1326
Praxis (europe.pub)
submitted 1 week ago* by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
203 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Praxis
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Firebombing a single building does nothing. You need coordinated violence with a massive group of people. Things that many tend to write off as "riots" like the 2020 BLM protests. My problem is never with voting, but it's with people who tell everyone to use every tool and refuse to use political violence. Why is it ok to refuse to use 1 tool, but not the other? Both are completely necessary to achieve the end goal desired. We should be seeing more Luigis and Tyler Robinsons at the very least every month instead of telling everyone that peaceful protests and a bit of community outreach is the only things worth doing outside of election time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Why is it ok to refuse to use 1 tool, but not the other?

    I think it's okay that some of us want to exercise our rights but draw the line at breaking the law.

    If you want to blow up (or even give up) your own life for the cause, that's your choice. It's not mine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    And some people draw the line at supporting candidates that don't support human rights or support Israel, yet that one gets you yelled at and told "we have to use every tool available".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The partisan purity tests on the left are a big part of the reason why Republicans keep winning general elections.

    Republican policies are bad for anyone who isn't rich. Their party is literally promoting fascism at this point. But somehow the fact that a Democrat isn't 100% what you want them to be means you should stay at home and not vote?

    Be advised that the thing Republican voters are best at is falling in line. They will vote for a candidate they actively hate ... as long as that candidate has an R next to their name on the ballot.

    The time for purity tests is the primary. Vote for non-AIPAC, pro-trans candidates then. Cast your ballot for the person who best represents your interests. Actively campaign for them and convince everyone you meet to vote for them.

    But in a general election, if you refuse to vote because you don't like the Democrat (with whom you agree on 80% of issues), you're ceding the choice of representative for your state or district to the people who will vote Republican no matter what. And I doubt you will agree with even half of that person's votes.

    You might feel like you've done something valuable and righteous, but all you've really done on a practical level is make it easier for the right-wing candidate to win a majority.

    Even if you're not enthusiastic about voting for the Democrat, you can feel good about voting against the Republican.

    I haven't been excited about voting for a lot of people in my life, but I am still quite proud of the fact that my vote helped a dead man beat John Ashcroft for a seat in the Senate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Also, even for those who only care about 1 issue (whether Gaza or Trans rights or something else), it’s important to have some sense of nuance on that issue and not frame it in completely black-and-white terms. Chances are that a given AIPAC Democrat candidate is less hostile to Palestinians than their Republican opponent, or that an anti-trans Democrat on the wrong side of trans sports and bathroom issues is running against a Republican that wants trans folk jailed or killed. The Democrats are far, far from perfect, but they are still better than the Republicans on every single issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    But that's never how it fucking works out! You refuse to use the one tool that most people can use with very little effort, time, cost and risk. Then, you DON'T USE ANYTHING FUCKING ELSE!!!!!

    I'm absolutely fine with firebombing walmarts or whatever else violence is needed. I'm not naive enough to believe voting alone will get us all the way. But I'm also not stupid enough to believe any of you fucks actually do shit. You fucking never do!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    My problem is never with voting, but it's with people who tell everyone to use every tool and refuse to use political violence. Why is it ok to refuse to use 1 tool, but not the other?

    Devil's advocate-- Trump is provoking the public so he could invoke the Insurrection Act and legitimise the use of violence to purge any opposition.

    There has already been numerous instances of violations of constitution and civil rights, but where does the public draw the line? I don't know, but I think the test will be the midterms on whether or not Trump will rig it. Or, if not the midterms, wait in two years if he doesn't want to step down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    You can use the logic of "they're just waiting for us to get violent so they can oppress us harder" all the way to the camps.

    Not saying you're necessarily wrong about the insurrection act but if he was really trying to do it he would whether someone really did it or not. I mean he's already been shot at. Hes got the false grounds to go for it.

    Unfortunately you're batting for the other side. All they want to do is throw out any reason they can to keep the status quo of non violence so they can continue to steamroll forward. Because the secret is that they're fragile. It's not a majority of the population that's doing this, it's a very small minority with a slightly larger minority supporting it and a vast majority saying "well don't get too rowdy yet, that's what they want."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Trump wasn't even elected on the second term when he was shot at so he doesn't have the grounds to invoke the Insurrection Act. But now as the president, he can't use that prior incident. He's waiting for any excuses to invoke the act as incumbent president.

    It's not a majority of the population that's doing this, it's a very small minority with a slightly larger minority supporting it and a vast majority saying "well don't get too rowdy yet, that's what they want."

    Everyone seem to have forgotten about last year when people talked about raising arms in response to the brutal ICE abuse, and the government floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act. The government did tone down the raids and scapegoated Gregory Bovino, but in any case, are people really willing to be martyrs and raise arms next time around if it's brought up again?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •