1132
Liberals right now... (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
224 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 1 year ago (14 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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'.

    Edit: i get it. Its fucking scary. I have a lot of critiques for 'society of laws' stuff, but i can appreciate what the benefits are supposed to be, even if it's not my favorite. We just... Don't have that right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Im not going to tell someone with a broken leg to charge a police line. Nor would i expect someone without legal status to stand in front of ICE.

    If they do it should be their own choice, not because someone said it's the only way to show solidarity. Solidarity with who? Themselves? That's fucking nonsense.

    You're bringing up ideas that are unrelated and out of context. Please reread the chain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year 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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)