AOC aren't socialist or anything close to it in practice, but they also aren't necessarily operating in complete bad faith.
I don't disagree with your general sentiment, but your points can be more eloquently expressed. Reduce the terminology, Democrats are powerless even if they shift their tune, they are always going to answer to capital, they aren't interested in addressing critical problems (e.g. modern slavery, the fresh water crisis, the housing crisis, the health care crisis, the economy, deregulation of corporations etc.), and they aren't interested in solutions. They have no power, even when they have had power (e.g. under Obama).
He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a "reality check", not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though.
I suppose we disagree on organized violence being a necessity. Spreading fear is also something I don't advocate for. I advocate for spreading courage or fearlessness, helping others to realize their power and to stand in it. Getting people scared and moving them towards violence will not create anything besides martyrs and a cycle of hatred on all sides.
20th century ideas on revolution are simply outdated. The times are different.
We have eliminated language barriers, we are vastly interconnected, and we have the means to organize digitally. We can get the facts easily and cut through propaganda. We can spread awareness and build consciousness without really taking any of the steps we once had to. We have AI technologies that we can leverage, as well.
I feel that encouraging scared innocents to threaten violence and potentially kill other scared and confused people to achieve a violent takeover of public institutions isn't going to turn out the way you hope.
I respect your resolute spirit, your fight, your passion, but I feel there are significant levers we can pull that won't unleash a cycle of violence, chaos, and uncertainty. I'm not suggesting inaction or apathy or action that effectively amounts to inaction.
I would more quickly see the merits of your viewpoint if you could guarantee that such a cycle wouldn't be created or would be limited in scope — I may be naive, but I am not so naive to believe you without some pretty weighty reasoning.
Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence, threatened violence, or encouraged threats to achieve meaningful progress? What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?
Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.
I am not saying compete. I am suggesting that this movement radicalizes the major arms of propaganda from within.
Not everybody is an evil villain in these organizations. There are likely many who are operating in good faith despite the reporting they do and the echo chamber they are apart of.
Popping their bubble sounds about as hard to do as convincing enough people to go die or face imprisonment to capture xyz institution with arms.
Listen, I am definitely not going to tell you to back down, to consent, to give up, and to be domesticated or be treated as cattle. Not at all. We don't have to agree on the means of revolution, but we both likely agree on the immediate necessity of change.
What if a nonviolent movement included radicalizing the tools of propaganda and the people behind these apparatuses as one of its primary focuses?
From my perspective, the only way to convince them to not kill us all is if we promise we won't put them on the chopping block.
Am I working against anyone? No, but I really don't want to see this planet turn into a giant bloodbath. I think nonviolence, positive action, and a laser focus on solutions is the only way to move forward — and yes, I have wrestled with the viewpoint you are representing for many years.
I definitely don't approve of an armed rebellion because I know how quickly things can turn to real violence when people are primed for it. The mainstream media is prepared to stir the pot and create a perception of chaos or push whatever narrative that serves capital — and as you pointed out; plenty of people are willing to accept money and play agent provocateur.
Just as our country created an excuse to use atomic bombs on Japan, I'd reason that if violence escalated to a degree that physically threatened the powerful, they would likely find excuses to use whatever else they've cooked up to maintain order against an armed rebellion. It probably wouldn't be too dastardly, but it'd be easy to explain away to those who are not radicalized (and many likely wouldn't participate in an armed rebellion). And how long would it take to raid their bunkers and defuse the threat that the most powerful pose? Decades?
I'd argue that if there is a very large, coherent, organized, and nonviolent movement - there would be no sense of normalcy anywhere if it was systematically disrupted violently. They can try all they want to make normal people look like terrorists and extremists, but the propaganda would likely be ineffective.
Like it or not, the rich still rely on us and they aren't all entirely self-sufficient yet. They still want to be able to effortlessly reap all the abundance on this planet and they still need us to achieve that goal.
We just need to convince them that we the people can collectively be the best stewards of the planet, and that we don't need their systems anymore to enable the best outcome for everyone to manifest. Maybe I'm naive too, but there has to be a way that doesn't require us to resort to barbarism to achieve our goals.
that they will actively work against those who use the actual effective methods
Such as?
It's incredibly naive to think than an armed rebellion would succeed, considering the large technological gap of weaponry between the general populace and those that uphold the world order.
Seems like it's going to affect more than DeKalb, see the article title.
Regardless, I lived in a rural university town myself in the past - much more rural than DeKalb. There were plenty of rich people tucked away in their massive homes. At least enough to raise their taxes just a bit to generate 800k of revenue.
Tax literally anything instead of food, I say - groceries are high enough and not everybody struggling qualifies for food stamps.