Cripple. History Major. Irritable and in constant pain. Vaguely Left-Wing.
I had the misfortune of hearing the opinions of some conservative family on the matter on Father’s Day.
It was the best thing since sliced bread, apparently, and Trump “deserved” it because “it’s his birthday”, while “no one” showed up for the No Kings protests.
Don’t ever be fooled into thinking that a lackluster performance will disappoint his fans.
That includes a shit ton of republicans.
In absolute numbers, maybe, but in proportional terms, I’d caution against thinking like that. The vast majority of Republicans remain in lockstep behind their Dear Leader.
Someone can probably do a better job of tracking down what location this particular photo was in than I can. The source I posted mentions Honolulu in passing, but in reference to a different photo of the same person.
Wow, tell me more about how the CIA viewing the Soviet Union as an oligarchy means that it was a Workers’ Democracy™
Imagine being so brainrotted you simp for Stalin. I guess genocide and fascism are just too alluring for some to resist.
Based
Nobody is out there crowing about the superiority of Iran. Or how Iran is sooooooo great.
There are people in this very thread crowing about just that, though.
A parade is the same as murdering protesters?
For Christ’s sake, at least use something from troops being deployed to LA, not a goddamn parade.
I’d lick Jenny’s boots
Israel has nuclear weapons. Getting wiped out isn’t on the table anymore.
Oh wow, you are right, your title does say those things, and I have now seen the light and throw away my means of defending myself in the face of fascism, since we only “sometimes” need weapons to protect ourselves from blatant fascism according to your holy words.
“You sometimes need violence.”
“Clearly you’re telling me to throw away our weapons!”
Christ.
There, I acknowledged your title, now return to your centrism and fence sitting. The adults are working on dealing with actual issues.
Jesus fucking Christ.
The delusion that discomfort leads to political revolution is not backed up by reality.
“There were violent acts previously” does not refute “These groups achieved success with moral persuasion”
Fuck’s sake, you’re connecting Gandhi’s success with the American Revolution, MLK Jr. with the Civil War, and the fall of the Soviet Union with every major war it was involved in throughout the Cold War.
Mandela led the ANC, hardly a peaceful movement. Heard of necklacing?
I’m so glad you know nothing about Mandela’s leadership.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union came paired with a shelling of parliament.
Do you not understand what the attempted coup was for, or who it was by? Hardliners trying to keep the Soviet Union together.
Jesus Christ. Utter tankie delusion.
The ousting of Pinochet involved assassination attempts on Pinochet.
Oh, is that what led to the referendum? A head of state having what every major head of state has to deal with?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Mentioning Ghandi and pretending the uprising of 1857, which inspired and propelled forward the movement for independence (including Ghandi), never happened is deeply dishonest, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives for the cause.
…
MLK jr., much like Ghandi, was paired with violent methods as well. Ignoring their contributions is ahistorical.
And ignoring the contributions of the moral persuasion that MLK Jr. pursued, instead pretending like some edgelord fascist that only violence creates change, is ahistorical.
The difference is that I don’t deny that violence creates change. I only pointed out that moral persuasion can too.
I’m assuming you’re using “etc etc etc” (etc) to mean “I can’t think of any other examples, erroneous or otherwise”, so I’ll do the same:
I’m sorry, how many examples do you want before the principle is established?
Oh, what am I saying? It would always need to be just one more, because what you’re interested in its validating your own bizarre red fascist worldview, not reality.
The problem here is that you are positioning this as if what we are dealing with today is the same as what those people dealt with in their day, and it is not.
Me: “People have, in the past, acquired rights by moral persuasion, even though violence is also a valid and useful tool in pursuit of the same.”
Speaking of reading, read a little something from one of my favorite authors: “Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.
Holy fucking shit, have you still not read the fucking title I posted?
It’s almost like violence and persuasion are BOTH tools with applications in fighting oppression, rather than picking one or the other as The One True Faith™? 🤯
Nonviolent means are not physically violent towards people - it works because of violence all the same though
Nonviolent means can (and often do) work when oriented towards pressuring a population. That’s not a reason to discount the value of nonviolent means oriented towards moral persuasion. That’s all I’m saying.
There’s always violence. It can be implied, it can be against yourself, it can be against property, it can be against the feeling of normalcy itself - but there’s always some kind of violence. Because ultimately, violence is asserting your will over others, and that’s what a movement does
Is persuasion, then, violence as well?
That doesn’t really refute the point, at all?
Unfortunately, I am well aware of who Thomas Sowell is.