News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
There are a lot of illegal things you can do, and a lot of things republican supporters openly do that involve violence. I’m not going to openly implicate myself but use your imagination.
There have been some successful non-violent revolutions in history, and there's a strong case to be made that not exhausting those options could be a huge mistake.
We still have, right now, completely un-used tools at our disposal, such as unionizing en masse and deploying a general strike, which is insanely powerful (capable of bringing a nation to its knees if done widely enough), while being far less dangerous and more appealing to the general populace than any other means.
I'm pretty sure that if you dig into the details of a lot of those, you'll find that the purported success of the non-violent movement strongly correlated with the existence of a not-so-non-violent movement as the alternative.
For example, your article lists the Salt Satyagraha and the Quit India Movement as being non-violent revolutions responsible for the decolonization of lndia. But if you look at what actually ended up happening, such as the partition of India and establishment of Pakistan, it's pretty clear that the not-non-violent All-India Muslim League had a pretty big influence in achieving that result.
Folks like Gandhi and MLK may tend to end up getting the credit for these sorts of societal changes, mainly because The Powers That Be have a vested interest in "the absence of tension" and thus engage in a bit of revisionist history, but it's the presence of folks like AMIL and Malcolm X sitting in the background threateningly waving a stick that enabled them to be effective.
(That said, the collapse and liberalization of the Warsaw Pact are probably legitimate examples where the presence of a violent radical flank really wasn't much of a factor... but I'm pretty sure that's because Gorbachev's heart wasn't really in stopping them to begin with.)
I hate this argument. Every mass civil resistance movement carries an implicit threat of violence. That doesn't mean you have to follow through on the violence in order for the movement to succeed
There's a reason most democracies enshrine the right to assemble in their constitutions, and it's because the act of assembly scared the shit out of the ruling classes that stood in the way of republicanism, so they made sure to punish it severely.
It doesn't really matter if you hate it or not; it's how the world works. If the implicit threat isn't credible, they're going to ignore you.
Unionization en mass and a general strike are just simply not realistic goals in the current political and social climate in the US. And that half assed attempt at organization at that level is now going to get my country invaded.
It seems like a leap that people don't have the motivation to unionize and strike, but would eagerly hop into a full on violent revolution?
Realistically, unless the military fractures or fully refuses to engage against this revolution, the best you'll get are The Troubles.
You know what else didn't seem like reasonable goals in the current political climate? Dissolving USDA and global boycotts, resulting in absolutely tanking Tesla stock. Things change.
Organizing can make the change necessary to overcome usamerican fascism. Giving up and relying on the status quo will allow your "democracy" to die in silence.
I’m not saying don’t do those things. Quite the opposite. I just don’t see them playing out as effectively as they need to. But maybe I’m just becoming cynical in my old age. Power to you, organizing is useful.
Abbie Hoffman Is rolling in his grave from that limp arm suggestion.
I don't see why he would?
Abbie Hoffman was not a guy to suggest non violent Revolution. Because he was not an idiot.