Politics

889 readers

390 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

112

Saturday, Oct. 18th - No Kings 2- Unveils a Big New Trump Protest, and the Stakes Couldn't Be Higher (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 2 days ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

No Kings 2 is being organized by a big tent of grassroots and advocacy organizations. One of the most prominent players is Indivisible, the activist group that sprang to life in the early days of the first Trump administration, and which now counts 2,500 distributed, local chapters nationwide.

Rolling Stone spoke to Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin last week, in advance of No Kings 2 unveiling today. The protest is planned for Oct. 18 — in the aftermath of an unpredictable showdown over government funding that could lead to a partial government shutdown by the end of the month.

I expect No Kings 2 to be the largest protest of the year. We had 5 to 6 million people across 2,169 communities turn out for No Kings 1. It was wildly successful. People who might have been on the sidelines for No Kings 1 probably had some FOMO. And the good news is: We’re doing it again. We’re going to pull out even more people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let's go through this one by one.

What about the rest of the civil rights movement? The struggle for civil rights involved dozens if not hundreds of groups both peaceful and violent, and all of them contributed to the eventual success/"success" of the movement. Also I should note that desegregation was gained via a court case, not (just) protest. For one prominent instance of violence in the civil rights movement, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots

Women's suffrage in America was for the most part peaceful, but it was also not something the elites had any reason to oppose. This is an apples to oranges comparison. In Britain, where the elites were more intent on resisting women's suffrage, things got pretty gnarly.

Ths Delano Grape Strike (not boycott) is not relevant due to the government not being involved one way or the other. Also note that the reason the strike remained mostly peaceful was because the (very much violent) labor rights movement had given them the right to not be shot by private militias. The violence necessary for the strike to succeed had simply been outsourced to the past.

Weren't we talking about American liberties here?

See above, but also the Indian independence movement was kickstarted by a violent uprising.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So "most" was incorrect on my part. Litigation and legislation play big parts. I'm not ignoring that physically fighting back has played its part. My point was to not to throw peaceful protests under the bus.

The Delano Grape Strike is perfectly relevant. Who cares if it's against a brutal government or a brutal corporation?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 15 hours ago

My point was to not to throw peaceful protests under the bus.

I'm not; I'm throwing peaceful parades under the bus. Effective peaceful protests need to disrupt authoritarianism and directly challenge the regime's authority. I won't deny the effectiveness of tactics such as those used by Gandhi or MLK, but I see none of that happening in America.

Who cares if it's against a brutal government or a brutal corporation?

One is able to use near-unfettered violence to achieve its aims while the other can't; that's a big difference. Also you can boycott one but not the other (unless you're willing to back up your boycott using violence, due to the prior point).