News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Seriously. Fucking do something.
Yes, but all the people who could and should have prevented this did nothing. What would you suggest a normal person do?
"Normal people" brought the British Empire to its knees and founded the very country you're afraid to fight for.
You have the power to protest, strike, disobey. Organize and use it.
There are a lot of illegal things you can do, and a lot of things republican supporters openly do that involve violence. I’m not going to openly implicate myself but use your imagination.
There have been some successful non-violent revolutions in history, and there's a strong case to be made that not exhausting those options could be a huge mistake.
We still have, right now, completely un-used tools at our disposal, such as unionizing en masse and deploying a general strike, which is insanely powerful (capable of bringing a nation to its knees if done widely enough), while being far less dangerous and more appealing to the general populace than any other means.
I'm pretty sure that if you dig into the details of a lot of those, you'll find that the purported success of the non-violent movement strongly correlated with the existence of a not-so-non-violent movement as the alternative.
For example, your article lists the Salt Satyagraha and the Quit India Movement as being non-violent revolutions responsible for the decolonization of lndia. But if you look at what actually ended up happening, such as the partition of India and establishment of Pakistan, it's pretty clear that the not-non-violent All-India Muslim League had a pretty big influence in achieving that result.
Folks like Gandhi and MLK may tend to end up getting the credit for these sorts of societal changes, mainly because The Powers That Be have a vested interest in "the absence of tension" and thus engage in a bit of revisionist history, but it's the presence of folks like AMIL and Malcolm X sitting in the background threateningly waving a stick that enabled them to be effective.
(That said, the collapse and liberalization of the Warsaw Pact are probably legitimate examples where the presence of a violent radical flank really wasn't much of a factor... but I'm pretty sure that's because Gorbachev's heart wasn't really in stopping them to begin with.)
Unionization en mass and a general strike are just simply not realistic goals in the current political and social climate in the US. And that half assed attempt at organization at that level is now going to get my country invaded.
It seems like a leap that people don't have the motivation to unionize and strike, but would eagerly hop into a full on violent revolution?
Realistically, unless the military fractures or fully refuses to engage against this revolution, the best you'll get are The Troubles.
Yes, and I’m basing this solely on historic precedence. Edit: also the amount of people necessary to make change for these things is drastically less for violent options and that’s why it’s more realistic and effective for the current situation.
Abbie Hoffman Is rolling in his grave from that limp arm suggestion.
I don't see why he would?
Abbie Hoffman was not a guy to suggest non violent Revolution. Because he was not an idiot.