• TheDubz87@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was gonna say, we get shot for protesting now…probably gotta change that part first.

        • TheDubz87@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          1 year ago

          I misspoke…er…typed, we get shot and have no real way to defend ourselves being wildly outgunned by police. Thanks for that PBS article btw. I hadn’t heard of a lot of these happenings, and I’m still reading through it.

            • ToastyWaffle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              What makes you think we’re not outgunned?

              Even in the US where you can own firearms, your 5.56 rounds aren’t going to do shit against an armored vehicle, or handle drone strikes or national guard elements. Yet liberals are frothing at the mouth to take guns away from the working class, when personal firearms are already woefully inadequate for fighting against a tyrannical government.

              • Chocrates@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We are trying to stop people gunning down children. I don’t give a fuck about your gun you target shoot with.

              • Millie@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, if the civilian population of the US had to actively repel an invading army with their own organized militia, it’d be completely one-sided.

                But if the US military were engaged in a war against its own civilian population, it wouldn’t be a remotely straightforward fight. They’d be dealing with a local population and the emotional impact of fighting their own population at the same time. Guerilla warfare in the United States would be a mess to try to deal with. We have a lot of wilderness, and the division within the military would likely be significant enough to have a major impact on any attempted operations.

                The US military is really good at organizing its troops to fight for the US. Fighting against the US is a whole other can of worms. And by my count, most older vets wouldn’t be on the side of using the military against our own civilians, whether they’re otherwise more on the conservative side of politics or not.

                I don’t think there’s anything like the kind of support or organization to see something like that happen, but I think it could get a whole lot uglier and more complicated than just the numbers suggest.

              • oSillyScope@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                You forget that every part of that machine is a person. No soldier is going to attack his fellow citizens. The cops are not people, but we outnumber and outgun them by orders of magnitude. Either way I am willing to die trying. You can stand with us if the time comes or you can enjoy that boot you’re currently deep throating. The choice is yours.

      • DaGeek247@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Now? The pinkertons never left, and they started ages ago. Protesters got shot then too.

    • fidodo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 year ago

      Strikers were bombed back in the day by aircrafts. Unionization was won through enduring warfare yet we just gave it away. Shows how powerful unionization is that the elites are completely terrified of it, and that they have surpressed the history of it so few will know how much blood was shed to get it.

  • IninewCrow@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Governments don’t want a population capable of critical thinking, they want obedient workers, people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation.”
    ― George Carlin

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      He was really wrong about voting though. If it didn’t matter, the fascist GOP wouldn’t be fighting so hard to prevent people from voting.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        He wasn’t wrong. During this time the parties although different and Republicans being shitter, were much closer together. They were both pro corporate with differences on social issues.

        Today… The Republicans have gone full batshit trying to overthrow democracy. I guarantee you, if George was alive he’d be saying VOTE and vote for Democrats until we’ve gotten rid of the dangerous fascists.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Many parts of the system were designed to disenfranchise various groups. One of the most effective of those parts is the message that your vote doesn’t matter.

          Refuse to be disenfranchised. GO VOTE.

          • whereisk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            And that they’re all the same.

            They’re not.

            Voting is like taking public transportation, it’s not going to take you to your exact destination but you get on the bus that gets you closer.

            Not getting on the bus because it doesn’t go exactly where you want to, or you don’t like the bus driver is allowing others to take you in the exact opposite direction.

        • norbert@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Voting alone might not but it’s an important part of the process. You should agitate and organize, but also go vote and get your friends to go with you.

      • Ghyste@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I love that there’s always someone who brings this one thing up…

        Nobody’s right 100% of the time. But he was right far more often than not, and far more correct than most anyone else running their mouths about the same subjects.

    • Koordinator O@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So we need to make the machines complicated enough so we rise above the intelligence needet to not passivly accept our situation?

  • Signtist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re not the only ones who forgot. It’s crazy how many people I know who shun the idea of any form of action beyond general protest in the face of corruption. I always ask them how they think change is going to happen when we have protest after protest and nothing to show for them, but they never have an answer. Things are going to get a lot worse before people realize we need to fight for our rights, and being angry on the internet - or even in person with a sign - is no longer enough to make a change.

    • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When violence is used to maintain the status quo, announcing up front that you’re unwilling to use violence in response tells those in power that they need not listen to you.

      • DrTautology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        The sad thing is that we don’t even need to use violence. We have the power to bring this country to a halt with nothing more than a well organized revolt.

        • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just stay home and play board games for a week, don’t spend any money.

          Things would change quick fast and in a hurry if a hundred million people all just took the end of July off.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not possible for a lot of people unless they’re fine with starving. Additionally, prisoner’s dilemma or some variant of that basically makes it impossible to do something like that, herding cats would be easier. World peace would be achieved if all soldiers refused to fight and yet that will never happen for a whole host of reasons.

            • DragonAce@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not possible for a lot of people unless they’re fine with starving.

              This is why a network of support and organization during a protest is vital. Because you’re going to have a lot of people in this position, so having some sort of place for donations and distribution of food/funds and a team to coordinate so the protests can continue uninterrupted is important. How to organize such a support network is a problem for people other than me who aren’t introverts.

        • WorkIsSlow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          1 year ago

          MLK was not the entirety of the civil rights movement and his legacy was whitewashed by Reagan to distort history. MLK also understood that, “riots are the language of the unheard.” Riots occurred because civil rights were not given when they asked nicely.

        • Ruxias@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Perhaps the whitewashed, watered down MLK would beg to differ. He’s been reduced to like three quotes for people to slap on their Facebook profiles; for companies to paste on their messaging in February; to be trotted out once a year like Weekend at Bernie’s so people can feel the warm fuzzies inside and ignore actual, real-world racism and violence that is happening right now.

          It’s like anytime someone mentions anything above a megaphone and a cardboard sign there’s always one of you that comes out of the woodwork and is like “MLK… Checkmate 😎”. As another commenter said, MLK was not the civil rights movement of his time. The reason he is the poster child for that movement in that era is specifically because his personal convictions about non-violent protest are safe for the system as it is.

          Slavery can still exist, albeit in a different form. (Not chattel slavery) Racism can still exist, albeit in different forms. People who are victims of these systems are dismissed out-of-pocket because that’s the goal: the system never wanted to change, and by making MLK the summation of “the civil rights movement” in the eye of the public, they infused passivity into the discourse. They tell you to make your signs, and get your megaphones, and write your blog posts because that’s what is safe for the system to continue on as it has always been.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I 100% agree with your position, but I just want to correct a long-standing whitewashing that still tricks folks on the left; his nonviolence theory was a political strategy, not a moral position

        • DrOfMoo@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          MLK, while crucially important, was only ever a small part of a much larger movement. A movement practically immersed in violence.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          MLK’s nonviolence was a strategy, not a moral position. I think you need to do more research on MLK.

          • Ruxias@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry I’m not an expert in MLK, but I know enough to see through the bullshit.

    • ToastyWaffle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      People who think you can solve all problems by stating that you are in the moral right, instead of fighting for what you believe in, really show their true colors of being woefully ignorant to how history has always worked. This end of history neoliberal narrative has truly rotted peoples brains and made them unable to intellectually understand how to stand up for themselves.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole point of a protest is to show that you have sufficient numbers that if you were to riot, it would get ugly.

    • YashaB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      So what are we supposed to do? Take up arms and start shooting?

      There is no alternative to peaceful protest.

      • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a really great character once said: Get angry. Angry gets shit done.

        Peaceful protests are pointless.

      • Signtist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        As the original post states, peaceful protests were originally a warning - they were the last opportunity for nonviolent communication before the violence started. Their function relies on that being the next step - one that the organization wants to avoid.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They got wise to that and called in the police and military to help them.

  • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love this sentiment but I hope we can keep lemmy a nice place.

    Like I’m sure we all agree that a good billionaire lynching would be awesome, but I also don’t want to crow on about it day after day. Escalate or bust.

      • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not just build up, but actual conflict.

        Revolutionaries aren’t spontaneous creations. It takes decades of conflict between the population and the state to harden the people into what eventually becomes the revolutionary army.

        Almost everybody here with their soft bodies and their soft minds is not capable of taking part in 6-48 months of revolutionary civil war tomorrow. You have to look at the conflicts of France over the last 10 years between its population and the state to understand what prolonged build up of radicals and radical forces looks like. Decades of a population actively doing battle with its state over various national things before ever reaching the point of “fuck it we ball”.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          It feels that at this point, the ruling class has gotten so good at giving us just enough to keep us from outright revolution. It’s little bonuses here and there, it’s providing just enough to keep us afloat long enough to get through the next election, it’s information manipulation to have us arguing with each other rather than focusing our anger on them.

          It’s going to be extremely difficult to break that control.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t forget the endless money spent on propaganda, convincing people that companies are good and everyone fighting for workers’ rights are evil, painting the latter as greedy and corrupt assholes with subversive intents

        • ToastyWaffle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah this is the case for any revolution. I’ve been reading “The Constitution and other writings of the founding fathers” and it’s interesting to see all the rhetoric and mental preparation they took before firing even the first shot. The tension was palpable and the colonists were already resolved to fight a war they knew would not end quickly. Most notably over things we just bend over and take nowadays.

          The average citizen today does not have the same sense of responsibility and duty to preserving freedom and democracy like they did back then. Sometimes I wonder if people in the west are too soft in resolve and dedication to really revolt in any meaningful capacity, beyond a few days of protesting. No matter what the issue/ideology at hand is.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sure we all agree that a good billionaire lynching would be awesome

      Now that’s a bold assumption

  • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like it’s the working class who forgot.

    The rich are well aware, which is why they put so much energy into making us think that isn’t an option.

      • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It already is with regular protesters.

        They just gotta kill one. They don’t want to kill their entire work force. They just want to subjugate them.

    • _cerpin_taxt_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shit France is already leading the way this century and showing us weak Americans how protests are supposed to be done. No one protests like the French protest.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What gets me is:

    If people have more money to spend, they buy more things.

    The more things they buy, the more money goes into the pockets of corporations and the CEOs.

    It’s literally a win win situation that doesn’t end in the Uber Rich being chased down by hungry angry mobs.

    • einlander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      But that means more people have a chance to get wealthy (provided taxes aren’t raised to match). Why pay people more and have more wealthy people when you can pay less and have all the money?

    • Koordinator O@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because all those CEOs will never think further than the next ten minutes. In short term that means only less money for them since for any extra unit of money they give to their worker it is not garantied they buy something from the own company. They only ever see what money they don’t get right now, and not what they could get potentially in long term.

    • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But your talking about the future, not next week.

      Plus, your assuming that there is any sort of geographical loyalty.

  • BigNote@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Redress.” It’s “redress of grievances,” not “address.” They can have similar meanings, but they aren’t quite synonyms.

    • Mostly_Harmless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Redress” is typically used when referring to correcting or remedying a wrong or injustice. It implies a sense of compensation or restitution for something that has gone awry. For example, if a customer receives a faulty product from a company, they may seek redress by asking for a refund or replacement.

      “Address,” on the other hand, is a more general term that refers to dealing with or attending to a particular matter. It can be used in a variety of contexts, from addressing a letter to addressing a problem. It doesn’t necessarily imply any wrongdoing or injustice.

      https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/redress-vs-address

  • Harpuajim@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I keep blocking work reform pages but more keep popping up from different instances. Is there a way to globally block any instance that contains a specific word or phrase?

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, each to their own, but do you have a greivance with workers collectively backing themselves and their colleagues?

      (In answer to your question, as far as I know you have to block communities one by one. The only other alternative would be to view only your subscribed communities)

      • Harpuajim@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have no grievance with them, I just don’t care for the grievances they share with their employers. It was easy on reddit since it was just one sub I had to filter but here they keep popping up.

    • islandofcaucasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It took a lot of blood and violence to get to the point where we all think blood and violence isn’t required in some situations. Millions and millions of people struggle every single day while the rich look for ways to take away their rights. It’s literally human nature to want to fight back against that.

    • Stoneykins@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It isn’t a fantasy, it’s history. It is how our comfortable world was built, and if you think it is eerie then you should reevaluate how you feel about the benefits it has brought you.

    • eskimofry@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you suggest? Only the state can have monopoly on violence? Only the government which is controlled by rich people can use violence?

    • ZodiacSF1969@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s funny, I think they are all bark and no bite. When push comes to shove we often see their fantasies amount to nothing more than materialistic looting. They will never live out their dreams of lynching billionaires.

    • Ruxias@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aww baby needs attention so he found a place to troll in… Everybody look at this guy, see how edgy he is?!