you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 10 months ago (23 children)

Violence generally doesn't get what you want out of the system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 10 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Yeah, that was 200 years ago. We have better ways to handle things now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    no, we really don't. 200 years is nothing on the scale of humanity. We have Nazi's resurging, the south trying to rise again. We have peaceful protests trying to be outlawed and the administration regularly calling for the death of their opponents.

    None of this will change without the thread of violence, and likely they'll call on that.

    The violent coup in DC a few years ago was just them telling us they were ready to be violent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Diplomacy, conflict resolution, etc. Not really motivated to fight against the tide of lemmy people sipping koolaid. But if you step outside the echo chamber, it's mostly common sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Kinda funny how you're talking about an echo chamber when you yourself are just repeating the mainstream media talking points about diplomacy. There is a reason why they promote peaceful solutions, it's because they're easier to ignore or quash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    How is wanting to avoid civil war "mainstream"? I mean sure, go and promote revolution from the comfort of your climate controlled box with modern amenities, detached from the horrors of war. The feds have tanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    As I already stated, peaceful solutions are easier to ignore or quash. You cannot negotiate with someone who can already get their way because they have nothing to gain. Negotiating to them means giving things up. If they refuse to negotiate, how are you going to bring them to the bargaining table?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    A lot of this is reductionist and kind of generalizing. Really depends on what we're talking about. There are ways to punish companies and hit them where it hurts, money, for instance. There are ways to lobby Congress. I'm just saying there's a framework for being strategic about these things, and distilling it down to violent uprising is just lacking any nuance any of these types of conversations actually deserve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    There are ways, but they're even less effective and impractical than they were when companies weren't all merged together and government wasn't flooded with lobbyist dollars. Now industries are dominated by 2-3 major players who collude on prices through "algorithms" and the government is openly for sale to the top bidder. Money completely rules all, guess who has more money. That's the only thing that talks "peacefully" now.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    The American Revolution, the violent uprising that gave these assholes governmental power, proves otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Though the ideas espoused for the revolution might be grand, the cause and motivation behind those who joined the revolution was purely monetary.

    • Rich didn't like being taxed so they made their slaves join the army.
    • George Washington didn't like the fact that the British having lost the French Indian war made a pact with the Indians which stopped his business of prospecting.

    The American revolution was a war of businessmen against the government in England. The government was and is the same; in the past only rich, land owning white men could vote or form government. Now it is the corporations or rich white men.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I say this as an American. Half the "Founding Fathers" were slave owners and did not see a problem with subgrating other humans into forced labor. The American enterprise has been a business all the way back to the first white man setting foot on this continent. I guess I just proved you talking point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

    as Samuel Johnson argued during the American revolution. Apologies for unenlightened 18th-century language.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Violence generally doesn’t get what you want out of the system.

    Changes made during peace only last until someone willing to be violent undoes them.

    Changes must come with a small amount of fear of retribution on reversal, or capitalism/authoritarianism will come and eat your lunch.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)