Liberals right now...
Liberals right now...


Liberals right now...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
I'm not familiar with the bottom three so I can't speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I'm sure you know because it's brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.
Mandela was also literally the head of a paramilitary revolutionary force
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it's probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust
Mandela led the ANC, hardly a peaceful movement. Heard of necklacing?
The dissolution of the Soviet Union came paired with a shelling of parliament. Hardly a peaceful act. Bonus fact: they held two referanda, one for the baltic member states early in the year, and one for the remainder. The Baltic states voted to dissolve, and they left. The outcome of the second referendum was that by and large, people wanted the Soviet Union to remain intact. This was ignored, and parliament shelled.
The ousting of Pinochet involved assassination attempts on Pinochet. Maybe they were peaceful assassination attempts, so I gotta hand this one to you.
Mentioning Ghandi and pretending the uprising of 1857, which inspired and propelled forward the movement for independence (including Ghandi), never happened is deeply dishonest, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives for the cause.
MLK jr., much like Ghandi, was paired with violent methods as well. Ignoring their contributions is ahistorical.
I'm assuming you're using "etc etc etc" (etc) to mean "I can't think of any other examples, erroneous or otherwise", so I'll do the same:
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
This one was only made possible after war was fought 100 years prior
This one came about as the final straw in the British Empire's back that was started off by the American Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
This one was was caused by the USSR suffering multiple setbacks after its war in Afghanistan, multiple proxy wars (e.g., Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War; the Angolan Civil War; Somalia and Etheopia; Nigerian Civil War; etc.), putting down attempts at reform in the eastern bloc (Praque Spring the Polish Crisis), the massive unrest that had plain-clothes secret-police beating protesters just before the Berlin Wall fell, a violent revolution in Romania, and the August Coup failed.
Yes, but a radical flank made the proposals of non-violent activists much more appealing in some of those historical examples.
Remember when the founding fathers held a peaceful protest in Boston and the British were like, "Woah, we better Bach the fuck up"?
Yeah, you don't fuck with Bach. If it was Beethoven, we wouldn't have stood a chance.
It was peaceful? I mean, it has party in the name, not massacre. Also, it led to the revolution over time and gathered more and more people.
Disguised as Native Americans the night of December 16, 1773, Sons of Liberty activists boarded the Dartmouth, a British ship that had docked in Boston carrying a major shipment of East India Company tea, and set about throwing 342 chests of the tea into Boston Harbor. The British government considered the protest an act of treason and responded harshly.[3] Nine days later, on December 25, at the Philadelphia Tea Party, American patriots similarly protested the arrival of a British tea shipment, which arrived aboard the British ship Polly. While the Philadelphia patriot activists did not destroy the tea, they sent the ship back to England without unloading it.
In addition to proving one of the most influential events of the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party has proved an enduring historical symbol. In the 21st century, drawing inspiration from the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party in 1773, the Tea Party movement drew its name from it and has frequently cited the principles associated with it and the broader American Revolution as inspirational and guiding principles.
So if some random group comes in your home and throws all your stuff outside in the rain to destroy it, According to you they are being peaceful? Very peaceful behavior, Indeed.
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.
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
How did they work? ICE is still in my neighborhood snatching people up
They're fucking brainwashed. They equate just protesting with some victory in their heads. No matter how small, every protest is some achievement
Hmmmm, I wonder why....
Most GOP lawmakers plan to skip Trump’s big parade
Could it be from booing in their town halls and a huge nationwide protest?
So because there isn't immediate visible change, they aren't effective?
The need for immediate gratification works to the favor of the authoritarian.
This administration already called in the national guard for a peaceful protest. Do you think that it will stop here and the they will not continue to commit more and more violence against peaceful protestors until we reach a breaking point and have to start defending ourselves?
Or are we supposed to allow ourselves to become martyrs and die before we fight back against those that would see us dead.
It stayed peaceful. What do you think will happen if you open carry? Are you trying to get people killed?
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts
This is misleading. Nonviolent resistance is obviously going to be more likely to succeed because armed conflict only happens when the government digs in its heels after the nonviolent resistance. What? Did you want Syrians to nonviolently resist Assad's Sarin gas?
This administration wants this.
This administration wants people not to resist them. Failing that people resisting them verbally but in no practical manner will do just fine.
That's not working. Just talking about it isn't an accomplishment. Fuck
Especially with palintir spreading misinformation through reddit
You and I have different metrics for "success"
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.
we shouldn't be waiting for violence to find us. it needs to find them.
Liberals be like "But what about the law??"
Our species has spun its collective wheels for millenia because people broadly think someone or something is in charge. Thinking people believe there's some kind of objective good, a rule-of-law. Non-thinking people think there's a ruling power, a human system of hierarchy that all beings must submit to. The purely reactionary, emotionally-leashed bottom of the barrel believe in supernatural forces like God or Lizard People pulling strings from the shadows.
I sometimes wonder how much progress we could make as a species if we all just suddenly woke up with the deep and unshakable knowledge that nobody is coming.
Would we take care of things better? Would we collectively work to build that ruling power or would human minds break at the very notion of real agency and just rip each others' throats out?
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.
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 in America the police have already been shooting and killing us - without repercussions - for years. The weapons they're using on protesters right now are called "less lethal" for good reason.
How many killing shots do the police need to take before we can take one? Should we just wait until the first murder at each city, or at each individual protest within each city, or until we see one personally?
The only time I can think of where the army and police killed protestors was during the Vietnam war, and those incidents further delegitimised US involvement in Vietnam.
The weapons they're using on protesters right now are called "less lethal" for good reason.
They are being used for decades now. It is not unique to the current LA protests.
I think Gene Sharp characterized it nicely in his essay, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Notably, this essay has been cited as a major influence on the Arab Spring uprisings, so it's especially relevant to the Syrian protests.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you're at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?
If violence is off the table, the state is free to apply violence.
Syrian rebels, the guys who ended up joining ISIS and Al Nusra, had your sympathy because the media told you they were angels fighting for freedom the right and proper way.
People soured on the French revolution because it turned on its base of support once the bourgeois made the progress that benefitted them, and further progress was against their interest.
You do realise there are other Syrian rebel factions?
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.
That's not a problem, that's why it will work. They are scared to death, and we have not made an example of any of them. Yet.
BTW, Democratic politicians in Missouri were assassinated this morning
By "someone dressed up like a cop" as the media put it. Which I guess is newspeak for just "a cop".
the police conduct “an extensive manhunt involving hundreds and hundreds of assessors and SWAT teams,”
Wow.
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.
To be fair, so was Malcolm X
...after he turned away from violence
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.
Stop giving a shit about what is illegal. It was made illegal because it was effective. The establishment doesn't want you to be effective.
if I'm detained I'm not getting arrainged and released, im getting deported and never seeing my daughters again
or maybe end up in an Salvadorian prison
If the punishment for breaking a rule is a fine, then it's not a rule meant to help people, it's meant to give the wealthy power to do what they want.
My city's municipal code forbids dangerous items...like helmets, armor, gas masks, impact masks, social distancing masks, disguise masks, shields, umbrellas, signs that are durable enough to protect against inclement conditions, and more. To say the least, I decided to just abandon the notion of law concerning such things.
These rules are plainly designed to favor bullies. I can understand (reciprocal) restrictions on firearms, but you can't tell me that eye protection or ballistic armor isn't a good thing for peaceful protest. A reporter got shot by a fucker in the back, for having the temerity of doing her job!
Isn’t that what truckers tried to do a few years ago?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/us/trucker-convoy-protest-washington-dc/index.html
This liberal will be fucking armed and on target tomorrow. Do with that information what you will.
Americans kill nazis.
Laudable but illiberal means. Good on you.
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.
Someone finally gets it. But get this. All that gun control is literally helping the other side Dems are helping the auth regime and voters are too dumb to have that epiphany.
All WHAT "gun control"? My sibling in Christ, do you perceive there to be insufficient access to guns in america?! Really?
Disagree. More gun control would make the sides more even.
Guys please, whatever you do, do NOT throw water balloons filled with liquid ass at ICE, that would be a REALLY bad idea...
God, I can hear these guys having this conversation in that lilting Kiwi accent. This is exactly the sort of absurdity they used to lampoon.
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.
You guys really don't get it.
There is no scenario where they won't blame this on everyone but themselves. It does not matter. Their end goal is violence. Full stop.
Fascists only relent when they are met with direct physical force. They will not move until they are afraid for their lives.
Hard disagree. He’s not afraid for his life. Far from it. Notice how exposed he left himself yesterday during his parade and that was all after his so called ‘assassination attempt’ where his ear magically mended within hours
He will double down where he can. The only thing that is stopping him going full swing is the federal arm right now.
Mark Esper book A Sacred Oath. He’s baiting the dems hard so he can get what he wants and that’s a free ticket to kill dems on sight. If it makes him look a victim that only makes him look lis a martyr to his MAGA crew which will only make them think it’s justified violence.
Don’t justify it.
They are killing us anyway.
Die ad democratic politicians, sherrifs telling protesters "we are gonna shoot all of you" or something like that. Violence is already there, it's just that one side uses it and the other doesn't.
https://youtube.com/shorts/tsJHV0mwTVE
Very interesting.
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.
in the grand scheme of world history, a hell of a lot more has gotten done with violence than without.
You obviously haven’t seen the litigation tracker for this particular regime. Lots has been happening.
Going violent is what trump has been baiting for. He’s looking for a reason. Don’t feed the troll king.
Aren't the libs fighting back now in LA
No
Huh, I didn't know it was one-sided from the fascists. Self defense is totally ok against it
I'm just waiting for the moment that shots are fired by one side or the other, because once that line is crossed we can finally get real change.
https://anarchistnews.org/content/hostages-gun-militancy-and-militarism
Also @Mubelotix@jlai.lu
Look at what Chile achieved without firearms in 2019:
https://itsgoingdown.org/submedia-presents-interrebellium-the-estallido-social/
if we are not prepared to run things differently, they won't. Destruction is not enough
There are some amongst us who already have plans for how to run things once the revolution is over.
I get what you mean but you shouldn't be waiting
I'm not merely waiting, I am preparing, arming myself, for the day when the revolution begins.
Dont we all wish magic was real?
But it would really be amazing if the fighting WOULD stop. Even for a little while. We've all been at the breaking point for a long time (liberal, republican, and everyone in between). We are all paranoid about so many different things and suspicious of our own government.
While the meme is just a silly joke, magic would be nice.
We could have just voted for Harris last year and things would be pretty good right now.
Good? No. People would still be struggling financially and deeply unhappy. Better than now? God yes
Imo. this is actually better in the long run.
People are waking up to the reality of the US deeply rooted problems. People are starting to challenge the oligarchy.
Under Harris we would have had four more years of "centrists" gaslighting progressives for wanting a livable minimum standard of life and Trumpism would have swung back even harder after.
Trump is a syptom of the system that the Republicand and Democrats maintain to exploit the people for the oligarchy.
There will be no political solution until the people take back at least one party from the oligarchy. And even now Democrat party elites are fighting tooth and nails to prevent that, instead siding with Trump over various issues.
Yes because she was going to defund ICE right? RIGHT?
That’s not the gotcha you think it is.
She might not have been perfect but she’d be a lot better than what we have.
You said the same thing about voting for Biden in 2020.
He got us out of a pretty dire situation into a decent one but some people couldn’t see that.
I’d still rather him as president right now over what we have now.
I need to say this. If you are capable of going to a large protest in a major city you are privileged. Please exercise that. I would love to go to the ATL protest, but it is impossible unless I pay exorbitant parking fees (which I can't).
Park at a Marta station where parking is free and ride down to gsu Station?
Short walk from there
What's the winning strategy? If violence is escalated until everybody is incarcerated not much will change.
how exactly are they going to incarcerate every single leftist?
Seems like they’re just deporting people to random countries that you won’t be able to return from safely
Political change is driven by 3% of the population. 1/3 voted for democrats. So 1% of the population would be incarcerated. Peak prison population was 0.7%. Doubling that capacity is possible, especially if prison camps can be used.
Ah yes, Marxist revolutionary larpers preaching for violence on Lemmy. Come back when you don't freak out over funko pop collections.
Peaceful protests are more likely to succeed and no peaceful protest that drew in 3.5 percent or more of the population has ever failed.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
Once you use violence, they will use that to justify using violence and putting down the movement.
You want to win people’s hearts and minds. You do that by being peaceful. Your opponent will make a mistake, but you stay peaceful. Remember MLK Jr.’s successes.
Edit: downvotes, sorry that history and facts don’t support your view of things. But, don’t do violence and damage the movement for the rest of us.
Yes, tell me about the peaceful protests that stopped the Nazis.
Cool, my rifle has a name now...the peaceful protest.
Won't work for dictatorship, that's obvious. But at the moment America is still a few bad decisions away from this. Although Trump is persistently undermining the judiciary.
On the other hand, there is an opposition, and I'm wondering, when do they decide to grow themselves balls? Trump can only do what he wants, because they let him.
Peaceful protests are more likely to succeed
more likely to succeed
more likely
Bro doesn't understand the difference between probability & certainty. Pretends a single counterexample refutes a probability.
Once you use violence, they will use that to justify using violence and putting down the movement.
And surely the people who lie about everything wouldn't lie about violence happening anyway to justify using violence...
They'll have some infiltrators with the protestors trying to whip up some raw emotions and instigate violence. The move against that is beating the crap out of anybody talking violence.
Didn’t we hit 3.5% with the 2020 protests in the US?
Yes. It was the largest protest movement in US history and it did precisely nothing to stop police brutality.
While I do believe in this, a common point brought up about civil rights is everything that Malcolm X and the Black Panthers did around the same time. While peace wins hearts and minds, even just passive shows of force can dissuade hateful pushers of violence.
Even Gandhi didn’t just sit back; his operation broke laws in order to make a point.
Also tomorrow's protest ain't the one to pop off on. Gotta think tactically
I am a proud liberal, I am supportive and willing of violence against ICE if the prospects of winning are good.
However, there are those among us who want violence against state and federal congress and town halls. Who want to dismantle every police station. Thats not gonna happen.
Sounds lit tho
A violent revolution doesn’t lead to a peaceful society, all it does is put the most violent group in charge
No to violence. I would prefer the union break apart peacefully, like the Czechs and Slovaks. The Blue States should be annexed by Canada and the Red Run Turd Holes can figure out their shit on their own.
And I wish for peace in the middle east. I'm sure it will happen if I just wish for it hard enough.
This has been such an upsetting week. I genuinely thought Trump was about to give us peace in the middle east through the power of openly taking bribes and getting his feelings hurt.
I was nearing the point of unironically supporting soup brained Trump, he's united so much of the world against us, he genuinely seems to hate war, and it seemed like he was losing power. Hell, somehow he landed on degrowth as an economic policy
He even caved on bringing back Garcia, so it seemed like a matter of time before the courts put him back in his place.
I thought I could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but now? Such an upsetting week.
you can have peaceful protests, you can have violent protests, or you could have... voted for kamala last year
There's slowly more evidence coming out to suggest the elections may have been rigged in some states.
So maybe we did vote for kamala. Either way, we need to dig ourselves out of this hole.
Yeah, cause she'd be deporting people too just like Biden did (4 million iirc) but nobody would be protesting because it's fine when Democrats do it.
But she'd still be shutting down pro gaza protests, don't worry!
People tried the electoral option in 2020. It didn't work.
I mean MLK and a few other civil rights leaders did it without violence. 🤷
That's not true.
You just weren't taught about the violence that occurred, except for Emmett Till and the assassinations. You can go read up on the Battle for Blair Mountain, the Rail Strikes, or Marsha P. Johnson for some very good examples of why violent protest is necessary.
that's the sanitized version you're taught in school to keep you complacent. have you ever heard of the black Panthers?
MLK advocated violence once in his career? The Philippines didnt do a violent protest either as far as Im aware.
Nope.