122
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

I feel like it’s a lot closer to “well those fuckin’ Nazi wingnuts seem like they’re gonna start something at some point soon, so I think it’d be prudent to have some contingency plans”. That’s where my head is, at least.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

I believe we will get no necessary reforms without threat of violence. The rich will absolutely shoot us, so we just be prepared to do the same

Look up the Battle of Blair Mountain

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You need a two hand approach, the larger peaceful movement and a smaller more aggressive movement to lead toward success. MLK & Malcolm X during the Civil Rights Movement is the example you want to set. You sway public opinion by showing violent actions committed against the unarmed peaceful protestors. You pressure by have your more aggressive wing just be themselves. Throughout American history this has been the path to change. The aggressive side doesn't even need to be violent, they just have to be intimidating and scare the MAGAs. That us enough for them to attack the peaceful protestors who they will attack because they are cowards who crave conformity.

I’m familiar with it, and I agree.

[-] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

Exactly this.

Non violent mass protests work because the implicit threat is, "make the changes we're demanding or we'll drag you out here and beat you to death."

MLK was only effective because of the alternative of dealing with Malcolm X.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

This, but don't reform, abolish and build new. Our current oppressive systems are insidious and will rise back up through whatever crack they find. We need to create a society that would categorically stomp them out when they do.

[-] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Any suggestions on how to do that?

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Battle of Blair Mountain

Excellent timing. In a conversation I learned only yesterday that Red Neck wasn't always a pejorative term. The miners wore red neckerchiefs. They were workers standing up to the man / system. It's been completely changed in meaning deliberately, or so I was told, as part of the effort to erase them from history. Seems possible to me.

Also, there's apparently no mention of this class battle in West Virginia history books. Anyone here able to verify that?

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

I've seen a lot of instigating comments and posts here on Lemmy today. Protect yourselves, but don't go instigating in a violent way against people and their homes, it's a distraction and gives people a reason to go after you.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The biggest difference is that they will face both police and National Guard if they try. It will be like the GOP response to the BLM protest with heavily armed troops, tanks, and helicopters.

You… know how many problems the police and military have with white supremacy in their ranks, right?

This is the legacy of the confederacy. There are a nontrivial number of people in law enforcement and the armed forces who unironically want to bring it back.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I think there was a song in the 90s about that, which someone will quote below.

[-] JBloodthorn@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 3 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ

https://piped.video/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

For wearing the badge, they’re the chosen whites

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 45 points 1 year ago

Force used to oppress, and force used to oppose and defend against those who use force to oppress, are not the same and it truly enrages me that they are treated as even in the same category or a somehow comparable threat.

It's subtle shit like this that fuels the "don't fight hate with hate" nonsense in liberals and centrists (don't be fooled by the superficial progressive takes, the Guardian is as much a part of the propaganda machine as the S*n and the Daily Hail, they just cater to different demographics) that is, in part of course, keeping us from rising up against the few that oppress us.

Don't buy in to it.

[-] TheHighRoad@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm with you. Intolerance of intolerance is a different beast and is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom and liberty. When are people going to figure out that even the smallest capitulation to fascism is an automatic loss?

[-] d4rknusw1ld@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Please. I kind of wish they’d just do the thing already so we can put this shit to rest once and for all.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Really? Because it's more likely to take the form of terrorist attacks than anything else. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber are heroes to some.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber are heroes to some.

Cross posting from another thread because it's in my clipboard history, making this easy:

There's a lot of stellar reporting on this stuff. There was a limited-series podcast about the evolution of white supremacy in the US that did an excellent job of explaining and illustrating the shifts called Long Shadow trailer. It starts with Waco and Ruby Ridge and really helped me better understand how and why we're seeing what's happening today. (Scroll down; the white supremacist eps were preceded by a season about 9/11, which I haven't listened to).

The gig-economy metaphor makes more sense with the perspective that they understand that the KKK is unpopular and they rely on small cells and individuals for acts of terror and violence. Then the leaders of the movement can "condemn" the violence, which was what they always wanted and knew their rhetoric would bring.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, usually when these situations escalate to violence it gets settled once and for all, and doesn’t deepen divisions

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It worked in 1860 .... oh wait

[-] Pepperette@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

That's exactly how every Canadian feels about the US every election cycle.

[-] d4rknusw1ld@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Trump indictment for January 6th likely dropping today. I can’t wait.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I think we all saw this was the case on January 6, 2021.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Well... we're fucked, aren't we?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
122 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2090 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS