So, lets say we get to August or some summer month, and 4,000,000 people are protesting right out front the white house.

Do they send in the tanks? Do they kill 1,000,000 people? Would republican civilians see empathy for the dead americans who were democrats? Or would it unite the nation like 9/11 did, except this time against the government?

top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 71 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

"Would republican civilians see empathy for the dead americans who were democrats?"

You mean a couple hundred paid agitators that were bussed up from asylums in south America?

Because that's the story your average republican voters would believe. I know it's a bit hyperbolic but some of the shit I've heard them say about Mrs Good, and in general about the current protests leads me to feel that there is no limit to the lies an average republican voter is willing to suck down.

All that said I do not believe the military would follow those orders, but I'm not sure they would interfere if the DOJ started killing protesters in front of them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    They 100% believe all the protesters are bussed in with pallets of bricks waiting for them. My co workers 100% believe this.

    Its fucking sickening. And they all have kids, teaching them all this fox news hate and racism daily.

    Sometimes I truly just want to leave here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 131 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    Everybody keeps expecting civil war when what we're likely going to get is akin to "the troubles" of Northern Ireland. Prolonged, indefinite, bloody, insurgency. Bombings. Assassinations. More heavyhanded fascist paramilitary actions. Blood and chaos.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I agree. To have civil war you need multiple opposing armed forces of somewhat similar military strength. I don't really see that happening because of the purges of military leadership but an insurgency is very possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Agreed, civil war will only happen if states bands together and starts fighting each other or the federal armed forces.

    What we've seen so far has been almost too small to be called skirmishes. The intensity and size of the confrontations will likely increase, but it won't be civil war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Even if states band together who they gonna send? Police side with ice. Military sides with ice. Maybe you get the state national guard and some reservists but you'd need the guard to effectively mutiny and hope they follow the state instead of the fed. Realistically there's no way organized fighting occurs. It's just going to be police and military killing protesters with an occasional guerilla strike against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yep, there is no organization capable of staging armed opposition to the government. A series of mass shootings and maybe some explosives is all we are going to get.

    Given the number of incidents, I wouldn't be shocked if historians decide later we are already living through it. Political assasinations in Minnesota, the attempted murder of pelosi's husband, attempted trump shooter, charkie Kirk, the car bomb in Memphis that didn't go off a few years ago. The United Healthcare CEO hit. Attempted kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer.

    There is plenty of violence to go around, but nothing that would rise to civil war.

    I have imagined a scenario where a debt crisis degrades the capacity of the federal government and polarization leaves citizens and national guard more loyal to their state than the federal government, but we are a long way away from that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    At the end of the day, the die hard MAGA folks are a quarter of the country. The stuff they're doing is wildly unpopular. At some point you have to fight for democracy. It is worth dying for. It is worth killing for. If we have to go through a troubles, so be it. Frankly, this probably isn't going to end until we start seeing a whole lot of dead Evangelical Christians. The Christian nationalists are so used to being able to violently oppress and persecute everyone else. They don't realize that their own lives and freedoms can be just as easily destroyed.

    We already are in a civil war. One portion of the population has declared war on everyone else, hell bent on forcing their evil beliefs on everyone else. They do so in the confidence that they themselves will never face persecution, the loss of their rights, or a threat of violence. White Evangelical Christians are way too fucking comfortable.

    Honestly, a troubles might be the best thing to knock some sense into these fuckers. Once the retaliatory killings start and their churches start getting torched, maybe it will finally get through their thick skulls that if you want to live in a democracy, you have to be willing to respect other people's choices and let them live their own fucking lives.

    The troubles ended because both sides felt threatened. No one felt safe. This encouraged everyone to come to the table. Right now one side feels invincible. They believe they can act with complete impunity against the rest of the population. So far, we're all just holding our punches and trying not to escalate things, but these fuckers just keep pushing. Something will have to give.

    Mutual bloody violence is a superior option to one-sided bloody violence, which is the situation we have now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Incredibly fucked up to think there’s any upside to the troubles. Typical clueless yank energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    As someone who lived through the Troubles, there were clearly upsides vs the country we had before.

    The civil rights movement grew at a pace, the police service was completely revamped, and cross community relations improved dramatically. Most importantly, we largely stopped killing each other.

    There was nothing good in the Troubles, but what came out of it was undoubtedly better than what had been there before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    We then ask was this due to the troubles, or was it a progression held back by the troubles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Incredibly absurd perspective. It's like a US southerner saying "There were no upsides to the civil war", and then someone points at the federal abolishment of slavery, and you respond "oh yeah well the question now is did the civil war prevent the south from releasing their slaves from captivity?"

    Like, I'm trying to use less hateful language, but I really don't know what the fuck else to say to you other than point out the fact that you... well, like, some people just need someone to grab their heads and shake them really hard for a while. That's you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago*

    lol, next you'll wonder if India is better off today for having overthrown the brits, too.

    fucking yes, they were a bunch of sadistic fucks destroying everything they could in the name of profit.

    the worst descendants of those sick fucks got shunned to america, for being too fucking crazy. they eventually schismed into what is now known as american protestants/various other brands of fundamentalist christians

    protestants, all evangelical christians really, fundamentally do not respect consent. they have tied their own supposed eternal salvation onto the idea that they must "save" everyone else by spreading the Good Word by any means necessary...desperate people like that are not stable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Would it have been better if there was violence, but only one side was violent?

    Peace happens when both sides have a motive to achieve peace. You cannot have a peace treaty when only one side is willing to use force.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    Three sides were using force. The republicans and unionists were mainly occupied with using violence against their own people suspected of “disloyalty”. As usual, regular people were the big losers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 253 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (76 children)

    In 1970, the National Guard opened fire on a crowd of peaceful, unarmed students, killing four and wounding nine more. A Gallup poll conducted a week after the shooting found that 58% of Americans blamed the students for the massacre, with only 11% blaming the guardsmen. Many students who were present at the massacre were shunned by their own families, some were even disowned, and some were told that even more students should have been killed to teach them a lesson.

    The students, for their part, couldn't even comprehend what was happening at first. Many of them thought the soldiers' weapons were loaded with blanks, that they were just trying to intimidate them. After the massacre, many of the students wanted to reassemble and continue peacefully demonstrating, in defiance of the guard. One of the professors convinced them to disperse, by shouting at them that all of them would be killed.

    How was it possible for the public to see it that way? Because of how the media spun it. Even before the massacre, they were saying that the protests were full of "outside agitators" and claiming that they had been doing things like lacing the water supply with LSD. Of course, it eventually "came out" that these claims were complete bullshit based on nothing. So, once the moment had passed, they quietly printed retractions.

    All that shit still happens today. It happens every single time a cop murders someone, whether it's Renee Good or George Floyd. The right wingers immediately start digging for any possible way to spin it and if they can't then they simply lie, and if the lie falls apart it doesn't matter, by that point people will have forgotten and moved on.

    Yes they will kill you. They'll put people down like dogs and worry about how to justify it later. People want to believe the world is just, and that often means blaming the victim. They'll do it and they'll get away with it too.

    Buy a gun.

  • source
  • hideshow 76 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (38 children)

    Lol buying a gun won't fix anything. You need to train with it and connect with other people who know how to use guns (and who can get other resources for you) or well, Luigi Mangione can tell you the other option.

    Just consuming gun won't fix anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    My question is, why do authoritarians try so hard to disarm a populace then? It seems every person thinks we'll have a large formation of troops fighting it out and not turn this into any number of guerilla resistance movements against the USA and other countries throughout time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    There's 1.5 guns per person in the USA, but we also have the largest prison population per capita in the world.

    I can't name an authoritarian that started by disarming people. My guess would be there comes a point where disarming the populace happens in authoritarian process as part of "disarming the enemy". When the enemy is the public, you disarm all of them.

    So succesful authoritarians eventually just reach the point where the public is the enemy. They either get there by killing people or imprisoning them or starving them.

    In the US they're making housing unaffordable. You sell your gun to pay rent, problem solved for the wealthy. There's much higher death rates for homeless people. There have been a number of stats that say the US has similar death rates to societies in civil wars.

    If guns were used as a solution I think we'd see more sherriffs and deputies being shot during evictions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (35 children)

    How do you train with a gun if you don't have one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (34 children)

    You can get a gun without buying it. Luigi mangione allegedly bought about half a gun

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (33 children)

    Personally, I would rather not walk around with an object that would land me in prison if it were discovered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (32 children)

    Where I live first infraction for a ghost gun is a fine so prison seems a bit dramatic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (31 children)

    Not everyone lives where you live. If I'm giving advice on the internet, where people live in many different locales, I think "buy a gun" is better advice than "3D print a gun." Especially considering that 3D printed guns require more technical knowledge to put together and there's potential for misfires or even injuries if you don't know what you're doing. Not to mention the cost of the 3D printer in the first place.

    You want to go that route, by all means, knock yourself out. But it feels like you're picking a pointless fight over this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (30 children)

    I don't think playing right into the arms industry's bosom is good advice unless you're serious about actually training and organizing around using a gun.

    Owning a gun doesn't fix anything, hell using a gun doesn't fix anything. There's no guarantee when/if shit gets stupid you'll even be able to get enough ammo for the thing (let alone the issues with caching a large amount of ammo).

    The only way guns are going to matter in a realistic sense is if people are afraid to shoot you because they'll get shot. If there's actually some kind of civil war you'll get guns an ammo from the army.

    I've always just gone to the range with my friends who have guns. I'm not going to give the gun industry here a dime they don't need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (29 children)

    "The last rope they sell us will be the one we hang them with." I don't like the idea of giving money to war profiteers any more than you do, but it is an unfortunate necessity.

    The only way guns are going to matter in a realistic sense is if people are afraid to shoot you because they’ll get shot

    Um... yes. That's the point?

    If there’s actually some kind of civil war you’ll get guns an ammo from the army.

    From what army? What are you talking about?

    Is your plan to rely on the US government to arm the proletariat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (28 children)

    Is your plan to rely on the US government to arm the proletariat?

    This is what you're saying will happen as a bunch of internet users with discretionary spending individually buy themselves a third tier weapon from Uncle Sam's Gun Shop.

    1776 only happened because france fucked with the UK's big cash cow in the carribean at the same time. And it still resulted in chattel slavery. If thats your model for proletarian revolution it sucks.

    It was the slave revolts afterward that ended slavery and caused the south to rise up becausw they saw the writing on the wall. Do you think the slaves went out and bought their own guns?

    Now, the US has the highest incarceration rate per capita and ICE is funded currently to double the amount of prisoners in the country.

    Individualistic, consumerist thinking will not result in a "proletarian revolution" that's just a bunch of people cosplaying freedom while they ignore the actual shit going on around them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (27 children)

    What a bunch of delusional nonsense. If enslaved people had the opportunity to buy guns, then obviously they would have, and obviously they would've been right to do so. Perhaps I should avoid reading and writing, since slaves were often not permitted to learn those things.

    1776 was a bourgeois revolution, it is not "my model for proletarian revolution" and I don't have the slightest idea where you pulled that from. You are aware that countries outside of the US have had revolutions, right?

    Individualistic, consumerist thinking will not result in a “proletarian revolution” that’s just a bunch of people cosplaying freedom while they ignore the actual shit going on around them.

    "Buy a gun" is not "individualistic, consumerist thinking" you absolute clown.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (26 children)

    1776 was the revolution where a bunch of people "bought guns" its the "individual buys a gun" revolution. You know the exact thing you've been saying and then getting upset whenever anyone elaborates on it in any way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (25 children)

    Nobody in any other revolution bought any guns.

    Again: Do you understand that countries outside of the US exist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (24 children)

    That's obviously not what I'm saying. Most revolutions people did not buy the gun they used. The only examples we have of ones where everyone "bought their own guns" sucks. That's what I'm saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (23 children)

    This line of "logic" is so fucking ridiculous I don't even know how to reason with it.

    Let's say "the army" decides to start handing out guns to people. What if they don't have enough guns to go around? Because it seems to me, that every gun a person already has is one less gun that "the army" has to procure somehow. It kinda seems like people who did the evil bad "individualist consumerism" of bringing their own guns to the revolution are actually bringing a greater contribution than they would have been able to otherwise, doesn't it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (22 children)

    This comes down to ammo. if you have a bunch of guns they're going to be useful until it runs out of ammo. If you are caching huge amounts of ammo and guns then yes that's useful as long as you or your allies keep control of it. And caching ammo is harder and more expensive than just buying a gun.

    Like if your "military" is providing .223 ammo that .308 rifle isn't going to be too useful for very long.

    The consumerist stuff isn't "bad" its just "not useful" to the point I'd say its "deliberate misdirection".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    This comes down to ammo. if you have a bunch of guns they’re going to be useful until it runs out of ammo. If you are caching huge amounts of ammo and guns then yes that’s useful as long as you or your allies keep control of it. And caching ammo is harder and more expensive than just buying a gun.

    Like if your “military” is providing .223 ammo that .308 rifle isn’t going to be too useful for very long.

    Right, when I said "buy a gun" obviously there was no implication that you should also buy the appropriate ammunition to use said gun. I'm just telling people to buy unloaded guns to put on their mantles to look at.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (20 children)

    Are you telling them they should buy like 10 boxes of ammo and store them in different locations in case they lose access to a location?

    No you just tell everyone to "buy a gun" like its a magic ward. You downvote comments that say "that's not enough"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    I downvote your comments because they're pointless nitpicking, not because you say "that's not enough." If you had said, "Also, train, join an org, and read theory" I wouldn't be downvoting you. Instead you said, "lol buying a gun won't fix anything" and dismissed the suggestion as "individualist consumerism." That's not "going further."

    I'm sorry that the pithy ending to a comment that was primarily about the history of Kent State was not a detailed outline of every possible tactic that could be effective at resisting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    Yeah, I agree, you really fucked up the ending to an otherwise good post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    No, I didn't. You just randomly decided to start attacking me based on a bunch of flimsy bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (16 children)

    You ruined the entire post by ending it with a poorly thought out conclusion. "Buy more ovaltine" level of dumb at the end. All you have to do to change my mind is edit the ending to something not as dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (15 children)

    Yes, it's exactly the same as telling people to buy ovaltine. Ovaltine will definitely help you kill fascists just as much as a gun will.

    Your position is so fucking stupid, and every angle you tried to defend it from has fallen apart under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. Including this one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    Thanks debate-me-bro so glad to have you on my side. I can't wait for the glorius revolution where we all look at the guns on our mantles and jack off to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    where we all look at the guns on our mantles

    Lmao! Too much of a clown for me to even satirize you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (12 children)

    I clearly went too far because I was satirizing your mischaracterization of other people's arguments that you really didn't address but said you did (powerful obama giving a medal to obama meme energy).

    I'm obviously more of a syndicalist. Buying "a" gun won't do anything meaningful in and of itself. We need some people to buy a lot of guns and ammo. Not everybody needs to buy a gun, there's more guns than people here as it is. The gun threshold, if anything has already been reached. If it gets to the guns mattering we've already lost a thousand battles.

    We need lots of people thinking about each other. We need people thinking about things like food, water, waste, etc. Like the US government has never caved because somebody shot a bullet at them. They cave because airports get shutdown, because trash stops being collected. The guns help if it goes further, but the step before the guns is the determinate on whether the guns will work or not.

    Like a bunch of military drones come through your door you won't even have the opportunity to kill a single fascist. You're just dead, killed by a guy essentially playing a video game. A missile is the same thing. There's no heroic fantasy where just owning a gun lets people takedown a fascist.

    My main real issue is the one size fits all prescription. "Buy a gun" is just so overly simplistic and dumb and we more than likely have enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (11 children)

    I clearly went too far because I was satirizing your mischaracterization of other people’s arguments

    Whose arguments did I mischaracterize in the initial comment I made? The National Guard's? What a load of horseshit, you came out of the gate attacking me for no reason.

    Buying “a” gun won’t do anything meaningful in and of itself. We need some people to buy a lot of guns and ammo.

    What does it matter if one person buys 10 guns to give to 10 people, or if 10 people buy their own guns? The end result is the same. You're just putting ideological hangups before pragmatism.

    We need lots of people thinking about each other. We need people thinking about things like food, water, waste, etc.

    None of which is precluded by buying a gun.

    Like the US government has never caved because somebody shot a bullet at them. They cave because airports get shutdown, because trash stops being collected.

    Neither of these is correct. For example, the US government caved when the NVA shot a bunch of bullets at them. They also have the capability of suppressing strikes at gunpoint, if it comes to that. Just as they did the student demonstrators at Kent State. Strikes can be effective, but if you have no capability to fight back, then it's not likely to be enough.

    Like a bunch of military drones come through your door you won’t even have the opportunity to kill a single fascist. You’re just dead, killed by a guy essentially playing a video game. A missile is the same thing

    Of course. I never disputed that. But they aren't sending drones or launching missiles, they're sending people.

    There’s no heroic fantasy where just owning a gun lets people takedown a fascist.

    That's just obviously false. Are fascists impervious to bullets now? Is Charlie Kirk still alive, then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    You're clearly just reiterating your belief in gun ownership and not addressing anything. "Buying a gun" is the tankie version of libs saying "go vote". Solves nothing, they say it will fix everything. Might help in a very niche scenario that nobody disputes but is so ridiculously overprescribed as to be a useless platitude.

    If you're actively hunting notable fascists that's totally different than just "buying a gun". That is a very specific type of gun use and like the kirk shooting was somewhat tragic because the kid that shot him will be going to prison. He bartered a lot more than a few bucks for that outcome.

    If like a couple dozen people started doing that the fascist movement would likely lose most its notable members in a year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (9 children)

    “Buying a gun” is the tankie version of libs saying “go vote”. Solves nothing, they say it will fix everything.

    Where did I say that it would "fix everything?" Weren't you just complaining about "mischaracterizing arguments" (which I never did)?

    Again, you're just looking for reasons to attack me for no reason. No idea what crawled up your ass but it has nothing to do with anything I've actually said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    You said the magic platitude. If somebody put "go vote" at the bottom of the kent state shooting I would also have issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    So I'm not allowed to tell anyone to do anything if that one thing doesn't magically fix all the problems in the world?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    If its a stupid platitude and you're writing an otherwise good post about kent state, yes.

    Let things be complex. You don't need to prescribe gun ownership after fucking kent state. You don't need to tell people to go vote, either. Its so fucking dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    That's stupid. If I went into sufficient depth to satisfy you (and only you, btw), nobody would read it because of the length.

    I've addressed all your objections and each time you just invent some new bullshit to try to justify why you got all pissy in the first place. Just fuck off already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    You never addressed my first post. You literally did a "how you train with gun without buy guy" gotcha thing then just never addressed it. You still havent addressed it, truth be told.

    So again, you're just responding to shit. Its not even new bullshit. I'm just saying the same thing over and over again in different ways. "Buy a gun" is an overprescribed oversimplified conclusion and the reason you didn't connect it to kent state is not because it would be "boring" but because its trite "go out and vote" type bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Man, fuck off. Like you didn't make shit up over an over, that whole "1776" line, get the fuck out. Just drop it. Reply again and I'll block you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    "buy a gun" is the 1776 line. You can't really think that offering the same exact advice as fascists is actually effective, do you?

    Go ahead and block me. Imagine the kind of trite bullshit I'll miss out on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    No, what the hell, don't buy a gun for that reason. That will only escalate the violence. And there's only so far that you can escalate as a civilian until they roll out the tanks, and your guns can't do shit against tanks.

    You need power in numbers. That's how you can build a proper resistance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Seems to be they are escalating the violence with or without us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Except they can't escalate nearly as quickly if they don't have an excuse. They've been wanting to escalate way further than they have, but everytime they tried to paint protestors/... as violent mobs, reality betrayed them. So far that they're somewhat pulling back. That didn't happen because someone shot at ICE, quite the opposite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    They're pulling back? Let's see what happens in Springfield because last I checked, they were escalating even before Good died. I'm not convinced at all they are slowing down because people aren't violent, not at all. I think they aren't escalating as fast as they want because they're worried people will turn violent and no jury would convict someone taking down an ice officer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    as a civilian until they roll out the tanks, and your guns can’t do shit against tanks.

    CIA would like to present you Simple Sabotage Field Manual solving all your needs in that department.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    This was one of the most enjoyable reads I've had over morning coffee in a long time. Thank you for sharing this. Also, for anyone who wants a cleaned up pdf version that 404 Media encouraged people to check out, it can be found here:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago

    You need numbers and you need those numbers to have guns. They are not stopping, they do not care about right or wrong, and there is no telling how far they're going to go. Without the threat of armed resistance, what is stopping them from open massacres?

    Guns will not keep you safe, granted. But not having a gun obviously won't keep you safe either. Think about what you're saying, you're relying on the fascists to act in good faith, out of the kindness of their hearts. That's nonsense.

    Nonviolence is a tactic, it can be an effective tactic, but it is only a tactic. If conditions reach a point where that tactic is not applicable or effective, then it will be time to change tactics. What's the plan if they start firing up the gas chambers?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    That peaceful bullshit only benefits the oligarchy. There's not a single right you have that wasn't won via violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Same sex marriage. Transgender rights. We are in a different age, wars are fought by information now. We are fighting the current war for America by information now. Not by bullets. I am all about Luigis rising up but that's a lot different than "everyone grab semi and hope for the best." This isn't 1776.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    You think gay rights came without violence? One of the first well documented events leading to where we are right now was called the Stonewall Riots

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    The fight for gay rights STARTED with a riot. Same sex marriage came through the courts, decades later. In a new age. I was there, I was fighting for it. There was no violence when SSM and trans rights were brought about.

    Edit: To further my point, what DID move the needle was public support for SSM and trans rights, which happened through EDUCATION, which is INFORMATION. When public support got there, SCOTUS granted the right, and eventually legislatures followed. A lot of organizations did a lot of work educating the public, which is the very work I did in the third state that got SSM. To act like the Stonewall riot directly lead to SSM is absurd.

  • source
  • parent
  • Transgender rights

    You mean the rights that largely don't exist in half of the US?

    As of July 2025, 40.1% or 120,400 trans youth aged 13-17 are living in the 27 states that have passed bans on gender-affirming care. This includes 2,300 youth living in the two states–Arkansas and Montana–where bans are currently on hold or blocked from enforcement through court orders.

    While our map focuses solely on high school-aged youth (age 13-17), some states, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and South Carolina, have considered banning care for transgender people up to 26 years of age. Additionally, several states prohibit public funds from being used to provide transgender health care for anyone, so adults are also unable to access critical health services if they receive their healthcare through Medicaid, if they work in the public sector, or are incarcerated.

    Trans people were already reporting their identifying documents like passports, birth certificates, driver's licenses, and social security cards were being confiscated in the period after the election and before Trump got into office.

    We haven't "won" trans rights, we've only had them because the fascists hadn't yet gotten around to destroying them. Violence in one form or another is a requirement for successful change, whether that violence be economic or otherwise. The oppressor isn't going to give you justice simply because you demand it. It wasn't until after MLK was murdered and billions of dollars in property damage were done that Civil Rights were drafted, voted on, and signed into law - one week of rioting after his death.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    You're a goddamn coward and you deserve to however they treat you. But let's be honest, you won't leave the "safety" of your home till they drag you out of it. You're just going to sit on your ass and criticize those of us who do fight. Broke wristed pacifist, fuck you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago

    Government has tens of thousands of troops and RPGs and tanks and riot gear and bulletproof shields and chemical warfare and fucking nuclear weapons but Lemmy among others are convinced arming up will save us somehow. It's proof that the gun lobby has done their job.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    You had me right up to the last word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    That nonviolent shit will get you killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 9 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 45 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    The guy who got killed doing nonviolent shit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Are you suggesting he should have used the gun that he had on him?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Yes, there's a chance he'd still be alive today if he did so, and there'd be at least one fewer fascist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    There's a chance he would have died in a hail of gunfire, and probably gotten a lot of innocent bystanders killed as well, and a certainty that if he had survived, he would have gone to jail for the rest of his life. I don't know what the solution is to the problems my country is facing right now, but I know for a fact that what you're suggesting is not the solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    There’s a chance he would have died in a hail of gunfire,

    He did die in a hail of gunfire.

    and probably gotten a lot of innocent bystanders killed as well,

    Do you support complete disarmament of the police and military? Or is it only with non-state actors that this concern about missed shots outweighs everything else?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    The solution is working class organizing, with well-trained and disciplined people's millitias. Pacifism gets people killed, as does adventurism. The only way out of the death spiral is revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I'm suggesting that if it were me, and I was gonna go down either way, I'd rather die knowing that I helped rid the world of at least one of those rat bastards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I see we've got a badass on our hands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    No? I am under no illusions that I can stop the fascists from killing me if they want to. If five armed men kick down my door, I'm not stopping them. But I might be able to take one of them down, if I get lucky. That is, you know, how guns work. It doesn't take badassery to pull a trigger.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -26 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Everyone calls it the Kent State shootings but all the shootings actually happened on the campus and none in the actual university.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Campus is the grounds and buildings of a university or college. If it's on the campus it's in the university.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    It's a sarcastic reference to communists correctly pointing out that the deaths on June 4th, 1989 were in and around Beijing, not on Tian'anmen square itself. It's a comment intentionally undermining how communists are dispelling Red Scare mythos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago*

    Fun (?) Fact: Trump is actually a fan of the massacre:

    Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength," he said.

    "That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak... as being spit on by the rest of the world."

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›