c/flippanarchy · by A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 108dNo compromise >:( 231 points · 12 comments · view on lemmy.world
12 Comments
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 108d
Protests are meant to be disruptive
Small_Quasar@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 108d
The status quo is a helluva drug.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 108d
Protests aren't compromises?
A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 108d
no
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 108d
Oh. I kind of thought they were. Stupid history books.
WraithGear@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 107d
congrats you are the victim of white washed history
unless your meaning is that protests are the warning that violence come next, then yes you are right
icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 107d
MJKee9@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 107d
The only difference between a stick holding a protest sign and a mighty fine stabin' stick are a few minutes of whittling....
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 107d
That's just not true. Most signs you'll use for a protest sign are soft wood, unvarnished, unlubricated, and not much more than a meter long.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 107d
Do centrists actually enjoy having rights? They keep giving them up
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 107d
No one has ever earned anything by refusing to do something. You earn things by doing something else instead.
Without doing something else instead, refusal doesn't accomplish anything.
gnufuu@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 107d
Isn't this just semantics? Aren't there plenty of examples where refusing to work, eat, obey, ignore, etc. has achieved something?
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 107d
Not really, it was the negotiations and demands around those refusals. I object to any viewpoint that implies inaction itself is somehow revolutionary.