Political Memes

So much energy expended on discussions of violence. Do not worry about if you should or should not do violence. Violence is merely a question of who has the power to allow or forbid it. And if you protest long enough to make political progress, violence will find you, doesn't matter one bit how you personally feel about it.

Trump is baiting it to get violent. That’s why he pardoned the Jan 6rs. They are his goons.

Don’t feed the troll king.

If you see an oppressed people protesting against their opression, and your first instinct is to lecture them on the optics of their protest, you’re not really an ally. You’re just using “optics” as an excuse to not do anything to help out but still think of yourself as a good person. I don’t think anyone falls for it.

Remember when the founding fathers held a peaceful protest in Boston and the British were like, "Woah, we better Bach the fuck up"?

Non Violence only protects the state and state approved protest means nothing. The most violent people are police at protests. Dr. King's character is always stripped down to the peaceful Black leader, and look how that went for him. He was still assassinated.

question

I've been thinking today.

it's illegal to block the road, you can get in trouble for a sit in, or by parking on the road.

but how about just driving on a road and respecting the speed limit?

how many drivers do you need to all agree to drive on a specific road, in circles to congest it and create a nightmarish traffic jam.

it's better to be strategic and do so during rush hours. 50 protesters could easily halt the traffic of some main arteries. and really hurt the economy.

No one gives sympathy to protestors who fire the first killing shot on the authorities. Syrian peaceful demonstrators turned rebels have sympathy from the world because they were fired at first by Assad. Many people soured on the French Revolution at the time when The Terror occurred after the people started executing just about anyone deemed enemies of the revolution.

No one is against violence if it has to come to it, but on Lemmy it is the usual suspects (I probably don't need to mention what political ideology they tend to be) who want to pull the trigger first on the army and police without ever thinking of consequences (they wilfully ignore the existence of Insurrection act). They are like the 2nd amendment right wingers, looking for any opportunities to fire their guns and live their fantasies, but on the opposite extreme end of the political aisle.

Or, it could be anti-Western actors stoking violence on Americans to maximise political divisions because it will tremendously help if US is thrown further into chaos.

Edit: wording

Here we go again,

The Peaceful LA Protests of June, 2025 worked. We're all talking about it now. If the LA protests weren't peaceful, we would have different talking points for this weekend's protests and protesters would have been killed. This administration wants this.

YSK - That there is a lot of trolling and brigading starting to happen around the LA peaceful protests to start violence. Here is a roadmap from 2015 on how they do it.: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39873361

Also, this:

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/protest-trump-resistance-power

I agree that we have reached a point where things will only continue to get much, much worse without widespread and overwhelming violence against the authoritarians. Both those in power and those following them.

The problem is that authoritarians are primarily motivated by the irrational fear of violence. This fear justifies their violence, but nobody else’s. And they currently control the government, military, etc and therefore overwhelmingly more violent force than any resistance is likely to muster. On the other hand, authoritarian followers are predisposed to accept what they are told by the leaders of their in-groups, so when peaceful protests are called “violent riots” they will believe it unquestioningly and nothing whatsoever can or will change their minds. Hence, peaceful protest is no defense against the accusation of violence and subsequent right-wing violence. This is why abortion is such an easy topic for social dominators to leverage when inciting their authoritarian followers: it’s “evidence” that their opponents are inherently violent, against babies.

And again, reason and rationality have no part in this. The followers want to believe their out-group is violent and evil, they fear violence, so they will believe it because it reinforces their existing beliefs (a fear of violence, etc).

BTW, Democratic politicians in Missouri were assassinated this morning, and it’s not currently being widely covered by the news. So that take that how you like.

It's not an either/or situation.

In the (supposed) words of Al Capone

You get a lot more from a kind word and a gun than from a kind word alone.

Critically however, a gun without the kind word is also far less effective. They are like the tip and shaft of a spear. The shaft has the range, but lacks the punch. The tip has the punch, but lacks the range. Together they are far more than the sum of their parts.

In terms of protest. A peaceful protest is like the kind word. It's a polite but forceful delivery of a message. Radical action and violence are the gun. They work best as an implied threat. The target much know that you are willing to escalate, if required.

Too much violence, and you have a riot. These can be put down with force, and have little to no public backlash. (This is what trump currently wants to happen).

Too little violence, and the protest can be safely ignored.

The perfect balance has enough to keep the government on their toes, but not so much as to drive away supporters, and burn off the anger powering things.

Currently, Trump and co are trying to goad people into over reacting and justifying an aggressive crackdown. In light of that, a message of don't take the bait, err towards passive over violence isn't so bad.

Democrats drove away all the fighters by attacking anyone who was the slightest bit controversial or politically incorrect for the last 40 years. Basically the party was taken over by fools and cowards. This is our opposition party, and this is why we're screwed. Ban Fox News.

Um, a lot gets done without violence, including regime change. In fact, nothing swells the numbers of a movement like state brutality on peaceful protests, and that is amplified with the ubiquity of the cell-phone camera and the internet.

This is not to say a movement by violence is bad, just that it can detract sympathizers.

But don't worry, when the regime has to choose between giving up (say in the face of a general strike) and sending out the goons, they'll always choose the latter. No one tosses the One Ring into the fires of Mt. Doom. It's the same paradigm that leaves us with senile geriatrics unwilling to relinquish the power of office until it is pried from their cold, dead hands.

Usually, by then, the military has realized the regime is illegal and as luney as Aerys II Targaryen (The Mad King, who Jamie slew, SoIaF) and is willing to do the wet-work. By artillery if necessary.

Then again, destruction of property like burning the Waymo cabs, is a common necessity. That wasn't the act of rioters, but saboteurs. Waymos are snitches and have been reporting to ICE the location of targeted civilians.