As someone with a strong autistic sense of justice and hyper empathy, usually the fight is between the psychopaths and whatever idiots they’ve manipulated to their cause against the rest of us. They’re psychopaths and narcissists, they have no morals. That’s why they’re evil. You can’t appeal to morality that isn’t there. There’s only one way to deal with them and they’ll pick us off one by one, like they always do, while we hem and haw with delusion about how everything will be ok.
There’s tons of ways to deal with them. I’ve heard vegans suggest compost, and people concerned about prions suggest autoclave.
Comrade Pikachu.
Ungovernable
How many data centers could a Pikachu power?
Wrong question. How many could he fry?
lmao. You have just now been hired to run as a republican. We’re going to put billions of dark money behind you.
~ Theil, Ellison and Texas probably
Or voting
Dr. King’s policy was, if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption. In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.
Stokely Carmichael
“Nonviolence is fine, as long as it works.” — Malcolm X
“In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.” — Stokely Carmichael
“A riot is the language of the unheard.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
–John F. Kennedy
What does “the United States” refer to here? The government? The populace?
Both perhaps, at the time of his assassination MLK Jr. had about 80% of the country hating him.
You have any evidence?
What a detached-from-reality take. I’m not saying that appealing to the moral sense of the oppressors usually works (it doesn’t) but when a group of people successfully gains their freedom, it’s usually by appealing to that moral sense. After all, if the oppressor wasn’t stronger than the oppressed, there probably wouldn’t have been oppression in the first place.
Yeah, but it’s won by appealing to the moral sense of the masses. OP specifies “the people who were oppressing them”.
That was literally what MLK and Gandhi did.
I’m pretty sure MLK only worked because the Black Panthers were doing a good/bad cop thing.
Yeah, basically. Between MLK and Malcolm X, no matter how you wanted to resist, they had you covered. That’s why the government killed them both.
And the changes MLK sought only came following the race riots after his death. I don’t want to discredit him because he was essential to the civil rights movement, but ultimately his martyrdom is what brought the change he fought for
1964= Civil Rights Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
1968=MLK assassination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
There was an additional one passed on ‘68, a week after his assassination.
I’m pretty sure the Black Panthers only worked because MLK was doing a good/bad cop thing.
That’s crazy. What happened to them anyway?
They contributed to winning the fight and made history.
Gandhi’s method wasn’t the only method for India’s fight for independence.
No, just the one that worked.
The reality is there were violent and nonviolent factions in both scenarios. The oppressive state is not going to platform those that commit violence against it so history is written to suppress that form of dissent and uplift nonviolence.
Not to take away from the brilliance MLK or Gandhi but part of their credibility or legitimacy is derived from the contrast to their violent counterparts.
Ghandi wasn’t actually a pacifist, though, it was just a tactic that happened to be expedient at the time
A bunch of European monarchies also voluntarily granted power to democratic institutions.
I broke up with my crazy ex. That was definitely freeing, and I don’t recall any violence.
You were voluntarily being oppressed and decided to stop volunteering for it
It’s not like immigrants can just “break up” with ICE
Gotta love it when someone is like “Here’s this problem in society…” And someone else goes “Nah it never happened directly to me so you’re wrong.”
People in abusive relationships are “volunteering” to be abused?
Well…that’s certainly a take
a) I was talking about the specific situation OP described, not any abusive/bad relationship ever
b) If it was abusive that would likely have made it violent (psychological violence is violence)
c) “Voluntary” as in they could choose to leave without threat to their safety/wellbeing, not “oh boy I wholeheartedly desire this.”
This lettering is a form of oppression.
Cool maymay, can’t find the OG image. Anyone care to help?
Damn right Pikachu! Now get back the fuck back in your ball and fight others of your species for my entertainment!
“Walk softly and carry a big gun” Gabriel Angelos, Chapter Master, Blood Ravens Space Marines.
I knew Teddy Bear Roosevelt was a 40k nerd
Space Marines give da best advice!
Nope, it’s usually guillotines
I wonder whether we have actual numbers to support this. And not just anectodal, or single individual events. But on a larger global scale, also investigating whether alternative measures have been taken and whether they suceeded. And then putting them into relation to each other, carefully considering potential limitations in the interpretability as well as implications, before forming conclusions regarding any recommendations of optimal action.
Or, put simply, is violence really the best way to deal with oppression?
This is also sharing some overlap with protesting methods. And I am not quite sure whether we have a definitive answer to that.
This isn’t really true. Most successful revolutions in the last hundred years have been largely non-violent. I mean look at the dissolution of the USSR, for instance. Or Hungary recently, although how much of a revolution that is is sort of up in the air. Or Spain. I think the numbers are something like once 3% of the population is in the streets you’re donezo.
I mean, also, like, India was directly and very much this.
That isn’t to cast aspersions on violent revolution, but it’s more of a narrative than reality, at least now.
Shelling your parliament with a tank isn’t violent?
I mean there was violence but who is calling that a “violent revolution?” Come on. I doubt there has ever been a revolution without a single instance of violence, but you are well aware that that’s not what we’re talking about, comma fucker.
Goal posts.
those were contra-revolutionaries tbh, opposing Gorbachev’s good deeds, and they were then defeated in a non violent way too.
