“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”
-- Douglas Adams in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Yes, because it's long been true and people didn't fucking listen. Now my country doesn't even really have liberal democracy, and people are still himing and hawing about disruption being bad and lawbreaking being bad
The desperation and work culture of believing we can just slave away into success are what keeps people from rocking the boat. Faith in being able to win the game is how we got here.
It looks to me like the top post is a screenshot of Twitter, and the two below are on Tumblr. I think they were just sharing their own post. But I don't use either site, so I can't be sure.
How are you referencing the OECD and claiming 60 hour weeks in the same paragraph? If you actually checked the OECD that you reference, you know hours worked is wayyyyyy lower.
I would guess he is saying that the hours listed in the OECD, which I think were 1730 per year, is skewed. I wonder if separating rich/middle/poor would yield vastly different results.
I generally assume that the OECD statistics are underreporting overtime and moonlighting/illicit work wouldn't be included in these statistics anyway, though the latter is probably a bigger issue in poorer countries. Also, it doesn't make a difference between part time work and fulltime work, which greatly diminishes how useful it is for gauging how much a fulltime employee works.
Yes, Americans are not still working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. (But phrasing things backwards that way is confusing!)
40 hours a week is typical for normal, salaried jobs. But, because union membership is extremely low, some people are pressured into working a lot more than that. Also, some people have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. But, I don't think 6 days a week is at all normal, nor is 10 hours a day.
It's actually the USA that is to thank for the normal work day being only 8 hours. In post-civil-war USA 6 days a week, 10 hours a day was the norm. But, workers in Chicago went on strike on May 1st, demanding an 8 hour day. Their argument was "Eight Hours for work. Eight hours for rest. Eight hours for what we will." They didn't get what they were demanding. Instead the strikers were met by police and Pinkerton violence. Some anarchists in the crowd responded to that police violence by throwing bombs (at least, allegedly). The police responded to the bombs by shooting the crowd. They then rounded up the suspected leaders of the anarchist movement and after incredibly brief show-trials, they hanged them.
It was actually the backlash against the hangings that energized the unions and communists around the world, and although it took years to actually achieve the 8 hour day they demanded. The rest of the world also celebrates a worker day on May 1st as a result of this event. But, of course, in the US, "May Day" is seen as being too close to "communism" so Labor Day is in September instead.
It took decades more to reduce the work week from 6 days to 5. Again this was the result of union pressure.
American workers have lots immense amounts of power since the 1880s. Even if those striking workers were beaten by Pinkertons, they were at least able to organize a general strike.
The only reason we have 5 day work weeks, 8 hour workdays, overtime pay, benefits, workplace health/safety/environmental regulations, unions, health care, paid time off, vacations, etc. is because our grandfathers and great-grandfathers busted heads, and got their own heads busted, fighting corporate goons in the streets - and WINNING!
Those heroic workers would be ashamed at what their grandchildren have let the Sociopathic Oligarchs have done to America. They fought hard to keep those psychopaths under control, and we not only let them up, we helped them take full power.
Except that in the end, we still have the 8 hour workday/ 40 hour work week, overtime, benefits, etc. None of those things existed before the labor riots, so things didn't get rolled back as much as you claim, and the most important ones stuck permanently.
The Labor Riots were extremely successful, and completely reconfigured the American workplace for the rest of the century, and beyond. MAGA wants to revert to the old days.
A lot of them think they'll be slave owners again. I'm sure there are a few yokels who think the day is coming when they can just go grab the nearest black neighbor and declare him their property, and force him to get to work in the fields. After all, that was the original reason those Africans CHOSE to come to America ILLEGALLY right?
Well, he's got a trailer, so maybe he just makes his new slave pick up the house, make the bed, and wash the truck.
Yeah, corrupt corporations are exploiting the system, with the help of the corrupt government. What's new? The fact still remains that the work environment we generally accept as normal, was created by those Labor Riots, and we are still better off for them. Even if MAGA manages to roll back the workplace environment to the 19th century, they will always have to compete with the memory of America's peak, and will look bad in comparison.
You are stuck on your biases, and can't even consider the idea that labor issues were terrible in the 19th C/ early 20th C, and it was labor riots in the second quarter of the century that ended the old way, and began a new workplace environment. It is definitely not perfect, but it's far better than it once was, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
The State only respects power. If a group of people show that they have more power than the State, change can happen. However, what is power?
Power comes in many different forms.
There is economic power which is showcased through strikes and boycotts.
There is democratic power which is showcased through the ballot box.
There is soft power which is showcased through the lobbying, and speeches.
There is non-violet power which is showcased through protests, marches, and sit ins.
There is violent power which is showcased through physical violence such riots.
While, the populace has access to many different forms of power. The State is limited to either soft power or violent power. Depending on the State, soft power might not even be contemplated.
Riots are just one form of power for the populace to exercise.
This feels really insightful, and I wonder if there is a source other than ShaggySnacks.
Sadly, no source. It's something I've observed. I can't recall any time a State changed it's position on an issue simply because it was the moral thing to do.
There are other forms of power such as legal (using the Courts), culture, morality, etc.
The examples above aren't exhaustive, for example having allies in the State does help with change, which is means running for office in an a democratic system.
I'd say it was more the union organizers than the anarchists. There was a lot of overlap. But not all labour organizers were anarchists. It could even be argued that the anarchists hurt the movement more than they helped it. Some of the anarchists like August Spies were attempting to disrupt the status quo, but were trying to do it relatively non-violently. He even refused to show up to speak at the rally if workers were told to arm themselves. On the other hand, August Spies was part of the labour/anarchist movement that wore military uniforms and marched around with muskets, so it wasn't like he was completely non-violent. Around the time of the Haymarket affair though, he was less radical than some of the anarchists, who were expressly violent and wanted to start a revolution using bombs and guns.
The fact someone threw a bomb gave the police the excuse to crack down on the anarchists. The crackdown prevented the aims of the protesters from being achieved. But, the fact that the justice system hanged the anarchist leaders led to them being seen as martyrs. That made them famous, which made May Day famous, which eventually did help lead to the 8 hour work day. Would the 8 hour work day have been achieved faster without the bomb being thrown? It's hard to know. The immediate result was a major setback for the cause, but the long-term result of the overreaction to that bombing was a contributing factor to the 8-hour workday eventually being achieved.
I think it’s worth pointing out that calling these riots isn’t really appropriate. When we think of riots, we think of unfocused, unplanned, unmanaged, etc. Highly organized protests sometimes wind up turning into riots because capitalists use violence, but it’s not the norm.
Labor movements in the 19 th and early 20th centuries also literally organized riots, where the express purpose was to destroy property. It used to be a legitimate protest strategy against the owning class.
Organized, non-violent protests are not riots. They are people, in mass, using their freedom of speech to complain about something.
A common issue is that some people, either within the protest group, or outside instigators, will then prod the protest into violence in order to discredit it. Two examples:
Police using rubber bullets/tear-gas/pepper-spray to disperse a lawful gathering. This escalates and adds tension. Not everyone is prepared to weather abuse to stay non-violent. Gassing a peaceful protest is going to make at least some of them really mad and is a pretty trivial way to turn a peaceful protest into something else and remove it's message, making it just a "riot."
Agitators claiming to be within the group, but who are actually against, it performing actions such as property damage or violence in order to discredit the whole event. If a non-violent march is walking down a street and some dick throws a rock through a store window and steals something, the whole march is called a riot by the media.
It's important that if you are involved in a protest that you stay calm despite what is thrown your way. The protest is the message and fighting back during that event is only harming your message. Please do things like capture pictures/videos of people inciting violence, of police using crowd control on peaceful protesters, of generic unfair treatment; but during that event, the goal is to be calm. Afterwards, you can take all your grievances to the medias. If you've been harmed during a protest, find a lawyer -- many will work pro-bono for cases like this and if your first pick doesn't... fuck 'em: Name and shame -- and then fight back after the event, when you have legal standing.
Your grievances are real. Your pain is real. The people in power will use every trick to discredit your issues. Don't give them ammo.
Funnily enough there's a very similar situation to the US that's going on in Serbia, where a canopy falling and killing a bunch of people due to government cheapening out led to lots of outrage and exploded into a massive student movement against the president due to corruption, election rigging, suppression of dissent and executive branch abuse.
At first, they did peaceful protests, blocked roads and all that jazz constantly, but after seeing that it had led them literally nowhere (they got nothing except for a fake concession that was some minister resigning) except on getting arrested and beaten up in jails, they decided to give a green light to civil disobedience, violence, trashing ruling party's headquarters all over the country.
What did this escalation result in? A whole load of nothing except cracked skulls, mostly for the students.
If you're looking at reformism 'fixing' things during the course of history, civil disobedience the vast majority if not all of the time was noise. What eventually got implemented or changed wasn't because the ruling class got scared, but because they were either getting major gains in terms of compromise as a result of the reform, or the reform itself was beneficial to their interests and only a small minority didn't want them to pass.
If you’re looking at reformism ‘fixing’ things during the course of history, civil disobedience the vast majority if not all of the time was noise. What eventually got implemented or changed wasn’t because the ruling class got scared, but because they were either getting major gains in terms of compromise as a result of the reform, or the reform itself was beneficial to their interests and only a small minority didn’t want them to pass.
So, in your opinion the woman's suffrage movement, or LGBTQ activism, for example, were just wastes of time? These people didn't need to do or say anything since the bourgeoisie were about to give them everything they wanted anyway?
If they held no benefit to the ruling class, then no. LGBT opens up more industry focused on identity (via pride merch, medical needs) which means more profitable industry for bourgeois, while women's suffrage legitimizes capital's rule further by allowing more people to vote + liberates capitalist women which is what bourgeois feminism is primarily about.
Whether these reforms would have happened without the noise though, can't really say - there's no mirror that looks into alternate realities. Still, these kinds of reformist mass movements are usually a result of bourgeois infighting, not some spontaneous working class action - just look at who organizes and funds them.
Thats not to say liberal working class are idiots for joining them and acting as footsoldiers, no - there are definitely benefits to be had for one's identity no matter the class, like in the case of LGBT, but the things won aren't full-on liberation, just specific compromises that are capital-friendly(women getting voting rights but still being discriminated against to encourage births/staying at home and raising more workers, LGBT getting essentially bare minimum recognition and care to be sold merch but not enough to significantly attack the traditional family for child-raising). Therefore, true liberation can only happen via the abolishment of the class society, else it's gonna be endless compromises that miss the mark.
I think workers should own their workplaces but tbh I don't see that by itself automatically fixing all forms of prejudice and discrimination. Certainly not on a personal level, but probably not even at a systemic level either. Though I agree that the present conditions definitely forment reactionary thought.
Yeah it won't, because commodity production, markets, accumulative money and therefore capital won't be abolished, meaning that the incentives to oppress certain groups of people for growth will remain.
Only after we overcome the production for profit model and replace it with production to satisfy people's needs will capital fully be replaced and dead, removing any incentives to discriminate (aka systemic discrimination). Will it change prejudices that people have immediately? No, but it will certainly disappear over time given how the central source of these prejudices is now abolished + a revolution and development like that is only possible in a class conscious society which produces solidarity with other workers no matter their features (USSR is a good example of this when looking at Oct Revolution - women were viewed as fellow comrades, led the charge on most influential mass protests, and once revolution happened they got a ton of systemic freedom in terms of abortion rights and legal autonomy, while the rest of the western world was still on legal guardianship).
To give a bit of hope to the liberals in the US though, what's happening there isn't new and the state of things from before (as in liberal democracy functioning normally) is going to sooner and later return, it's a cycle that happens every now and again due to falling rate of profit, crisis and rise of reaction that happens as a result.
Eventually, liberal capitalists will start fighting the conservative capitalists to get their place in the sun again, maybe it's going to happen electorally or maybe there's going to be a slaughter of millions of workers in the name of liberal democracy or anti-fascism, after which wholesome democracy will reign supreme once again and the countdown towards another crisis and rise of reaction will start once again. Isn't that lovely?
The most sociopatic "winners" of the current system will always laud whatever was done to establish the system in which they get so much and decry anything that might overthrow or even meaningfully change that system.
Those who have a more empathic view of things, even when they too are considered "winners", have a different posture if they think the current system isn't working well for most people because they don't think only about personal upside maximization at any cost for the rest.
As it so happens, caring for more than just "me, me, me" is what distinguishes leftwingers from rightwingers.
So this is a great way to spot fake leftwingers in or seeking positions of power and wealth: no matter how "progressive" their words are in general, when it comes to the current system they'll display exactly this kind of hypocrisy of being against any kind of actions that will change the current system whilst lauding the very same kind of actions when they installed the current system, since their one true drive is "What's in it for me", a rightwinger's motivation.
Not entirely. As they say, there's a different between being peaceful and being harmless. Sometimes the threat or implication of violence is just as or more effective.
This state of affairs is not especially surprising -- if it were the popular belief that violence is justified to change society in some particular way, then society would already be changed in that way. Just like how no stock on the market can be widely seen as undervalued.
It's also why it's vital to meet people where they are. Propaganda that works often begins not with big ideas but targeting emotions and one's perception of their everyday life, and if you aren't engaging in propaganda then your opponent who is is defining the narrative unopposed
Civil disobedience for the sake of it is just stupid. When we retroactively look at civil disobedience in history, we intentionally filter out the vast majority and just highlight the few examples that we're done in ethical ways, for the right causes, and achieved results. Civil disobedience is not a virtue nor is it uncommon. What actually matters are the motivations, principles, and methods used behind the civil disobedience.
Trying to say that all the ones that failed did it wrong instead of realizing that no matter what if you succeed or fail they're only going to elevate the 'right' moments and demonize the 'wrong' ones based on the needs of the ruling class.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men.
There is a VERY VERY small percentage of the population that suffer from a mental disorder where every waking moment of their life revolves around gathering resources and trying to outdo others to the exclusion of everything else ... they also think YOU are insane because you dont do this.
But freedom to do what, is the question? Because American liberals firmly believe in their freedom to exploit others for profit. It’s the socialists who want true freedom, where no one can be exploited.
By definition, liberalism is and always has been an explicitly pro-capitalist ideology, and capitalism is fundamentally based on exploitation. If you are not pro-capitalist, then you are not a liberal in the textbook definition of the word.
Let's see what Merriam Webster, an American Dictionary, says about it, then?
LIBERALISM
1
: inclination to be open to ideas and ways of behaving that are not conventional or traditional
Raised by parents who prided themselves on their liberalism and charity, she was encouraged to romp with her brothers, to succeed in her schooling and to absorb her father's patriotic war stories.—
Susan Reverby
compare conservatism sense 1a
2
a
see usage paragraph below : a political philosophy based on belief in progress and stressing the essential goodness of the human race, freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority, and protection and promotion of political and civil liberties
The second root of modern democracy is liberalism, defined as that set of social and political beliefs, attitudes, and values which assumes the universal and equal application of the law and the existence of basic human rights superior to those of state or community.—
Raymond D. Gastil
Certainly, part of the reason certain newspapers (like this one, founded in 1881) have committed to objectivity is because of a strong, moral commitment to the free exchange of ideas—liberalism, in its classic sense.—
Jack Herrera
especially : such a philosophy calling for the government to play a crucial role in relieving social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class) and in protecting the environment, and often including the aims of social liberalism
Through the commerce clause, courts began giving Congress new powers, opening the way to the programs and policies of mid-century liberalism. —
Louis Menand
b
: a political philosophy based on the belief that freedom of the individual is paramount and that government's role should be largely limited to protecting that freedom : classical liberalism
c
Liberalism : the principles and policies of a Liberal party (see liberal entry 1 sense 1c)
d
: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard (see gold standard sense 1)
Economic liberalism is based on the principles of personal liberty, private property, and limited government interference. The term "liberalism" should be understood in its historical context. Classical liberalism emphasized liberty from government regulation. In the economic context this would include the elimination of restriction on the choice of occupations or transfers of land.—
William Gissy
e
often Liberalism : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity and rejecting the absolute authority of ecclesiastical dogma (see dogma sense 2) in favor of critical interpretation that considers modern ideas and knowledge
The social and intellectual upheaval of the late nineteenth century eventually led to a rupture in Protestantism. Some drifted toward theological liberalism, rejecting historically orthodox beliefs about Jesus's birth, humanity's need for salvation, and other supernatural parts of the Bible; others retrenched and formed the fundamentalist movement.—
Michael Luo
Now, the definition does not at all contain the word "Capital" much less Capitalism or Capitalist, but it does have that Definition D which very closely represents Capitalism except it also says that it opposes the ownership of Land which sounds pretty socialist to me. The reason for this discrepency stems from the fact that Liberalism doesn't oppose Socialism or Communism but rather Liberalism opposes Authoritarianism, and furthermore most Authoritarianisms have masqueraded as Socialist or Communist in modern history.
Global capitalism makes seizing the means of production a global effort no matter where you are, which is why nationalism is main the tool for maintaining capitalism
Yes and the word "unreasonable" underplays how they actually try ro portray it. When some action is called criminal it creates fear. "Unreasonable" not so much.
For five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers (called the Logan Defenders)[6] who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners' attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields when tensions rose between workers and mine management. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[7] and the United States Army, represented by the West Virginia National Guard led by McDowell County native William Eubanks,[8] intervened by presidential order.[9]
In the short term the battle was an overwhelming victory for coal industry owners and management.[52] United Mine Workers of America (UMWA or UMW) membership plummeted from more than 50,000 miners to approximately 10,000 over the next several years, and it was not until 1935—following the Great Depression and the beginning of the New Deal under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt—that the UMW fully organized in southern West Virginia.
This union defeat had major implications for the UMWA as a whole. As World War I ended, the demand for coal declined adversely impacting the industry. [citation needed] Because of the defeat in West Virginia, the union was also undermined in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. By the end of 1925, Illinois was the only remaining unionized state in terms of soft coal production.
So in this example, most of us today would say the riot was justified as the coal miners were seeking safer working conditions under unionization. This riot failed and largely destroyed the union.
So was the riot justified: yes. Did it lead to positive change: no.
The Tulsa race massacre was a two-day-long white supremacist terrorist[13][14] massacre[15] that took place in the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States, between May 31 and June 1, 1921. Mobs of white residents, some of whom had been appointed as deputies and armed by city government officials,[16] attacked black residents and destroyed homes and businesses. The event is considered one of the worst incidents of racial violence in American history.[17][18] The attackers burned and destroyed more than 35 square blocks of the neighborhood—at the time, one of the wealthiest black communities in the United States, colloquially known as "Black Wall Street."[19]
More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals, and as many as 6,000 black residents of Tulsa were interned, many of them for several days.[20][21] The Oklahoma Bureau of Vital Statistics officially recorded 36 dead.[22] The 2001 Tulsa Reparations Coalition examination of events identified 39 dead, 26 black and 13 white, based on contemporary autopsy reports, death certificates, and other records.[23] The commission reported estimates ranging from 36 up to around 300 dead.[24][25]
So in this example most of us today would say the riot was NOT justified as the black residents were just trying to live their lives in peace and prosperity before the white supremacists came in with violence and murder of black residents.
So was the riot justified: no. Did it lead to positive change: no.
The original premise by that poster is questionable as only through the lens of history can we pick out specific riots that lead to positive policy or positive societal change.
The Tulsa massacre is a wild example, because while it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist's goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn't inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn't stop.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we'll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist’s goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn’t inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn’t stop.
I agree with 100% of what you said here. It is an absolute travesty that this occurred at all, but then was hidden from mainstream recorded history for decades.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we’ll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
I wasn't defending the "illegality" argument. I was pointing out that the supposition of the thread post ascribes riots as the primary driver of liberal democracy. I'm pointing out that that is only true if you pick out specific riots and ignore dozens of others that don't support the thesis. Even riots whose outcome could have shaped liberal ideas but didn't like Blair Mountain have to be ignored for the thread post to be true.
I also reject that riots were the only shaping device of liberal democracy in the USA. I would argue FDRs New Deal was a bigger driver of modern liberal democracy than any riot. While the New Deal was certainly influenced by protest from the Bonus Army, but there was no riot from that. Further, the Race Riot of 1943 had occurred in Detroit under FDR's watch, but FDR stayed silent on it and I'm not aware of any changes in policy that occurred because of it though I admit I only know of the riots occurrence and not much more.
You aren't going to win every battle, even if you end up winning the war. And obviously, winning any battle is never a foregone conclusion, but sometimes you have to fight anyway.
Why are you pro-rioting before a massive rally? The regime WANTS a riot so they can engage in massive retaliation. You're literally doing their work for them, get smart.
The regime is currently kidnapping people off the streets and raiding homes.
They do not need pretext. They will manufacture their own regardless of what we do. You are arguing that we should not remove the boot that is currently pressed on our neck.
No I am not. I am arguing a disorganized riot accomplishes nothing and turns the boot into a machete. If your enemy wants you to do something, why are you dead-set on doing it?
They don't want us to; they're perfectly happy killing and kidnapping people without retaliation right now, and know that so long as we never fight back, they can take as long as they want to murder us slowly under the pretext of whatever laws they feel like making up on the spot. We're slaves with a slim chance to escape our inevitable execution, but you're so worried about how hard they'll whip us if we fail that you don't even want to try until it's too late.
The very fact that you're able to march and feel safe enough to not get murdered outright speaks to how you don't understand that other people are already being removed from the equation just for walking through a park in Chicago. A significant amount of people aren't safe enough to leave the house, and you think that we're going to show them our power by peacefully telling the government that's bad as if they aren't aware? When they control the laws and have shown that they willfully change them to suit their agenda, what else will stop them but the fear for their own lives? Who will remove a tyrant from power when all forms of enforcement have already bent the knee to him?
Protests are to warn the government that we're mad and might get violent if ignored. We've been ignored for long enough.
At this point, we aren't living under liberal democracy and a peaceful rally is more illegal and dangerous than rioting was. The point is to not demonize the language of the unheard when few states will have free and fair elections next year.
They do want a riot; that's why they are talking about enacting the Insurrection Act. They want their use of force and illegal tactics to be justified to their base.
98 Comments
taygaloocat@leminal.space · 106 pts · 306d
The Internet has made people too easy to divide and conquer
dublet@lemmy.world · 73 pts · 306d
I'm suddenly reminded of this quote:
-- Douglas Adams in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
xkbx@startrek.website · 22 pts · 306d
Phhh that’s exactly the kind of behaviour I’d expect with a user from leminal.space!
obinice@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 305d
Bahh! Bloody Trekkies stirring the pot as usual, go back to your Spock Base and phase some Vulconions!
falseWhite@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 306d
Clairvoidance@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 70 pts · 306d
Violence isn't the answer!
The answer is.. checks history book
wait not that one.. starts flipping pages
uhh if you hang on a second uhh furious page-flipping
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 64 pts · 306d
Why is this yellowed like it's been in a smokers house for the last 15 years?
justastranger@sh.itjust.works · 30 pts · 305d
Someone spilled water on their phone and now the meme is moldy
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 305d
memes from the 80s
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 305d
40s
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 305d
80s got that 40 years of smoke to get it ripe and yellow
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 305d
Your back hurts too asshole!
lemmyseikai@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 305d
Red light filter?
Screenshots can be affected by the overlay.
The_Decryptor@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 305d
Yep, generation loss is a killer.
Psythik@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 305d
This is why you use your phone's built-in blue light filter, rather than a 3rd party app that just slaps an ugly red hue over your entire screen.
Built-in filters don't show up in screenshots, and more importantly, don't filter pure black, so your OLED screen still looks good with it enabled.
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 305d
some phones dont have a built in blue light filter my old phone didnt have one had to use a 3rd party app
Psythik@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 302d
Last time I saw a phone without built-in blue light filtering was literally a decade ago. It's been a feature in Android since Nougat (7.0)
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 302d
yeah i was not exactly rich so i had to have a severe downgrade
buttnugget@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 305d
I think it’s a picture of a monitor.
Arello@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 304d
Sepia tone is the JPG artifacts of the past
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 52 pts · 306d
Has this been aged? Lol looks like sepia
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 30 pts · 306d
Yes, because it's long been true and people didn't fucking listen. Now my country doesn't even really have liberal democracy, and people are still himing and hawing about disruption being bad and lawbreaking being bad
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 24 pts · 306d
I was just trying to make a pithy joke about the discoloring
Xylight@lemdro.id · 10 pts · 305d
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 305d
Cursed
Mac@mander.xyz · 9 pts · 305d
It's just UV damage from exposure, nbd.
dalekcaan@feddit.nl · 5 pts · 305d
People really need to stop leaving their memes out in the sun.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 41 pts · 306d
Are USians not still working 10 hours day/6 days a week? The USA are usually near the top of the "time worked per week" OECD rankings.
Also, interesting how the poster and first replier have the same avatar. Is that a historical figure?
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 30 pts · 306d
The desperation and work culture of believing we can just slave away into success are what keeps people from rocking the boat. Faith in being able to win the game is how we got here.
stray@pawb.social · 8 pts · 306d
It looks to me like the top post is a screenshot of Twitter, and the two below are on Tumblr. I think they were just sharing their own post. But I don't use either site, so I can't be sure.
Godric@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 306d
How are you referencing the OECD and claiming 60 hour weeks in the same paragraph? If you actually checked the OECD that you reference, you know hours worked is wayyyyyy lower.
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 306d
I would guess he is saying that the hours listed in the OECD, which I think were 1730 per year, is skewed. I wonder if separating rich/middle/poor would yield vastly different results.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 2 pts · 306d
I generally assume that the OECD statistics are underreporting overtime and moonlighting/illicit work wouldn't be included in these statistics anyway, though the latter is probably a bigger issue in poorer countries. Also, it doesn't make a difference between part time work and fulltime work, which greatly diminishes how useful it is for gauging how much a fulltime employee works.
Godric@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 306d
So you're just adding on an extra 25 hours a week to the actual average number based off vibes?
C'mon man :(
merc@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 305d
Yes, Americans are not still working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. (But phrasing things backwards that way is confusing!)
40 hours a week is typical for normal, salaried jobs. But, because union membership is extremely low, some people are pressured into working a lot more than that. Also, some people have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. But, I don't think 6 days a week is at all normal, nor is 10 hours a day.
It's actually the USA that is to thank for the normal work day being only 8 hours. In post-civil-war USA 6 days a week, 10 hours a day was the norm. But, workers in Chicago went on strike on May 1st, demanding an 8 hour day. Their argument was "Eight Hours for work. Eight hours for rest. Eight hours for what we will." They didn't get what they were demanding. Instead the strikers were met by police and Pinkerton violence. Some anarchists in the crowd responded to that police violence by throwing bombs (at least, allegedly). The police responded to the bombs by shooting the crowd. They then rounded up the suspected leaders of the anarchist movement and after incredibly brief show-trials, they hanged them.
It was actually the backlash against the hangings that energized the unions and communists around the world, and although it took years to actually achieve the 8 hour day they demanded. The rest of the world also celebrates a worker day on May 1st as a result of this event. But, of course, in the US, "May Day" is seen as being too close to "communism" so Labor Day is in September instead.
It took decades more to reduce the work week from 6 days to 5. Again this was the result of union pressure.
American workers have lots immense amounts of power since the 1880s. Even if those striking workers were beaten by Pinkertons, they were at least able to organize a general strike.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 305d
This is literally every country.
"OUR REVOLUTIONARIES WERE HEROES"
But also: "Don't y'all even dare thinking about overthrowing the current system. Violence Baaad!"
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 25 pts · 305d
The only reason we have 5 day work weeks, 8 hour workdays, overtime pay, benefits, workplace health/safety/environmental regulations, unions, health care, paid time off, vacations, etc. is because our grandfathers and great-grandfathers busted heads, and got their own heads busted, fighting corporate goons in the streets - and WINNING!
Those heroic workers would be ashamed at what their grandchildren have let the Sociopathic Oligarchs have done to America. They fought hard to keep those psychopaths under control, and we not only let them up, we helped them take full power.
NotACIAPlant@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 305d
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 304d
Except that in the end, we still have the 8 hour workday/ 40 hour work week, overtime, benefits, etc. None of those things existed before the labor riots, so things didn't get rolled back as much as you claim, and the most important ones stuck permanently.
The Labor Riots were extremely successful, and completely reconfigured the American workplace for the rest of the century, and beyond. MAGA wants to revert to the old days.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 304d
Yup. Poor MAGA thinks they'll get 2 hour work weeks if they went back to the good old days.
The truth is that they whites will all be working the fields again without holiday, cheap medical aid, and so on.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 304d
A lot of them think they'll be slave owners again. I'm sure there are a few yokels who think the day is coming when they can just go grab the nearest black neighbor and declare him their property, and force him to get to work in the fields. After all, that was the original reason those Africans CHOSE to come to America ILLEGALLY right?
Well, he's got a trailer, so maybe he just makes his new slave pick up the house, make the bed, and wash the truck.
NotACIAPlant@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 304d
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 304d
Yeah, corrupt corporations are exploiting the system, with the help of the corrupt government. What's new? The fact still remains that the work environment we generally accept as normal, was created by those Labor Riots, and we are still better off for them. Even if MAGA manages to roll back the workplace environment to the 19th century, they will always have to compete with the memory of America's peak, and will look bad in comparison.
NotACIAPlant@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 304d
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 304d
You are stuck on your biases, and can't even consider the idea that labor issues were terrible in the 19th C/ early 20th C, and it was labor riots in the second quarter of the century that ended the old way, and began a new workplace environment. It is definitely not perfect, but it's far better than it once was, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Dasus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 304d
Those are quickly being eroded by privatisation though
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 25 pts · 306d
The State only respects power. If a group of people show that they have more power than the State, change can happen. However, what is power?
Power comes in many different forms.
There is economic power which is showcased through strikes and boycotts.
There is democratic power which is showcased through the ballot box.
There is soft power which is showcased through the lobbying, and speeches.
There is non-violet power which is showcased through protests, marches, and sit ins.
There is violent power which is showcased through physical violence such riots.
While, the populace has access to many different forms of power. The State is limited to either soft power or violent power. Depending on the State, soft power might not even be contemplated.
Riots are just one form of power for the populace to exercise.
korazail@lemmy.myserv.one · 1 pts · 305d
This feels really insightful, and I wonder if there is a source other than ShaggySnacks.
Can anyone expand on or contradict this comment? I honestly want to hang it in my house so my children can see it and understand they power they have.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 305d
Sadly, no source. It's something I've observed. I can't recall any time a State changed it's position on an issue simply because it was the moral thing to do.
There are other forms of power such as legal (using the Courts), culture, morality, etc.
The examples above aren't exhaustive, for example having allies in the State does help with change, which is means running for office in an a democratic system.
blindbunny@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 306d
Remember to thank your local anarchist for the 8 hour work day.
echodot@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 305d
Personally I wish they'd rioted a bit more because frankly I'm usually done by about 1:00 p.m.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 305d
I'd say it was more the union organizers than the anarchists. There was a lot of overlap. But not all labour organizers were anarchists. It could even be argued that the anarchists hurt the movement more than they helped it. Some of the anarchists like August Spies were attempting to disrupt the status quo, but were trying to do it relatively non-violently. He even refused to show up to speak at the rally if workers were told to arm themselves. On the other hand, August Spies was part of the labour/anarchist movement that wore military uniforms and marched around with muskets, so it wasn't like he was completely non-violent. Around the time of the Haymarket affair though, he was less radical than some of the anarchists, who were expressly violent and wanted to start a revolution using bombs and guns.
The fact someone threw a bomb gave the police the excuse to crack down on the anarchists. The crackdown prevented the aims of the protesters from being achieved. But, the fact that the justice system hanged the anarchist leaders led to them being seen as martyrs. That made them famous, which made May Day famous, which eventually did help lead to the 8 hour work day. Would the 8 hour work day have been achieved faster without the bomb being thrown? It's hard to know. The immediate result was a major setback for the cause, but the long-term result of the overreaction to that bombing was a contributing factor to the 8-hour workday eventually being achieved.
BogeyTheSwear@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 305d
Dude! You need a YouTube channel.
buttnugget@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 305d
I think it’s worth pointing out that calling these riots isn’t really appropriate. When we think of riots, we think of unfocused, unplanned, unmanaged, etc. Highly organized protests sometimes wind up turning into riots because capitalists use violence, but it’s not the norm.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 305d
Labor movements in the 19 th and early 20th centuries also literally organized riots, where the express purpose was to destroy property. It used to be a legitimate protest strategy against the owning class.
korazail@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 305d
Super This:
Organized, non-violent protests are not riots. They are people, in mass, using their freedom of speech to complain about something.
A common issue is that some people, either within the protest group, or outside instigators, will then prod the protest into violence in order to discredit it. Two examples:
It's important that if you are involved in a protest that you stay calm despite what is thrown your way. The protest is the message and fighting back during that event is only harming your message. Please do things like capture pictures/videos of people inciting violence, of police using crowd control on peaceful protesters, of generic unfair treatment; but during that event, the goal is to be calm. Afterwards, you can take all your grievances to the medias. If you've been harmed during a protest, find a lawyer -- many will work pro-bono for cases like this and if your first pick doesn't... fuck 'em: Name and shame -- and then fight back after the event, when you have legal standing.
Your grievances are real. Your pain is real. The people in power will use every trick to discredit your issues. Don't give them ammo.
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz · 14 pts · 306d
did you find this post in a bottle on the beach
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 306d
basically 😔
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 306d
Funnily enough there's a very similar situation to the US that's going on in Serbia, where a canopy falling and killing a bunch of people due to government cheapening out led to lots of outrage and exploded into a massive student movement against the president due to corruption, election rigging, suppression of dissent and executive branch abuse.
At first, they did peaceful protests, blocked roads and all that jazz constantly, but after seeing that it had led them literally nowhere (they got nothing except for a fake concession that was some minister resigning) except on getting arrested and beaten up in jails, they decided to give a green light to civil disobedience, violence, trashing ruling party's headquarters all over the country.
What did this escalation result in? A whole load of nothing except cracked skulls, mostly for the students.
If you're looking at reformism 'fixing' things during the course of history, civil disobedience the vast majority if not all of the time was noise. What eventually got implemented or changed wasn't because the ruling class got scared, but because they were either getting major gains in terms of compromise as a result of the reform, or the reform itself was beneficial to their interests and only a small minority didn't want them to pass.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 305d
So, in your opinion the woman's suffrage movement, or LGBTQ activism, for example, were just wastes of time? These people didn't need to do or say anything since the bourgeoisie were about to give them everything they wanted anyway?
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 305d
If they held no benefit to the ruling class, then no. LGBT opens up more industry focused on identity (via pride merch, medical needs) which means more profitable industry for bourgeois, while women's suffrage legitimizes capital's rule further by allowing more people to vote + liberates capitalist women which is what bourgeois feminism is primarily about.
Whether these reforms would have happened without the noise though, can't really say - there's no mirror that looks into alternate realities. Still, these kinds of reformist mass movements are usually a result of bourgeois infighting, not some spontaneous working class action - just look at who organizes and funds them.
Thats not to say liberal working class are idiots for joining them and acting as footsoldiers, no - there are definitely benefits to be had for one's identity no matter the class, like in the case of LGBT, but the things won aren't full-on liberation, just specific compromises that are capital-friendly(women getting voting rights but still being discriminated against to encourage births/staying at home and raising more workers, LGBT getting essentially bare minimum recognition and care to be sold merch but not enough to significantly attack the traditional family for child-raising). Therefore, true liberation can only happen via the abolishment of the class society, else it's gonna be endless compromises that miss the mark.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 305d
I think workers should own their workplaces but tbh I don't see that by itself automatically fixing all forms of prejudice and discrimination. Certainly not on a personal level, but probably not even at a systemic level either. Though I agree that the present conditions definitely forment reactionary thought.
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 305d
Yeah it won't, because commodity production, markets, accumulative money and therefore capital won't be abolished, meaning that the incentives to oppress certain groups of people for growth will remain.
Only after we overcome the production for profit model and replace it with production to satisfy people's needs will capital fully be replaced and dead, removing any incentives to discriminate (aka systemic discrimination). Will it change prejudices that people have immediately? No, but it will certainly disappear over time given how the central source of these prejudices is now abolished + a revolution and development like that is only possible in a class conscious society which produces solidarity with other workers no matter their features (USSR is a good example of this when looking at Oct Revolution - women were viewed as fellow comrades, led the charge on most influential mass protests, and once revolution happened they got a ton of systemic freedom in terms of abortion rights and legal autonomy, while the rest of the western world was still on legal guardianship).
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 306d
To give a bit of hope to the liberals in the US though, what's happening there isn't new and the state of things from before (as in liberal democracy functioning normally) is going to sooner and later return, it's a cycle that happens every now and again due to falling rate of profit, crisis and rise of reaction that happens as a result.
Eventually, liberal capitalists will start fighting the conservative capitalists to get their place in the sun again, maybe it's going to happen electorally or maybe there's going to be a slaughter of millions of workers in the name of liberal democracy or anti-fascism, after which wholesome democracy will reign supreme once again and the countdown towards another crisis and rise of reaction will start once again. Isn't that lovely?
zululove@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 304d
Woe to the vanquished !!
the names of our heros, and our defiers, will last forever !!
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 305d
The most sociopatic "winners" of the current system will always laud whatever was done to establish the system in which they get so much and decry anything that might overthrow or even meaningfully change that system.
Those who have a more empathic view of things, even when they too are considered "winners", have a different posture if they think the current system isn't working well for most people because they don't think only about personal upside maximization at any cost for the rest.
As it so happens, caring for more than just "me, me, me" is what distinguishes leftwingers from rightwingers.
So this is a great way to spot fake leftwingers in or seeking positions of power and wealth: no matter how "progressive" their words are in general, when it comes to the current system they'll display exactly this kind of hypocrisy of being against any kind of actions that will change the current system whilst lauding the very same kind of actions when they installed the current system, since their one true drive is "What's in it for me", a rightwinger's motivation.
danielton1@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 306d
Funny how it's getting harder and harder to find a job in the US that isn't 10-12 hours a day, six days a week.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 305d
It's hard to finda a job period right now, and mass unemployment is always so productive to stability and peace.
danielton1@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 305d
Yeah, we're definitely going backwards. Americans blame the unions and worship the billionaires and politicians that are making everything worse.
BC_viper@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 305d
Violence is the only answer, and until youre ready for that nothing will change. Extreme violence is the only answer.
Aljernon@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 305d
Not entirely. As they say, there's a different between being peaceful and being harmless. Sometimes the threat or implication of violence is just as or more effective.
jsomae@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 306d
This state of affairs is not especially surprising -- if it were the popular belief that violence is justified to change society in some particular way, then society would already be changed in that way. Just like how no stock on the market can be widely seen as undervalued.
This is why class consciousness is important.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 306d
It's also why it's vital to meet people where they are. Propaganda that works often begins not with big ideas but targeting emotions and one's perception of their everyday life, and if you aren't engaging in propaganda then your opponent who is is defining the narrative unopposed
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 306d
Civil disobedience for the sake of it is just stupid. When we retroactively look at civil disobedience in history, we intentionally filter out the vast majority and just highlight the few examples that we're done in ethical ways, for the right causes, and achieved results. Civil disobedience is not a virtue nor is it uncommon. What actually matters are the motivations, principles, and methods used behind the civil disobedience.
its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 20 pts · 306d
Trying to say that all the ones that failed did it wrong instead of realizing that no matter what if you succeed or fail they're only going to elevate the 'right' moments and demonize the 'wrong' ones based on the needs of the ruling class.
Notyou@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 305d
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 306d
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 306d
There is a VERY VERY small percentage of the population that suffer from a mental disorder where every waking moment of their life revolves around gathering resources and trying to outdo others to the exclusion of everything else ... they also think YOU are insane because you dont do this.
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 305d
plyth@feddit.org · 6 pts · 306d
You can't, but yes they can.
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 305d
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 305d
In America the word Liberal doesn't refer to a group or party but the definition of the word.
"Advocates of human rights, freedom, and civil liberties, so long those freedoms do not infringe upon others'."
To stand against that is idiocy on par with the GOP.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 305d
But freedom to do what, is the question? Because American liberals firmly believe in their freedom to exploit others for profit. It’s the socialists who want true freedom, where no one can be exploited.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 304d
If you're not infringing upon others rights, health, and safety then I truely do not give a fuck. Right to bodily autonomy, right to die, you name it.
I am an American Liberal. What you said is not what we believe.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 304d
By definition, liberalism is and always has been an explicitly pro-capitalist ideology, and capitalism is fundamentally based on exploitation. If you are not pro-capitalist, then you are not a liberal in the textbook definition of the word.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 304d
Let's see what Merriam Webster, an American Dictionary, says about it, then?
Now, the definition does not at all contain the word "Capital" much less Capitalism or Capitalist, but it does have that Definition D which very closely represents Capitalism except it also says that it opposes the ownership of Land which sounds pretty socialist to me. The reason for this discrepency stems from the fact that Liberalism doesn't oppose Socialism or Communism but rather Liberalism opposes Authoritarianism, and furthermore most Authoritarianisms have masqueraded as Socialist or Communist in modern history.
Quadhammer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 304d
This guy gets it
echodot@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 305d
You've got to seize the means of production, of course in the US that means getting on a plane.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 305d
Global capitalism makes seizing the means of production a global effort no matter where you are, which is why nationalism is main the tool for maintaining capitalism
Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 305d
Which is why we will always need heroes.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 305d
unreasonable? it is generally categorized as criminal
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 305d
and being trans can make you a criminal; what's your point?
iAvicenna@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 304d
my point it is not labelled as only unreasonable, it is actually labelled as criminal
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 304d
That's the point. These actions are criminal and demonized, but undoubtedly necessary for us having rights at all.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 304d
Yes and the word "unreasonable" underplays how they actually try ro portray it. When some action is called criminal it creates fear. "Unreasonable" not so much.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 305d
partial_accumen@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 306d
The response by quasi-normalcy reads like a cherry picked simplification to lead to a likely incorrect conclusion.
The statements suggest all (or most) riots:
Here are some examples:
Battle of Blair Mountain
So in this example, most of us today would say the riot was justified as the coal miners were seeking safer working conditions under unionization. This riot failed and largely destroyed the union.
So was the riot justified: yes. Did it lead to positive change: no.
Tulsa race massacre aka Tulsa riot
So in this example most of us today would say the riot was NOT justified as the black residents were just trying to live their lives in peace and prosperity before the white supremacists came in with violence and murder of black residents.
So was the riot justified: no. Did it lead to positive change: no.
The original premise by that poster is questionable as only through the lens of history can we pick out specific riots that lead to positive policy or positive societal change.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 305d
The Tulsa massacre is a wild example, because while it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist's goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn't inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn't stop.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we'll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 305d
I agree with 100% of what you said here. It is an absolute travesty that this occurred at all, but then was hidden from mainstream recorded history for decades.
I wasn't defending the "illegality" argument. I was pointing out that the supposition of the thread post ascribes riots as the primary driver of liberal democracy. I'm pointing out that that is only true if you pick out specific riots and ignore dozens of others that don't support the thesis. Even riots whose outcome could have shaped liberal ideas but didn't like Blair Mountain have to be ignored for the thread post to be true.
I also reject that riots were the only shaping device of liberal democracy in the USA. I would argue FDRs New Deal was a bigger driver of modern liberal democracy than any riot. While the New Deal was certainly influenced by protest from the Bonus Army, but there was no riot from that. Further, the Race Riot of 1943 had occurred in Detroit under FDR's watch, but FDR stayed silent on it and I'm not aware of any changes in policy that occurred because of it though I admit I only know of the riots occurrence and not much more.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 306d
You aren't going to win every battle, even if you end up winning the war. And obviously, winning any battle is never a foregone conclusion, but sometimes you have to fight anyway.
Godric@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 306d
Why are you pro-rioting before a massive rally? The regime WANTS a riot so they can engage in massive retaliation. You're literally doing their work for them, get smart.
djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 21 pts · 306d
The regime is currently kidnapping people off the streets and raiding homes.
They do not need pretext. They will manufacture their own regardless of what we do. You are arguing that we should not remove the boot that is currently pressed on our neck.
Godric@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d
No I am not. I am arguing a disorganized riot accomplishes nothing and turns the boot into a machete. If your enemy wants you to do something, why are you dead-set on doing it?
Signtist@bookwyr.me · 11 pts · 306d
They don't want us to; they're perfectly happy killing and kidnapping people without retaliation right now, and know that so long as we never fight back, they can take as long as they want to murder us slowly under the pretext of whatever laws they feel like making up on the spot. We're slaves with a slim chance to escape our inevitable execution, but you're so worried about how hard they'll whip us if we fail that you don't even want to try until it's too late.
The very fact that you're able to march and feel safe enough to not get murdered outright speaks to how you don't understand that other people are already being removed from the equation just for walking through a park in Chicago. A significant amount of people aren't safe enough to leave the house, and you think that we're going to show them our power by peacefully telling the government that's bad as if they aren't aware? When they control the laws and have shown that they willfully change them to suit their agenda, what else will stop them but the fear for their own lives? Who will remove a tyrant from power when all forms of enforcement have already bent the knee to him?
Protests are to warn the government that we're mad and might get violent if ignored. We've been ignored for long enough.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 306d
At this point, we aren't living under liberal democracy and a peaceful rally is more illegal and dangerous than rioting was. The point is to not demonize the language of the unheard when few states will have free and fair elections next year.
M1ch431@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 306d
They do want a riot; that's why they are talking about enacting the Insurrection Act. They want their use of force and illegal tactics to be justified to their base.
irelephant@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 306d