|
ate all the Oreos posted:Hm, I wonder if it would be helpful to make some kind of alternate communication system, like radio links on bands they don't usually jam to get network connections into the thick of the protest via alternate means... I've been thinking about ways my dumb electronics hobby could be put to good use too... You would need some method of encoding it as broadcasting over unencoded radio would probably not be advisable.
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Wait, that's what they're mad at you about? The red text fairy needs a proofreader, because I was getting the inpression someone got mad at you for arguing that it should. The red text fairy has a political bent that I would probably describe as "the most milquetoast liberalism ever"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
I suspect the leader of the King Center is probably aware of the details of the civil rights movement, however MLK still argued strongly for nonviolence and I doubt the organization is going to start advocating militancy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
It is rather difficult to advocate for one thing without ever saying that its opposite might be counterproductive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
I mean I think she's arguing that violent resistance is ineffective rather more significantly than that it's wrong, which Dr King also did. And while I disagree with it, she would be remiss in leaving it out of an argument if she believes it to be correct. There was a very good document written by Martin Luther King where he goes into detail about the realities of violent vs non violent protest and I think a lot of its strength lies in that he is very realistic about it, I think that a lot of what it identifies can also be used as an argument for violence in some cases, but it's a good thing to read on the subject and I think quite applicable to the subject at hand. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/nonviolence-the-only-road-to-freedom/ Particularly he identifies that in all likelihood, black Americans, were they to resist violently, would simply be exterminated by the establishment. And also that because the desired change is not revolutionary, but instead the right of integration, it doesn't make sense to achieve that by attacking the thing you want to integrate with. The reasons for his nonviolence are not all ideological, there are pragmatic concerns as well. Some of this may not apply to other groups in other times, but I don't think he was necessarily incorrect in his assessment. It would hardly be appropriate for the leader of the King Center to not echo those concerns. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
In America, I'm not so sure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Dr King also did a good job of pointing out that protest requires long term commitment to be effective, same document I linked before:quote:Marches must continue in the future, and they must be the kind of marches that bring about the desired result. But the march is not a “one shot” victory-producing method. One march is seldom successful, and as my good friend Kenneth Clark points out in Dark Ghetto, it can serve merely to let off steam and siphon off the energy which is necessary to produce change. However, when marching is seen as a part of a program to dramatize an evil, to mobilize the forces of good will, and to generate pressure and power for change, marches will continue to be effective. To my mind he's describing a sustained campaign of action, violent or not. This even being only on the scale of marches in particular areas. This does not begin to address the enormity of the entire civil rights movement. So, I think the efficacy of individual protests needs not to be conflated with the efficacy of sustained campaigns. The scale of organizing involved is very important and, I think, not one seen outside of armed conflict today. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Do you know literally anything about the left movement in the US or are you intentionally dense. I was gonna say I think the American Left has some quite legitimate excuses for why it hasn't historically stuck its head above the parapet as often as one might like.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:No, it isn't. I've said it before but if you want spoilers for the US you can look at the UK.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Our state Democrat party is best known for having its chairperson tweet on Christmas about how she got stuck on her toilet because she was so fat. If you want to participate, you have to kiss the ring. I think this post works better without the second sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
High earning not rich yet. Basically rich people complaining that life is very hard because of the mortgage on their big house and having to pay the nanny.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Manic X posted:You are creating a fallacy in your argument by assuming that because I believe in free speech that it means I must agree with everything any will say. My argument is if people don't feel comfortable to come out with their opinions then how can we change a persons mindsets? As I said they become the silent majority. I mentioned I used to have a right wing mindset (conservative voter originally). I used to vote conservative because I believed in rewarding hard work and did not like the benefit haven that the UK had become. This was of course all nonsense generated from the media). But then in my teens I was exposed to some pretty interesting debates in college where people spoke freely. I wasn't insulted for my perspective, but I was just told things from new perspectives. I realised my view of the world was misinformed and began to change. I'm still changing now as change is gradual, but I only change when I am exposed to people's opinions (aka free speech). Perhaps we could skip the first step by stopping people saying the horseshit you initially believed. Much more efficient.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
I wasn't aware it did? The ruling powers just decided they didn't want to do it any more and convinced people it was a good idea to go turbocapitalist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
If you're doing lefty music I quite like cheery britpop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIeF7cQR-70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4xY4zImmP8
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
You can put human remains through the post in the US?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Only via USPS. I'm pretty sure you explicitly can't in the UK, and would have to find a courier.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Like a guy with a big red nose, frizzy wig, and a swastika armband who goose steps in squeaky rubber jackboots? I would have thought they might have been able to spot him coming, personally.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:Actually, almost every single (European) Labour party has embraced neoliberalism and betrayed their working class roots. True, but, for example, UK labour was an actual labour party before that and may be returning there. The US does not, to my knowledge, have an actual organized labour party that has ever held substantial power, merely a party which has occasionally adopted part of the desires of organized labour when it is convenient. To many European labour movements, the neolib bit is the aberration, not the norm.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
It is difficult to understand an argument against unionization that is not also an argument against democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
I think generally the idea is that communities would practice self defence there, anarchists aren't anti-consensus-decisions, they're anti government.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
You can have consensus without hierarchy, it's just that basically all of our current decision making systems are based on establishing hierarchy. This seems like a good introduction: https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus It is slower than simple vote-for-majority systems and can collapse, I would suggest that it would require a substantial cultural change to perpetuate the idea that participating in consensus is virtuous, currently even our democratic practices value hierarchy, you seek to dominate your opposition and you compete with them for control and authority. Anarchists tend to disagree with that idea, and argue that even democratic majorities are not sufficiently representative of the voting base in many circumstances. A preferred system would be two-way, where issues are discussed until people agree on a position going forward. Though as the site suggests, it has prerequisites that majority-driven voting does not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Tias posted:That's sort of rich, considering most of the laborers who originally unionized were for federated socialist democracy, which aims to empower a lot more people than any other system. Well, yes, that's my point, what is more democratic than organizing together to pursue a goal beneficial to all? Arguments used to say that's a bad thing can be turned very easily against the democratic institutions that liberals at least nominally, support.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
To quote Marx on the subject:quote:To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising. Emphasis mine. I'm not sure it holds true nowadays necessarily but there's definitely historical precedent for angry communist gun nuts.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
Well I think the justification is identical, the use of armed force can be justified in the face of existential threat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
I feel like the Communist Manifesto is probably the most fun and appropriate introduction, as it basically defines those things and is both short and often reflective of the general spirit of most openly socialist organizations, even if they aren't revolutionaries. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I've never seen the Xbox Live servers so quiet. Are they normally very vocal about Socialism?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Something important to note if you read socialist/communist lit at all: when most socialists refer to "capitalists," they do not mean "people who are in favor of capitalism." A capitalist in this sense (and in very non jargony language) refers to someone who owns things for a living rather than doing things for a living. So people who own companies or banks, or make their money from stocks, etc. Yes important for people new to it, capitalist can mean either the capitalist class, i.e the rich buggers who own everything, or it can mean people who advocate for it, but generally the older lit especially will mean the former. coyo7e posted:Call of Duty players really hate Affirmative Action presidents like Hitlery and Obama. Probably 1 in 4 of the random folks i friended online were vocally about this at least twice - whereupon i removed them. I don't really play multiplayer games but I didn't realise it was that bad with the codders. Urgh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
I forget which way round it is too but I think the way to remember is that the operative word is the last one, the first one is the adjective. So democratic socialism is socialism with democratic elements, social democracy is liberal democracy with socialist elements.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:my favorite genre of post is "demsoc lays out their ideal system and accidentally describes the soviet union" I mean I think most of them probably would exclude Stalin who was a pretty significant element of the USSR for a while. If they aren't excluding him then I am not super sure why they're calling themselves demsocs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:i SAID NO COPS ALLOWED!!!1 https://twitter.com/parliawint/status/752857511678672900
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
It also isn't necessarily upheld by the metropolitan police of today.. But yes for a Tory, Peel set out some remarkably good policing rules that in theory still form some of the basis of British policing but in practice have rather faded. But it's probably where you get the stereotype of the village bobby in old british dramas from. Also worth noting that part of the reason the metropolitan police was formed was because previously the government's response to organized protest was to send the army in to run people down with horses and stab them. This was judged, eventually, to be unsustainable in the long term (though not really in the short term) and thus the creation of a proper police force was considered necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Industrial Workers of the World.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 02:17
|
|