You must log in or register to comment.
Marx and his permanent revolution.
It’s only a rebellion if you lose.
“Rebellion” used to be a positive term (think Star Wars but in real life).
That’s a feature not a contradiction
Is there some reason this looks like a photocopy of a faxed photocopy? And no alt text or link to source: is OP just trying to break accessibility out of perverse joy? I wonder what they did to OP to deserve that.
You can’t change anything you are all just be used as tools in someone else’s game. And you sound like pathetic pseudo intellectual edgey teens.
Yes. A quite recent example from Germany:
Letzte Generation (Last Generation) a group of climate activists which glued themselves onto streets, usually carefully planned, organized and communicated with emergency services (such that ambulances can pass). They just got all of the hate and achieved not really much.
Then there were some farmers who were unhappy about governmental advances to reduce or remove the “agricultural diesel” subsidies. They’ve blocked highway entrace ramps with burning car tyres and dung, went really hardcore compared to the Letzte Generation, and finally got what they wanted.
The issue with peaceful protests is that they usually don’t go far enough.
In your example, the farmers went two steps further and it made the difference.
“A Riot is the Language of the Unheard”
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Protests, marches, and riots are so over-used that their messages go unnoticed. Demonizing them might help give them attention if anything.
Some dorks in this thread are the perfect example of who potential protesters need to ignore.
I brought up “truckers blocking highways and important intersections” to my very good (but desperately clueless) friend. Violence free, requires few bodies, historically effective.
He said “but what about the people they inconvenience?”
I’m like dude. Inconvenience to power is. the. point.
I love him but he’s a fool, guy thinks protests are people smiling and holding clever signs.
Sad thing is he’s representative of a lot of people.
They’ll be happy when things are better but idgaf about asking their advice. They don’t read history, the closest theyll get to a protest is the news coverage, and they’ll never be satisfied with less than some impossible dream of a “immaculate
conceptionprotestation”So like, fuck em
Not to sound elitist, but most people are ill-informed from what I observed. They mean well, but they form their views and opinions from sources that aren’t great. It doesn’t help either that we are inundated by pleasures from all sorts of media, which distracts us from paying attention to what matters more.
It’s not civil disobedience when the other side isn’t being civil.
People are dying from treatable or preventable illness, suffering from homelessness, and suffering from food insecurity. These are all forms of violence.
I can name several historic US riots which were not justified.
The Tulsa Massacre of 1921.
The series of riots occurring after the removal of confederate statues in the last decade.
When men marched with torches and firearms after the inauguration of Barack Obama.
During the BLM movement a white couple was charged with Arson of a restaurant as they were trying to delegitimize peaceful protests.
Meanwhile the most successful social movements were not accomplished with violence at all. Women suffrage, equal rights for protected classes, gay marriage, etc. Some movements had a mixture of peace and violence, such as rights to unionize, but far more effective than riots were the affected workers like miners and industrial manufacturers striking.
The suffragettes were badass, they did firebombings and all that.
I was referring more to the women’s sufferage movement in the USA, led by people such as Susan B. Anthony, when I made my comment.
The UK Suffragettes only turned to violence in 1912 after a decade of more peaceful tactics, the organization itself only forming after almost 40 years of unsuccessful campaigning from 1867 to 1903. As a result of the window shattering and firebombing campaigns many were imprisoned and started a hunger strike in which several died, leading the House of Lords to pass the Cat and Mouse Act of 1913 which sent them home to die there after they sufficiently starved themselves to help absolve the government of wrongdoing. The suffragettes didn’t see any results until 1918 when women over 30 and men over 21 were allowed to vote. Equality was only obtained in 1928.
Good on them for sticking it out to the end but the militant portion of their campaign was short lived and impotent.
This is so historically inaccurate I don’t even know where to begin with it.
I recieved historically innacurate replies and my response was to cite historical evidence and outcomes to set the record straight.
Problem is people can bullshit faster than I can tell the truth.
people can bullshit faster than I can tell the truth.
This is exactly what got us where we are. Well Said.
Stonewall, the catalyst for LGBT rights, was a brick throwing riot, you could not be more wrong here.
The LGBTQ movements go as far back as 1924 in the USA, and Illinois was the first state to legalize homosexuality in 1962.
Stonewall Riots was in 1969.
One could even argue that the real turning point for gay rights was: A) APA removal of Homosexuality from list of mental illnesses in 1973 and B) Reagan gutting federal funded and operated mental asylums which for completely unrelated reasons I think was a bad idea.
The first legalized Gay Marriage law was passed in Massachusetts in 2004 but still is not recognized federally until 2015.
So stonewall accomplished fuck all, congrats
Your claim was that the movements did not have violence at all, not that the violence featured in them didn’t accomplish anything. You’re moving the goalposts.
I suppose that’s a fair criticism, but you would be hard pressed to find any human activity which has always been completely 100% devoid of violence so it rather strongly implied that the [successful aspects of] the movements were devoid of riots or threats of violence.
There have been successful progressive movements that have achieved their goals through violence as well though. If you don’t limit the actions of progressives to the last century, the abolitionist movement and the civil war were incredibly violent and achieved their goals through that violence.
It’s like a hammer. It can be used to build something great. Or it can bludgeon.
You think the sufragette movement was free from violence?
You think gay rights were achieved without violence?
Read a book!
IMO without Malcolm X and the Black Panthers I don’t think folks would have listened as much to MLK Jr. either.
On top of that…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign
January 6th.
Yeah but low hanging fruit, half of Americans don’t even seem to believe it happened and some think it was justified.
It was secretly Antifa but also wholely justified but also the media is lying to you about it but also I was there and it was Based AF.
I imagine there’s a lot of overlap between how those who feel that about 1/6 feel about the riots you listed.
I hope so but I think it’s still too early to say history views it negatively. In at least a few years time I’m sure we’ll look back and agree that it was bad, but it’s a current political issue as of now.
riots are not a valid form of protest unless all peaceful means have failed, and then they are far less effective than other non-peaceful methods. riots are what you do when you are too stupid to find a solution.
Right, and protests will make trump think twice? You realise that trump is not the mastermind right
Why does this look like it’s been photocopied more times than my geography teachers lesson plan?
Looks like someone’s been praxising.
also the tankies making them happen.
Tankies are just another flavor of BootLickers who bend over bare ass for Authorities.
The ends justify the means. Not a moral statement on ‘doing whatever it takes’ - it is meaningless to win when the victors are no different from the victims.
Rather, an observation on the nature of what it is to be justified or vilified.
The ones at the end decide. When it is happening, it is never justified. It is never tolerated. It is vilified. It is criminal. The means are always painted as extremes.
Something new can only ever be justified when you reach the end. Until then, it - literally - is radical.
To the present, you’re just a person stirring up trouble. Could be good, could be bad, but either way, it’s trouble.
You can only ever be a hero to history.
