• DeusUmbra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m just waiting for the moment that shots are fired by one side or the other, because once that line is crossed we can finally get real change.

  • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    So much energy expended on discussions of violence. Do not worry about if you should or should not do violence. Violence is merely a question of who has the power to allow or forbid it. And if you protest long enough to make political progress, violence will find you, doesn’t matter one bit how you personally feel about it.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Liberals be like “But what about the law??”

      Our species has spun its collective wheels for millenia because people broadly think someone or something is in charge. Thinking people believe there’s some kind of objective good, a rule-of-law. Non-thinking people think there’s a ruling power, a human system of hierarchy that all beings must submit to. The purely reactionary, emotionally-leashed bottom of the barrel believe in supernatural forces like God or Lizard People pulling strings from the shadows.

      I sometimes wonder how much progress we could make as a species if we all just suddenly woke up with the deep and unshakable knowledge that nobody is coming.

      Would we take care of things better? Would we collectively work to build that ruling power or would human minds break at the very notion of real agency and just rip each others’ throats out?

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Non Violence only protects the state and state approved protest means nothing. The most violent people are police at protests. Dr. King’s character is always stripped down to the peaceful Black leader, and look how that went for him. He was still assassinated.

  • Um, a lot gets done without violence, including regime change. In fact, nothing swells the numbers of a movement like state brutality on peaceful protests, and that is amplified with the ubiquity of the cell-phone camera and the internet.

    This is not to say a movement by violence is bad, just that it can detract sympathizers.

    But don’t worry, when the regime has to choose between giving up (say in the face of a general strike) and sending out the goons, they’ll always choose the latter. No one tosses the One Ring into the fires of Mt. Doom. It’s the same paradigm that leaves us with senile geriatrics unwilling to relinquish the power of office until it is pried from their cold, dead hands.

    Usually, by then, the military has realized the regime is illegal and as luney as Aerys II Targaryen (The Mad King, who Jamie slew, SoIaF) and is willing to do the wet-work. By artillery if necessary.

    Then again, destruction of property like burning the Waymo cabs, is a common necessity. That wasn’t the act of rioters, but saboteurs. Waymos are snitches and have been reporting to ICE the location of targeted civilians.

  • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    question

    I’ve been thinking today.

    it’s illegal to block the road, you can get in trouble for a sit in, or by parking on the road.

    but how about just driving on a road and respecting the speed limit?

    how many drivers do you need to all agree to drive on a specific road, in circles to congest it and create a nightmarish traffic jam.

    it’s better to be strategic and do so during rush hours. 50 protesters could easily halt the traffic of some main arteries. and really hurt the economy.

    • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Stop giving a shit about what is illegal. It was made illegal because it was effective. The establishment doesn’t want you to be effective.

      • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        if I’m detained I’m not getting arrainged and released, im getting deported and never seeing my daughters again

        or maybe end up in an Salvadorian prison

        • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Only doing things that are legal won’t protect you, us the point. If that were the case, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.

          Not ‘you must do crimes’.

        • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          You forget the fact they are doing this to countless people regardless. They don’t get to make that choice to just sit this out.

          It’s called having solidarity with those being targeted, accepting the same risks they are being subjected to by simply existing, in order to help defend them against oppression. Part of that oppression is how the State has designed its laws to inhibit the ability of people to fight back against it.

          If you allow the opposition to dictate how you are allowed to resist, then you already lost because they will never just allow people to effectively resist their authority. Change requires mass civil disobedience.

          Or, continue to follow the rules of the oppressors, fail to effectively resist, and when they are done coming for their current target, they will eventually get around to coming for you, except by then you won’t have anyone around to help defend against it.

          • untorquer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Telling people to exceed the bounds of their own threat model is exclusive as hell. When you tell others to put themselves at more risk than they’re willing to take on you’re pushing them away. You’re giving them the impression they’re not wanted because there “not dedicated enough”. Don’t do that.

            • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I think peaceful protesters should encourage armed protestors as a form of disruptive protest, but with rules of engagement as a requirement. It simply boils down to: “Don’t shoot first.” That is a fair and reasonable rule that can be easily observed, that protects both protestors and police. Of course, if police choose to riot, they should get their own bitter medicine in return.

              When police are running down people with horses, vans, batons, smoke, and bullets, they shouldn’t have a monopoly on the violence.

              • untorquer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                You’re either missing the context of the thread or you replied to the wrong comment?

                The police/bootlickers should be the only antagonist one has to deal with, not fellow protestors. If someone is in the group which the protest is there to protect then they should be encouraged to prioritize their survival.

                • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  The very presence of armed protestors is inherently disruptive. Police, the KKK, and other enforcers of malice typically don’t engage non-violent protestors when the risk of being harmed themselves is a possibility. Armed protesters are guardians, who simply promise that violence will be met in kind.

                  Unfortunately, there are many “moderate” members among peaceful protesters who can only think in binary: There is either peace or violence, and being armed defaults to full-on violence in their eyes. Personally, I am of the opinion that such a position is worse than useless when demanding for peaceful reform.

                  If you cannot retaliate against the opposition if they decide to use force, they have no incentive to negotiate. Those who enjoy power only respects power. Purely peaceful protest movements that drive out those willing to bear arms from the cause, will result in two things:

                  1: Less unity and power for the movement.

                  2: Reduced ability to lay out rules of engagement for armed members of the movement, because the armed and unarmed wings of the reform movement don’t interact.

                  It is very important for peaceful and defiant wings of reform to cooperate, not to be isolated. Without both wings, the movement cannot fly.

          • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m sorry, but I’m calling you bs

            it’s not called having solidarity, I’m one of those at risk.

            that’s like saying vulnerable people at risk of COVID need to have solidarity to other people and go out without masks.

            I’m going to protests, I’m doing what i can, I volunteer in mutual aids, and I fear every moment that ICE will detain me and I’ll never see my daughters again.

            I’m not your pawn, and I’m already doing whatever I can while keeping myself safe. It’s American voters who put me in this situation. and now they want me to put myself at risk even more?

            • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Then you should already understand that keeping your actions “legal” doesn’t guarantee protection, and that forgoing effective means of resistance only helps the oppressors to have an easier time oppressing your fellow people.

              The voters are not responsible for your oppression. The regime that is engaging in oppressive practices is.

      • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        My city’s municipal code forbids dangerous items…like helmets, armor, gas masks, impact masks, social distancing masks, disguise masks, shields, umbrellas, signs that are durable enough to protect against inclement conditions, and more. To say the least, I decided to just abandon the notion of law concerning such things.

        These rules are plainly designed to favor bullies. I can understand (reciprocal) restrictions on firearms, but you can’t tell me that eye protection or ballistic armor isn’t a good thing for peaceful protest. A reporter got shot by a fucker in the back, for having the temerity of doing her job!

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        If the punishment for breaking a rule is a fine, then it’s not a rule meant to help people, it’s meant to give the wealthy power to do what they want.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Here we go again,

    The Peaceful LA Protests of June, 2025 worked. We’re all talking about it now. If the LA protests weren’t peaceful, we would have different talking points for this weekend’s protests and protesters would have been killed. This administration wants this.

    YSK - That there is a lot of trolling and brigading starting to happen around the LA peaceful protests to start violence. Here is a roadmap from 2015 on how they do it.: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39873361

    Also, this:

    Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/protest-trump-resistance-power

        • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I don’t entirely disapprove your position, but i feel like this is a really bad argument. First, because it’s only a boycott of one parade, when people get abducted and deported. Second because they only ‘plan’ or ‘say they’ll’ do it.

          This does not feel like a victory at all, this feels like satisfying yourself on crumbs

          Edit : making it gender neutral

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        So because there isn’t immediate visible change, they aren’t effective?

        The need for immediate gratification works to the favor of the authoritarian.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The need for immediate gratification works to the favor of the authoritarian.

          It’s also the same urge which draws people to authoritarianism.

        • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes. The entire point of direct action is to have an immediate and noticeable effect.

          A protest is meant to disrupt the status quo in such a way that the establishment is forced to meet demands or else we continue to bring things to a standstill.

          If your protest is not disruptive of the status quo, it is being ignored.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        They’re fucking brainwashed. They equate just protesting with some victory in their heads. No matter how small, every protest is done achievement

        • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          In the lib’s mind, protesting is not a tool, it’s the goal on itself. Just show up, wave a little flag and the bad guys will magically change their mind like it’s a fucking movie.

          It’s all performative actions.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts

      This is misleading. Nonviolent resistance is obviously going to be more likely to succeed because armed conflict only happens when the government digs in its heels after the nonviolent resistance. What? Did you want Syrians to nonviolently resist Assad’s Sarin gas?

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This administration wants this.

      This administration wants people not to resist them. Failing that people resisting them verbally but in no practical manner will do just fine.

    • scintilla@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This administration already called in the national guard for a peaceful protest. Do you think that it will stop here and the they will not continue to commit more and more violence against peaceful protestors until we reach a breaking point and have to start defending ourselves?

      Or are we supposed to allow ourselves to become martyrs and die before we fight back against those that would see us dead.

        • scintilla@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          False. The protestors stayed peaceful the police shot at the crowed with weapons that are called “less lethal” but have still killed people before and permanently disable people often.

            • monsieur_hackerman@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              People are already being killed by police/ice/this administration. If we open carry then the oppressors will die too, and each time one of them dies, they’ll think a bit harder before taking action against the population.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This liberal will be fucking armed and on target tomorrow. Do with that information what you will.

  • viciouslyinclined@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Dont we all wish magic was real?

    But it would really be amazing if the fighting WOULD stop. Even for a little while. We’ve all been at the breaking point for a long time (liberal, republican, and everyone in between). We are all paranoid about so many different things and suspicious of our own government.

    While the meme is just a silly joke, magic would be nice.

  • slingstone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    God, I can hear these guys having this conversation in that lilting Kiwi accent. This is exactly the sort of absurdity they used to lampoon.

  • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ah yes, Marxist revolutionary larpers preaching for violence on Lemmy. Come back when you don’t freak out over funko pop collections.

  • PlagueShip@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Democrats drove away all the fighters by attacking anyone who was the slightest bit controversial or politically incorrect for the last 40 years. Basically the party was taken over by fools and cowards. This is our opposition party, and this is why we’re screwed. Ban Fox News.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve seen lemmings both advocate for gun restrictions, then turn around and say we should use violence… I’m like: pick a side, you can’t hold both opinions

      • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Nah, when someone says they’re against gun rights I prefer to at least give them the benefit of the doubt regarding ideological consistency and assume they’re against all protests that involve violence and are happy when protestors can’t defend themselves or deter against individual acts of state violence. I don’t like to just assume that a stranger is a hypocrite or critically underdeveloped merely because I disagree with them. Believe a person when they tell you who they are.

          • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Restrictions doesn’t mean no guns. A guy that’s going to shoot schools shouldn’t have a gun, but a guy that’s going to shoot fascists should.

            • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Background check are fine, but dems are getting too draconian.

              Example:

              The Sullivan Act

              For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class

              So… cops have discretion on who to give permits to…

              The. Fucking. Cops.

              Sure thing. If your skin color is darker than hitler, no guns for you. If you are a progressive, or BLM protester, or anti-genocide protester, they will just use their discretion and be like: “No, gtfo”.

              Meanwhile, an alt-right white kid would have no trouble getting a gun their rural town where his dad knows the sherif.

              Luckily, that law was stuck down: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

              Oddly enough, this is a rare instance where I actually agree with the right wing shitheads in the court. (Although, the court probably had ulterier motives)

              Tell me: how is giving cops discretion to deny your constitutional rights ever a good idea?

              ACAB

    • pinesolcario@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Someone finally gets it. But get this. All that gun control is literally helping the other side Dems are helping the auth regime and voters are too dumb to have that epiphany.

        • pinesolcario@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          If criminals do not follow the laws re guns why should lawful owners be required to?

          Also if one political side is allowed to own accuracy by volume, why is the other political side not allowed to?

          Why do democrats want to help the authoritarians via gun control? Because that is exactly the situation that is now in play.

          • PlagueShip@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’ve got bad news for you. Most of the guns are in the hands of the enemy. This was caused by not having gun control. The scared loonies are stockpiling them. Now do you get it?

            • pinesolcario@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              TIL I am a scared looney as a mostly liberal gun owner.

              That’s some wild logic lumping us with the looneys. We aren’t stupid liberals so we know when it’s likely a good idea to not be defenseless against the looneys.

              • PlagueShip@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                I didn’t say all of them were looneys. Go to the south sometime if you want to meet who I’m talking about.

        • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It puts you in an ideological lock to say the least and when the purity tests start about which in group is “correct”, the debacle begins

          as we all know, meaningless purity tests are the best way keep an already fragmented ideological movement cohesive and not totally in a permanent state of full fragmentation

        • pinesolcario@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Criminals don’t follow the laws. Every time something happens, you all fail to understand they are criminals.

          So let’s just kneecap lawful bc criminals follow the laws. That’s not even close to logical at all. Not even by a million miles.

  • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I agree that we have reached a point where things will only continue to get much, much worse without widespread and overwhelming violence against the authoritarians. Both those in power and those following them.

    The problem is that authoritarians are primarily motivated by the irrational fear of violence. This fear justifies their violence, but nobody else’s. And they currently control the government, military, etc and therefore overwhelmingly more violent force than any resistance is likely to muster. On the other hand, authoritarian followers are predisposed to accept what they are told my the leaders of their in-groups, so when peaceful protests are called “violent riots” they will believe it unquestioningly and nothing whatsoever can or will change their minds. Hence, peaceful protest is no defense against the accusation of violence. This is why abortion is such an easy topic for social dominators to leverage when inciting their authoritarian followers: it’s “evidence” that their opponents are inherently violent, against babies. And again, reason and rationality have no part in this. The followers want to believe their out-group is violent and evil, they fear violence, so they will believe it because it reinforces their existing beliefs (a fear of violence, etc).

    BTW, Democratic politicians in Missouri were assassinated this morning, and it’s not currently being widely covered by the news. So that take that how you like.

  • plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    What’s the winning strategy? If violence is escalated until everybody is incarcerated not much will change.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I am a proud liberal, I am supportive and willing of violence against ICE if the prospects of winning are good.

    However, there are those among us who want violence against state and federal congress and town halls. Who want to dismantle every police station. Thats not gonna happen.

  • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The MAGAts have to be killed. It’s that simple. That means the politicians and the media talking heads and your dumbass drunk uncle who ruins Thanksgiving and your parents who never get off the couch. There’s shitloads of people standing around waving signs all day in huge mass gatherings but none flooding the halls and studios of their local Fox affiliate or Sinclair station or Salem Media Group broadcaster. They’re cheerleading chants and platitudes that will all be forgotten in a week because no e of them are armed up.

    • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      People in this country have forgotten how to protest effectively. They have allowed themselves to be defanged and relegated to the sidelines where their actions will be inconsequential to the establishment they are protesting against.

      Too concerned with “optics”, legalities, and trying to naively appease the opposition by asking nicely with a sternly worded letter.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Effective is the right word, doesn’t have to be violent like the other new account is trying to stir up.

        Now that a crowd of people are tuned in more-or-less to the issues: If I were to lead these things (I don’t), I think the next stage would be to organize non-violent, less-destructive civil disobedience. It is already happening, for example like mass reporting the presence of ICE (which is legal btw).

        Violence can be considered depending on the circumstance, but many who are voicing the need violent resistance aren’t really showing a coherent plan for what happens after. Sure, where guns show up first, the local police may stand down. But then the big guns are going to come out, and civilian blood in the streets will not get more than a passing look in the goal of clamping down on political enemies.

        Democratic forces have the upper hand in the narrative. Why tarnish it? Encourage people instead to use it! Violence vs. Feeble Non-violence being the only two options, is accepting the framing of your oppressors!

    • Soulg@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Alright you can start killing them instead of being a keyboard warrior

          • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            The “you first!” defense just says you know that revolutions are gross and icky and you want someone else to do it instead of joining as A GROUP and doing what has to be done. Lone wolves are doomed to failure so the Status Quo appreciates your solidarity with them.