|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Jabarto posted:The problem with that is that the moneyed interests you're protesting against are in complete control of the media. The moment you challenge their power with more than just words, they're going to paint you as dangerous radicals even if you're not violent, and the public will by and large believe them. Instead of protesting retards like Milo at Universities, the left should be protesting en masse outside the headquarters of every major media corporation (starting with Fox and CNN) with signs illustrating their refusal to cover (or talk about FFS) the immense poverty rates in this country, the drug addiction epidemic (arising from poverty), horrendous healthcare costs, money in politics, and anti-war protests/commentators. I really think this is a good idea for the socialist-progressive left to do for the next four years in addition to promoting organizations like OurRevolution.com and JusticeDemocrats.com.
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
If your ultimate plan for victory against capitalism is "kill them all" I think that's a pretty loving dumb plan.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Bhagat Singh is still celebrated as a national hero in India and was even at the time considered as such by some on the left in Britain. Right, but you see a difference between following this strategy in order to get a foreign power to let go of a colonial possession, on the one hand; and using it to try to overthrow capitalism in the U.S., right? We're talking about a situation in which the left absolutely has to have the good will of the broader public. We don't have enough of it now, and we would certainly not have it if we were to start blowing up CEOs. Particularly since it wouldn't take too long for the SWAT team or the FBI to round us up. rudatron posted:I can agree with 'right now', but I can't agree to a general attachment to non violence, nor can I agree that a successful revolution can ever be completed without violence. Strikes are never met with inaction, they have historically been very brutal and bloody scenes - if you believe the sane won't happen in the future, you're being naive. Well, but that's kind of a good thing, though, isn't it? One of the major points of nonviolent protest is to show the world that you're being peaceful and nonviolent, yet you're getting the everliving gently caress beaten out of you by the cops or private security. That's why events like the marches in Dandi and Selma were so effective: because they ended in one-sided violence from those in power, and yet did not elicit a violent response from the protesters. That's what I think the number one misunderstanding about nonviolent protest is nowadays: people think it's supposed to be easy. It's not; in many ways, it's harder than violent protest, because you have to be willing to get your skull caved in by a nightstick, and not hit back. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:50 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
The thing is it's never easy and non-violent protest is always, systematically met with one-sided displays of violence. It's really rare that a movement has the capacity to turn non-violent protests into some degree of success and the few known examples had things go a hell of a lot more violent than people who focus on the specific turning points are willing to accept. The first shots in the coal wars weren't fired by the miners either, they were fired by the national guard and strike breaking private groups like the Pinkertons. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 01:57 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
It is remarkably easy for any swinging dick/pair of tits to say "VIOLENCE IS THE BEST OPTION", but staggeringly few people, even among right wing crazies who spend more money on guns in a month than most goons in games spend on their hobby in a year, are prepared or willing to fight and suffer in 2017 for the things they post so ardently for. I don't think violence isn't a solution because I'm not a complete idiot. Violence has solved plenty of things even if people like to think otherwise about whatever version of earth they think they're living on. But when you have posters seriously saying "There is no peaceful path to regime change" about a nation that holds a presidential election every four years, maybe we should step the gently caress back and actually focus on the people saying this sort of poo poo. I am super mega bummed out about Trump, speaking as someone who has been pulled over by a cop and asked "You a raghead?" because they saw the last name on my ID. And I'm white as a loving sheet of paper. But even so, if you think violence is going to be the cure-all for what ails the US right now, well, I hope to see you out on the streets, and not reading your impotent whining about it from my hospital bed. When you advocate for violence, you have to be willing to do the sort of poo poo that we saw out in Ukraine over the past few years before the actual military action began. And you have have to be willing to accept that your circumstances will be reduced to Syria's, or worse. That's what violent political action ultimately leads to. You have to accept this kind of living. You have to be willing to give up all of the conveniences you have now in hopes of a better tomorrow. And to get Americans to fully back some sort of violent uprising, your conditions, frankly, have to suck a LOT worse than they already do. And the crazy thing is, look at how lovely the conditions are for people in dying coal towns, for example. I know for a fact I have it far better than many other poor Americans. And yet most still don't resort to violent uprising. They march. Why do you think that is? You can say, rather cynically, it's that they are cowards who aren't willing to 'make the hard decisions' and 'take decisive actions'. So what the gently caress does that make the people posting about that poo poo here?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Not hitting back is actually the easiest choice to make - you give up, and place yourself at the mercy of others. That gives then power, which they will use to serve their interests, not yours, assuming even letting you live is something they want to do. 'Showing the world' is nothing but a meaningless symbolic gesture. All you're doing is hoping that someone else will swoop in and save you, thereby absolving yourself of doing anything. There was a note found, recently, in Wal-Mart clothing, from a Chinese prisoner, detailing their working conditions. This was that person, "showing the world", the abuses they suffered. Will their abuse stop? No. Will the system that perpetuates that abuse stop? No. It didn't do anything. In a world were activists swear off violence, nothing will ever change, because the system will continue to operate, deploying brutal violence if necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Did this Wawa's ordering kiosk rant have a point? Movements don't work without some degree of mass support, whether violent or not, but being cynical about non-violence after years of dealing with liberal peace police the moment someone protests more loudly than silently walking with a sign with an inoffensive, milquetoast slogan on it is pretty much natural and has nothing to do with "taking hard decisions". Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 02:08 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Think about your goals. You ultimately want people to abandon the establishment and side with you, then to leverage that popular support to force political reform. You don't do this by assasinating random assholes. Not only does that make the establishment's job of slandering you incredibly easy (they don't even have to lie), but it also makes it much easier for them to get away with violent crackdowns on your movement. More non-violent actions on the other hand may be less satisfying in the short term but do a much better job of getting the public on your side. Plus, when the establishment inevitably does engage in violence it makes them look like assholes and undermines their legitimacy. Also keep in mind that "non-violence" can be a lot more than boycotts and protests. It can also include doxxing, shutting down major commerce centers, disrupting the flows of money and playing rival factions of the establishment against each other. You have a lot you can do that isn't just singing in a drum circle.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
You couldn't get it done even when Democrats held control of every branch of government. Not since FDR.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Think about your goals. You ultimately want people to abandon the establishment and side with you, then to leverage that popular support to force political reform. You don't do this by assasinating random assholes. Not only does that make the establishment's job of slandering you incredibly easy (they don't even have to lie), but it also makes it much easier for them to get away with violent crackdowns on your movement. More non-violent actions on the other hand may be less satisfying in the short term but do a much better job of getting the public on your side. Plus, when the establishment inevitably does engage in violence it makes them look like assholes and undermines their legitimacy. You will find people ready to call most of your non-violent suggestions violent the moment someone powerful is mildly inconvenienced by it, particularly in the media. Not saying it makes Kilroy right, but it's definitely a thing that non-violence at all costs is a trap when the other side is all too willing to stretch the meaning of violence to the breaking point. I'm pretty sure I can find old stuff painting the Iraq anti-war movement as violent. I know you absolutely can from MLK's opponents. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 02:14 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not hitting back is actually the easiest choice to make - you give up, and place yourself at the mercy of others. That's bullshit and you know it. John Lewis didn't "give up and place himself at the mercy of others," even when his skull got shattered. e: And again, we're living in an age of iPhone cameras and youtube. It's not that hard to publicize something like a peaceful protest eliciting an overreaction from the government. This isn't 19th century coal country. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but that's kind of a good thing, though, isn't it? One of the major points of nonviolent protest is to show the world that you're being peaceful and nonviolent, yet you're getting the everliving gently caress beaten out of you by the cops or private security. You can't show the world poo poo when the entire loving media thinks that you and everyone you're fighting for are terrorists, what part of this do people not understand?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You can't show the world poo poo when the entire loving media thinks that you and everyone you're fighting for are terrorists, what part of this do people not understand? Well gee, let's see - how about the part that I've already brought up, like Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and now one of Fox News' co-presidents stepping down because of peaceful public pressure on advertisers? Or the fact that, while BLM hasn't gotten particularly great coverage, they're still more liked than they are disliked by Americans? e: I mean, Jesus Christ, dude, the reason why movements like BLM exist are because you can, in fact, show the world what's happening, by recording videos and posting them online. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:28 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
You're a loving idiot if you think sexual assault making them look bad has anything to do with strikes and labor and the inherent issues of capitalism being a never-ending nightmare that will kill every single one of us common people before a single rich person agrees to pay a fair wage.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You're a loving idiot if you think sexual assault making them look bad has anything to do with strikes and labor and the inherent issues of capitalism being a never-ending nightmare that will kill every single one of us common people before a single rich person agrees to pay a fair wage. Mmmm, nope. No, you, goonsir, are the idiot. Boycotts work. Fears of boycotts are what got advertisers to pull out of Fox News. Boycotts aren't going to singlehandedly upend capitalism, but they can be an important part of the solution, and they are effective, when they're executed wisely. e: And, of course, you're an even bigger idiot if you think violent attacks will get capitalists to do what we want them to do any better than attacking their bottom line. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Nobody is going to boycott anything for the sake of the people the media calls terrorists, what the gently caress are you even talking about? How do you conflate completely and totally unrelated things like Bill O'Reilly with things that actually matter to the people in charge?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
While Fox caught on fire in a shitshow over trying to cover up sexual assault, MSNBC essentially turned into polite fox. Fox News is, at this point (and at any point before) completely superfluous to assuring the continuation of the worst parts of the Washington consensus on most issues when even papers of note like NYT and WaPo are all too happy to do it. Fox News hadn't even started airing when Clinton signed the main welfare reform bill.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
I am not a genius revolutionary plotter, but it seems to me that if I were willing and ready to commit to violence and terrorism to achieve my political goals against a brutal violent government doing the bidding of capital, I wouldn't post about it on the internet where government assassins could trace my IP address back to me. On the other hand if I'm just jerking myself off and never intend to do anything then yeah I guess posting nonstop about how other people need to start killing CEOs and congressmen makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
I think you're misreading what happened with Fox. Rupert's kids are more 'liberal' than him and have been pushing to make the company a more "diverse" company. Not to mention they're trying to buy out Sky in the UK and have to pass the 'fit and proper' test, which they failed the last time round in 2012. You're deceiving yourself if you believe your woke Tweets helped at all with this.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You can't show the world poo poo when the entire loving media thinks that you and everyone you're fighting for are terrorists, what part of this do people not understand? The media's reputation is poo poo and most people get their news from Facebook/Twitter/YouTube these days. It's not an insurmountable problem. Agnosticnixie posted:You will find people ready to call most of your non-violent suggestions violent the moment someone powerful is mildly inconvenienced by it, particularly in the media. Not saying it makes Kilroy right, but it's definitely a thing that non-violence at all costs is a trap when the other side is all too willing to stretch the meaning of violence to the breaking point. I can publicly defend Wikileaks leaking the CIA toolset even though the government and the media lie about it constantly. However I'd have a very hard time defending the assasination of Jamie Daimon, even if I thought it was right and good. That's the key difference.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Nobody is going to boycott anything for the sake of the people the media calls terrorists, The media, for the most part, isn't calling BLM or the Women's March or any of those movements "terrorists." A violent anti-capitalist movement would absolutely get called a terrorist group, and guess what? Then you'd be right - nobody would turn out for them, at least under the current set of conditions.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am not a genius revolutionary plotter, but it seems to me that if I were willing and ready to commit to violence and terrorism to achieve my political goals against a brutal violent government doing the bidding of capital, I wouldn't post about it on the internet where government assassins could trace my IP address back to me. Nobody actually believes that there is any possibility of changing America or the world at large either way, dude. We argue about theory here, nobody actually thinks that anything is going to get better. It is not hypocritical or wrong in any way for me or anyone else to say "there is no way to change the status quo for the better without large-scale violence and resistance against the people in charge, but because the numbers needed will never actually come together and risk their lives for the sake of a better world, I am not going to either".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I think you're misreading what happened with Fox. Rupert's kids are more 'liberal' than him and have been pushing to make the company a more "diverse" company. That's been their spin on it, but it's not true. Advertisers pulling out are what caused them to drop Bill-O. They reached a tipping point, and it was threatening to affect their bottom line.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Thanks for proving my point quote:A third intersecting storyline involves the Murdoch clan, who control 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News. Rupert Murdoch, who founded the company, is 86, and is in the middle of transferring power to his sons, Lachlan and James. The elder Murdoch is said to be a defender of O’Reilly, but his sons pushed for O’Reilly’s removal.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The media, for the most part, isn't calling BLM or the Women's March or any of those movements "terrorists." A violent anti-capitalist movement would absolutely get called a terrorist group, and guess what? Then you'd be right - nobody would turn out for them, at least under the current set of conditions. Haha yea BLM and the Women's march have made such a real difference in the world. Wait no, abortion is becoming more and more impossible for poor and disadvantaged women to have access to, and black people are being murdered by the people they're forced to pay for protecting them just as often as always. Every single one of those people wasted their time and continue to do so. They're working for the status quo and they don't even know it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Haha yea BLM and the Women's march have made such a real difference in the world. Wait no, abortion is becoming more and more impossible for poor and disadvantaged women to have access to, and black people are being murdered by the people they're forced to pay for protecting them just as often as always. "Two movements haven't completely changed the world in the span of three years; they must be failures.  "quote:Every single one of those people wasted their time and continue to do so. They're working for the status quo and they don't even know it. It's more productive than what you're doing here, trying to seem like an internet tough guy and even failing at that modest task.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
I have to say, for all the fire you were spitting at Hillary earlier, it sounds like you're a centrist a la Trevor Noah.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Thanks for proving my point You should read the whole piece, because it doesn't actually prove your point. shrike82 posted:I have to say, for all the fire you were spitting at Hillary earlier, it sounds like you're a centrist a la Trevor Noah. Because I think left-wing political violence is doomed to failure? If so, I think that's some pretty loose criteria for "centrism" there.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
They haven't changed anything at all. They've made no progress other than getting people to tweet about their thing for a little while until their interest faded and they found something else to tweet about.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Advertisers fearing public backlash is also why YouTube lost a bunch of sponsors and demonetized half it's content. Boycotts don't always work, but that doesn't mean that they *never* work.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Americans are terrified of domestically radicalized terrorists and groups Majorian posted:Right, but you see a difference between following this strategy in order to get a foreign power to let go of a colonial possession, on the one hand; and using it to try to overthrow capitalism in the U.S., right? We're talking about a situation in which the left absolutely has to have the good will of the broader public. We don't have enough of it now, and we would certainly not have it if we were to start blowing up CEOs. Particularly since it wouldn't take too long for the SWAT team or the FBI to round us up. Most people remained "loyal" to the British Crown all through the American Revolution as well. It didn't mean poo poo. Most people just automatically support the status quo, and if a sizeable enough minority comes along and changes that status quo, they'll support that, too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:They haven't changed anything at all. It's been less than three years for BLM. Calling it a failure because it hasn't ended police brutality by now is pretty stupid. It took more than three years to get from the first sit-in protests of the Civil Rights Era, to the Civil Rights Act.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I have to say, for all the fire you were spitting at Hillary earlier, it sounds like you're a centrist a la Trevor Noah. Wait is not shooting political opponents a centrist position now?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Is that from Fox News - you literally have to choose between a do-nothing platform like OWS/BLM, or you have to go out and shoot capitalists. There is nothing in between.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Nah. They're terrified of foreign-based terrorism, but they tolerate domestic terrorism pretty well. Nobody gave a gently caress about the Bundys, and it looks like they're mostly going to get off. The Bundys didn't elicit much fear because they were so clearly a bunch of incompetent boobs who couldn't accomplish any of their goals. quote:You'll never get the majority of the public behind something like beheading global capitalism, because by the time most people are on board with it, it's already happened. Right, but if you want to start a violent revolution, you at least need the populace to not be completely against you, and ready to hand you over to the feds. That's what you'd wind up with if you started killing CEOs.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Again, it's interesting how people like Majorian are framing it as either "OWS/BLM" style Woke protesting or literally killing CEOs.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Again, it's interesting how people like Majorian are framing it as either "OWS/BLM" style Woke protesting or literally killing CEOs. I wasn't the one who brought up "literally killing CEOs" in the first place, jackass.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Right, but if you want to start a violent revolution, you at least need the populace to not be completely against you, and ready to hand you over to the feds. That's what you'd wind up with if you started killing CEOs. I would argue that a "lack of support for killing CEOs" is more up in the air than we think.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Again, this white liberal tendency to act all woke (e.g., spitting fire against Abuela) and then muffling any talk of actual protest or disruption to their lives is pretty disgusting.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:I would argue that a "lack of support for killing CEOs" is more up in the air than we think. In the abstract, I'm sure there's some support. In practice, though, I guarantee you folks would lose a lot of that enthusiasm. shrike82 posted:Again, this white liberal tendency to act all woke (e.g., spitting fire against Abuela) and then muffling any talk of actual protest or disruption to their lives is pretty disgusting. e: Gah, I've been trolled! Well played, shrike. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:03 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:55
|
|