I got a coworker who does this. He’s a company man through and through because he actually believes that one day it’ll be his boots getting licked.
Oooh it’s a jpeg instead of normal text, that means it’s really true
I always feel good about my choice of leaving reddit when I see the top comment is dumb shit that we all rapidly downvote. Keep lemmy clean friends!
Imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
On the topic of boots, one book, The Iron Heel written by Jack London in early 1900s before any of the World Wars, really grabbed my interest in how stark it is in surfacing the early onset of a greed and oppression-riddled social environment of tyrannical government mechanisms.
The book entertains the thought of oligarchical entitied in capitalists economies resorting to the bloody massacres beyond non-violoent oppressions they perpetuate to practically have regular people be worked like slaves or be part of the aware or unaware collaborators in the non-violent oppression, all the while in latter years in reality saw openly tyrannical movements like fascism or Stalin’s communism saw the violent oppressions almost as first maneuvers.
This latter violent-oppression-as-first-moves has become the boogeyman at the door awaiting if the capitalist oligarchs are destabilized in favor of direct governing via means of production being in the hands of workers or workers having a prominent voice in politics directly rather than being “represented” through lobbying elites or monopolized companies having the last say in their own industries and meddling with other industries.
What I want to say is that this earlier dystopian novel may have missed the mark on which countries utilized the shocking violent oppressions, but it is nevertheless very much on point in displaying the police as “pinkertons” or the literal heels or the inquisitors, agent provocateurs that we see news in these “anti-semitic protests being actually cried out by zionist instigators, shown with footages” among peaceful protests, the abyss people already being present as homeless/down-trodden/drug-abusers-as-an-escape/the extreme form of quiet quitters, corporations and billionaires owning monopoly on a starting industry and meddling with others, media being utilized to call anyone raising a hand in defense against genocides as terrorists, rapists, cannibals.and barbarians while demanding support for literal carpet bombing that is only not called as such because it is spread over weeks instead of hours, etc. in all of these so-called democracies in the west.
Any thoughts on these topics and the relevancy of the book, which I’d say in musing hyperbole that it is criminally under-discussed or mentioned?
This got me thinking about fascist takovers. Once those parties took power, they ended up taking over industry. However, in America it seems to be reaching the same goal through the opposite path. Industry is taking over the government. The parallels are scary. I am living in fear of violence from my neighbors. I see no path of escape. Malicious ignorance is insurmountable and booming.
It went the same order before, too. Hitler threw a literal meeting with the heads of industry asking to fund jis campaign, in what he claimed would be possibly the last election in a while. The US had a conspiracy that is literally called “the business plot”.
Haha, yes, clearly it was the monopolies and oligarchies that created the Stallin regime. /sarcasm
I have a theory that what tends to fuel authoritarianism and hierarchy is power being alloted too much in any one sphere. Like if the state becomes the only power over resources the people who are predatory are drawn to positions within it. If business and private ownership is empowered and left unchecked they end up there. It’s easy to forget that predatory expansionism is not simply a feature unique to capitalism. Human greed will adapt to fit whatever system where power is allowed to aggregate making it potentially tip and fall if unbalanced.
That doesn’t explain the many many many dictatorships that started out from the power vacuum caused by armed insurrectionists dismantling the former state.
Generally speaking I think that’s something seperate - opportunism in the face of disaster. What you are describing occurs after power aggregation and human cupidity has tipped everything too far. What I am describing is more towards the aim of prevention measures long before that point. Power consolidation has it’s enemy too which is human misery lowering the barriers to violence. You either rebalance the spinning plate before it destablizes and crashes to the ground or you get stuck with whatever shitty situation ends up as a result. Gluing things back together after the fact rarely is the better solution which is why timing is critical.
If you want a full and complete veiw of my reflectiona on history it’s gunna take more than a quippy summary. Not every short post is indicitive of a full and complete veiw of someone’s full political theory. It’s why people write very chonky books on the subject.
No, it’s not separate, you don’t just get to say the leading cause of authoritarian states is a separate thing from the causes of authoritatian states.
That would be like claiming heart disease isn’t really what kills people, that’s just cholesterol finding opportunities for people to die.
They are different authoritarian states. There isn’t a one size fits all situation. An authoritarian state that comes before a state failure tends to exist using pre-established powers. Either nobility/premogenitor culture, liquid asset wealth, theocracy, assumption and exploitation of the mechanics of statehood - that kind of thing.
Once one of those crashes due to revolt you start dealing with new powers. Cult of personality militias which offer easy solutions to quelling the chaos. Your Napoleons, Cromwells and Stalins who just slip in and recreate old inequities. Or can become a civil war of factions and warlords fighting over scraps. They work on slightly different dynamics.
To my mind hierarchy to a certain extent is desired by a lot of people. There is a comfort knowing where you fit and an alleviation of anxiety in being told by someone you trust what to do and knowing that you have someone below you. Oftentimes when power is in disarray it congregates around people who just talk a good game. The danger I think of spreading power too thin is that if there isn’t some kind of structure people seem to like to default to very basic heirachies based on tribalistic notions and their preconceived notions of what power looks like.
Cope
Good point. Appreciate the insight
This. I want a shift towards socialism not because I think socialism is perfect but because change is good. Our system, whether it’s capitalism, crony capitalism or some other term I’m too stupid to know, is stagnant.
I mean what people often get wrong about Socialism is that you have to 100% adopt every kind of publicly held property to be a socialist. It comes in a lot of different forms some of which we take for granted as normal. One has to remember that the guy who coined the phrase was writing from perspective a hundred years before things like socialized medicine, municipal fire and waste services were an idea. Private sector was practically everything and most places were still high on very extreme early versions of assistance like workhouse systems. There’s a lot of writing that has been done in the interm regarding socialism but the basics are always to empower the sphere of publicly held wealth. It’s easy to get disenchanted with something that’s out of control and easy to forget that there are strengths in that system too. What determines the weed in the garden is sometimes just the thing that needs more pruning than other plants.
I’m having an aneurysm reading these comments. Between the people confusing(or purposefully getting wrong) the use of the phrase “harm reduction” as being in relation to it’s use in election/voting discourse and people criticizing protest tactics, I think we need to refocus here, especially on that(in my opinion) bigger issue that the comic brings up, in that privatization is being wielded as a weapon of the state. Perhaps we put a pin on that, and when we’re in a better position and we can advocate for stronger legal protections for protesting even on private property(rather idealistic and naive I know).
when we’re in a better position
Been waiting for that for about… 20 years now. Are we any closer? Seems like we’re farther away than ever.
waking up to this thread:
Counterargument: in a nation with over 300 million guns, this situation won’t continue indefinitely, in spite of what cops think.
Lookup the history of gun control in the US. Now look at how cops react to white people with guns vs black people with guns. The cops would happily use the presence of guns as an excuse to commit massacres.
Cops are also outnumbered by armed civilians by about 100,000 to 1.
that doesn’t matter when they roll the national guard and start dropping bombs (which, btw, has happened before)
Has he tried licking the boot yet?
Heard it tastes like pig.
deleted by creator
No, I’d say it’s more like this actually…
Those are from the last few days. Let me guess, all of those unarmed students going up against armed cops were a clear and present danger.
I try not to get into debating online. It goes nowhere and ends up with “no you” , name calling, “I thought this was America”, sarcasm, and stereo typing groups of people. I’m tired at this point and I’ll be pushed into whatever corner you want if drawn into one.
Change is inevitable. It’s often not pretty. Freedom and security are always at play. And in the end it’s your point of view that’s going to be what matters, empathy as well, for other peoples hardships. There is not perfect solution to this, we can have perfect goals and Invision a perfect world. And we can try to get there. But calling all cops bad or all group A or B bad is just part of the problem to begin with. So I can’t get behind person or group that pushes that kind of thinking. I have Gay friends, Trans friends, Cop friends, Jewish friends and so on. What I’m not going to do is bandwagon hate any of them. Police have guns because they have to enforce the law. It’s scary as hell to be in large group of emotionally charged people with religion backed group thought and a feelings of injustice. But there you have it. Police have to move the people who don’t want to move.
War is terrible and should be avoided when possible. War for land or power or religion influence is wrong and should be stopped. I think we can agree. I’m just tired of the victim mentality and stereo typing of each other. It will not work that way. And progress is not a straight line.
And… I just did exactly what I said I wouldn’t do.
Nooo only orange man can do fascism!
Well who showed up to a protest with just their own weak spindly body against a fully armored roided out line backer with decades of counter protest maneuvers and training.
The clownvoy were fucked but they managed to build a pretty good playbook for how to protest. Show up in a way that overwhelms the authorities and has no chapter in their playbook. I remember cities scrambling because they knew there just wasn’t enough tow trucks in the city to do anything and most tow truck drivers were siding with the convoy.
Modern protesters are unappealing to most people to the point that every single person with a job would prefer to the be the boot and that’s just PR. I’ve seen so many protests where I agreed with the cause but hated seeing the protests because they just set things back, never forward anymore.
Sorry… you’re blaming police violence on the nonviolent protesters?
What a fascist scumbag, am I right?
You’re not a very convincing troll considering you’re on a forum where everyone can see your post history.
This one is worse than a troll. I’d call them a flooder bearing Palestine flag on their profile picture but almost calling for unconditional Biden support under all posts and a lot of comments of the same posts individually.
On second glance at their full profile, this is mostly a bot account utilizing some sort of Cambridge Analytica-style, actually trying to undermine support for Biden through the spammy, braindead “I’m on your side, let’s support this thing with the same zeal and rabidness we criticize the right-wing with” false-flag operation on social media.
Sure, I’m blaming protestors for not being effective. And not specific to any particular event. In general most protests I see in my life have been useless and theatrics. Telling people to just show up and hope for the best in my mind is immoral, unethical and should discussed more.
That doesn’t mean the violent police reprisals are the protestors’ fault.
Removed by mod
Dunking on protestors “not being effective” is just the worse. It might be useless to you, but to many it is a useful launching point of some meaningful discussions.
The worst is seeing important causes lose traction and ground others fought for because some group decides they want to take action without properly being prepared and organized.
Just because you’re not prepared to talk about the protests in a way that gives traction to the issue doesn’t make the protestors wrong.
What do you mean by not prepared to talk in a way that gives traction to the issue?
That these type of events are inevitable and one can prepare and organize to respond with solidarity that shapes the message in the way you think would be beneficial.
This has been every protest. Only in retrospect do most people think about protestors as being people fighting the good fight. Every single complaint I have ever seen for contemporary protests I have heard from boomers, and their parents, about the Vietnam protestors. My grandparents and great grandparents generations thought this way of those rebelling against the robber barony.
This is how it is.
Removed by mod
I have been to a bunch of major protests in my life. This doesn’t describe them. Most of them hold until the government uses violence to stop them. This is still the same shit people have been saying about every protest ever. If it’s not too violent it’s impotent and useless. The vast majority of the opinion of people about protests, at the time they are happening, is negative. Doesn’t matter what the reality was. Anything short of a perfect gathering, where nothing, and no one, gets damaged, and huge change is made for a positive everyone can agree on, will be treated like you see protests currently being treated.
Most of them hold until the government uses violence to stop them
We’re saying the same thing.
at the time they are happening, is negative
There’s a reason for that. Protests are filled with people who don’t have the awareness to know why opinion of them are overwhelmingly negative.
Anything short of a perfect gathering, where nothing, and no one, gets damaged, and huge change is made for a positive everyone can agree on, will be treated like you see protests currently being treated.
There is lots of room beyond your options here to have effective protests. The clownvoy showed a great example of this. To the point people were bringing their whole family down to listen to bands, have a bbq’s and sit in hot tubs while the police couldn’t do jack shit since they did not have the resources and since most of the resources they could access were owned by people who favored them.
I don’t find the clownvoy effective. They blocked traffic aeverywhere they went along with intentionally creating insane amounts of noise, as well as having nazi’s with them. Not a single place they went really had a good opinion of them. They were obnoxious, stopped people from going to work, destroyed property. The one thing they had going was that they were right wing, thus the police literally gave them special treatment and, unlike left wing protests, they had major media corporations acting like they were just the bestest people ever that definitely had no nazis with them. Even with the kid gloves and advocates they were still hugely unpopular in real life, didn’t accomplish their goal, and got a number of laws written that effectively made what they did illegal everywhere it mattered.
Yeah, it’s weird that they keep bringing them up. What exactly did they achieve with their infantile protest?
I see them as effective in that they were mobile and so large police couldn’t stop them. Even if they did stop them they couldn’t process them because they convoy made it so they would have to do much more work by having trucks and cars with them. They were effective in organizing. It was different enough. Other protestors seem to walk right into the cops fists all on their own over and over again. With some tweaks the convoy is a great example of ways to counter police efforts.
Nobody cares about the arbitrary qualities you think every protest should aspire to possess. What did the “clownvoy” actually achieve? Or was all this “effectiveness” for absolutely nothing?
I am not the one downvoting you BTW. I know it doesn’t matter, but, ya know, etiquette.
Thanks though for saying it. Appreciate it.
protests are performative. that’s the whole point, they are a performance of deeply rooted values on the public stage so other people can see them. you know what else is performance? siccing the cops on those protests in a show of strength and nationalist dogma.
what did you want, non-violent speech against the murder of innocent brown people, mostly children, to happen deep in a cave somewhere where you can happily ignore it?
actually don’t answer that, i’m pretty sure that is what you want.
I’m arguing for more effective protests and you write this braindead stuff
what did you want, non-violent speech against the murder of innocent brown people, mostly children, to happen deep in a cave somewhere where you can happily ignore it?
What was the last thing you supported that had protests and actually got traction?
The Black Lives Matter movement gained political traction in several ways, including increased attention to issues of police brutality and systemic racism, calls for police reform and accountability, changes in policing policies and practices in some cities, and increased voter mobilization efforts focused on racial justice issues.
Hope this helps. 👍
How so? What changed?
I found after those protests, what people are left with is the impression that the BLM organization is corrupt since the right wing media brought heavy attention to the leadership and the way they stole funds from the organization. It lead to arrests and charges to the officers which is great but shouldn’t require a global effort.
“Gained Political traction” is measured how though and I’m being honest here not trying to just shove things back at you. In my mind “bringing attention to…” falls so short of the amount of effort mobilized to this cause. I don’t believe anything happened. And this is my point
Protesters showed up to poorly organized events. The effort and planning that went into this was organizers making facebook ads and putting up posters then hoping for the best. And the cops out maneuvered them at all angles. I watched city after city allow themselves to be corralled into streets where police were set up 24 hours earlier. It was so sad to watch that in our modern era that event organizers were just winging it given the access to technology we have. Any counter measures deployed were from other countries were the people attending these events do put effort and planning into it. Egypt and Japan and Asia where people figured out how to neutralize tactics that police would use.
Think about the scale. Think about all the people in all the cities globally who showed up to these protests and then consider what change and tell me that modern protesters are effective because I don’t see how you can honestly say that.
Modern protesters are missing something. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know if its purposeful or naive or what but they are not effective. Its as if people just show up, wait for a beating and go home and that’s enough for them because the can throw a patch on their backpack and tell stories around the quad about how they imagine so many people saw them get punched and now are on their side.
In the opposite direction, the republicans and conservative parties in North America forced the federal government to take action with a fraction of the man power and effort just by thinking ahead and doing something outside the box. It wasn’t luck. It wasn’t just showing up and hoping things work out. They had logistics figured out. They had used social media to build support. They anticipated police action and found ways to neutralize them. As I get older and older I keep seeing this play out. The left are not as smart as they keep acting like they are. And every time I see a bunch of them fall for shit I can’t help but distance myself from the causes they say they’re gaining support for by being beat in the head over and over again. My point isn’t that the clownvoy accomplished their goals and were nothing but success. But I am saying what they did was better than showing up with your bags packed and a phone number on your wrist because you’re just waiting to get arrested and charged. The use of vehicles to create a convoy that everyone can join or honk at and stand on over passes was some incredible PR for them, a show of support. I still see these fucking people on overpasses years after. I still see handfuls of cars with their stickers every time I leave the house. They overwhelmed the ability of the police to process them. They made the protest into a tail gaiting event drawing in the public. It was different and should give people a wake up to how we’ve been doing it wrong.
Its like Toronto Maple leafs. Sure they have fans that keep showing up and those fans are die hard fans. But how the fuck are you going to claim you’re a good team if you can’t secure Stanley cup in the past 50 years and if you can’t be honest about that then you lose credibility and if you lose credibility how will anyone respect what you stand for.
Okay I’m really close to TLDRing you and just blocking but here’s one last shot in case you are literally just this ill informed. Please take this to heart as I am exhausted of having to explain this.
BLM the corrupt organization =/= BLM the decentralized movement. This disconnect is well knowing among BLM protesters and if you had payed any attention you would know this.
“Shouldn’t require global effort” bad faith and what the hell. I gave you an example, now you provide a successful populist movement that didn’t do organized protests?
“How so? What Changed? I don’t believe anything happened.” Literally intentional blindness. Some examples of police reform initiatives that gained traction following the Black Lives Matter protests include:
-
Ban on chokeholds and neck restraints: Several cities and states implemented bans or restrictions on the use of chokeholds and neck restraints by law enforcement officers.
-
Use of body cameras: Many police departments expanded the use of body-worn cameras to increase transparency and accountability in police interactions with the public.
-
De-escalation training: There has been a push for increased training for police officers in de-escalation techniques to reduce the use of force in encounters with civilians.
-
Community policing initiatives: Some cities have invested in community policing programs aimed at building trust and collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.
-
Civilian oversight boards: There have been efforts to establish civilian oversight boards or review panels to provide independent oversight of police departments and investigate complaints of misconduct.
-
Ending or reforming qualified immunity: There have been calls to reform or abolish qualified immunity, which shields government officials, including police officers, from being held personally liable for constitutional violations.
Was it enough, problem solved? Fuck no. But “I don’t think anything happened” is such a fucking disingenuous take it’s kind of sickening.
And honestly I don’t know that you even have a point for the rest of the comment. You’re chirping on and comparing an insurrection where people died to nonviolent protests to … sports for some reason? Absurd parallels to draw. Go and read about the methods of MLK era demonstrations I’m done with this.
-
Well who showed up to a protest with just their own weak spindly body
Um, Gandhi?
Get out there and show them how it’s done then.
Sure, I will not go out there and organize a useless protest or convince people to slash tires in the name of climate change leading to alienating more people to important causes. Seems simple.
Ahh so you are a coward. got it.
Why am I a coward?
My option in life is not get out and protest or not.
That’s actually a driver of why I get pissed at these protesters. Its like in their mind the only option they have is protest regardless of outcomes. They have no consideration for consquences and demand everyone accept that what they do is a necessity. They can’t fathom that what they are doing is hurting and driving progress on issues backwards. Like you’re doing here, they will draw these hard lines of believe vs non believers.
I would put good money on the fact that many protests are driven groups paid for by entities that are being protested.
actually I know of one recently. The Loblaws boycott in Canada is a pretty good example right now of what I think is good civil action. People are building a community and inviting everyone in to participate. No one is Guilting others. But what happened is flyers started to appear saying “steal from loblaws”. The main boycott groups rejected this and pointed out this was likely pro loblaw groups trying to get the general public to sway against the boycott. It is easily believable that many people online would have taken the bait if the loblaw boycott groups did not keep a level head. Unlike many other groups like the r/fuckcars sub reddit that encouraged people to go around town deflating tires of random people or other protesters that convince people to go block highways with just their own body during morning commute.
You claim you can get out there and do better but won’t.
You are a coward.
No I don’t claim that I can do better and that I don’t organize people to show up because I would get them arrested and harm whatever cause I decided to drag people out to. That’s the point I am making. If you’re dragging people out you have their trust and if you’re plan is drag them out, get their heads kicked, arrested and charged in the hopes that maybe people notice then it is cruel and immoral and people should do better.
Like what are you saying though. Should every person who talks about police brutality go become a cop and if they do not then they are a coward? How do you resolve that statement?
Fucking gross, Hexbear is leaking again.
Oh yeah, that’s me. I’m totally a Tankie and not just someone who’s watching cops beat up students.
I know calling people tankie is about as meaningful as calling them woke these days but this one at least made me chuckle. At this point tankie is said by anyone when there’s something to the left of them they don’t agree with.
Tankie seems to refer to people who support Russia and China, regardless of what they think about domestic economics.
Removed by mod
Dude, I’m voting for Biden. What ‘both sides revelations’?
That’s literally what Harm Reduction is. You’re supposedly participating in the thing that you’re mocking.
they thought harm reduction was some kind of dog whistle and not a real thing that people do this is absolutely hilarious
wait lmao this is so funny 😂😂😂
you went on an agressive harrassment and bitchslapping spree only to find out (hopefully by this point) that you didn’t even understand what was being said by your fabled ‘opponent’
hope you can learn from this buddy, super embarrassing look lol
I stand by exactly what I said, Harm Reduction is often used to describe voting for the least harmful candidate. I honestly go through Lemmy expecting to see CCP propaganda telling Americans to off each other, these days. I think the term has probably been too muddied to be correctly used in any context at this point.
imagine being so self absorbed that you think you get to decide when common terms for common practices are “too muddied”
Wait you think this is a centrist take?
It literally criticizes centrism. I have no idea what this person is talking about.
Right? I guess they like the taste of boot polish.
Criticizing centrism is often a handy veil for supporting right wing extremism.
Criticizing centrism is tacit support of right wing extremism.
Fucking LMAO
Ok fair enough, you’ve got a point. It’s not necessarily support of right wing extremism.
In the current political climate, it is probably support for right wing extremism.
No, Jesus no. The Overton window is so far right anyone who’s taking a “centrist” position is probably a right winger in denial. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard “I’m not conservative but (endless right wing talking points)” I’d be loaded.
The hell are you talking about?
Cryo is… something else. I’ve encountered them in multiple posts. Abandon all hope ye who engage.
Yes, I’m starting to recognize some of the handles lol. And lo, that’s why I stopped engaging :D thanks though!
Last panel of the comic: “the other side is worse”
Comic is clearly criticizing this take.
Anyone criticizing the tactics of choosing the lesser of two evils is tacitly supporting right wing extremism. See also: don’t vote, vote 3rd party, etc etc
FiniteBanjo’s comment refers to this as “encouraging us to elect an actual dictator with your both sides revelations”. Ie, encouraging us to enable a Trump victory by claiming that Biden and Trump are just as bad, in a bid to convince leftists to not vote for Biden.
Last panel of the comic: “the other side is worse”
I took it more like the cop saying “this is harm reduction – I could be doing worse, so in reality I’m saving people.”
I definitely didn’t see that as a critique on centrism, no matter how deserved such a critique is
I see where you are coming from but I looked at it the other way, where implying that voting for trump will make it worse. Also I don’t see how criticizing centrists has anything to do with right wing extremism.
Last panel of the comic: “the other side is worse”
yep just adding my two cents that this is not the reading i had at all. you may be quite significantly misreading the author’s intent here.
it’s literally just “we (the cops) are not killing you, be grateful for your persecution”
provably not true, or at least not universally so. perfect example: r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM criticizes centrism, and states and adheres to the rule that it is a “Leftist space”
Now I imagine that there are impressionable people who think this speaks the truth and I’m sad.
What part about it is untrue?
“This is harm reduction” and “Centrists think you’re the extremist” makes this seem like a cynical response to the constant refrain that voting is harm reduction, but the idea that allowing the worse option to get in is something other than harm maximization is… absurd.
The harm reduction is protecting capital. I never got anything to do with voting from this image.
Centrists are just people that want you to sit down and shut up so they can go about their day. Anything inconvenient to them is extreme.
People, including you, are misunderstanding the harm reduction thing. I get why, but take a second to look into it.
Harm reduction is not a dog whistle; it’s literally just a term that means “do (traditionally/commonly bad thing) in (least harmful way possible).”
In the context of voting, which you refer to, this means “do voting for the candidate which does the least bad (aka least genocide or reversal of human rights).”
This comic uses the term in an entirely different context, however, totally divorced from voting, in fact. If you have only been exposed to the voting example, I get the confusion, but it’s important to recognize that you are confused here.
The comic is using “harm reduction” satirically, the cops use the common leftist language as a jab against the protesters.
As in: “Ohh we (the fascist government/cops) have no choice but to oppress you for making your voices heard… what a shame … be grateful we are just arresting and beating you because the alternative is us literally murdering you in the streets!” wink wink “Oh would you look at that, we’re doing ‘harm reduction’”
It’s a confusing comic, not great rhetoric, but I don’t see anyone else correcting the misconception about 50% of people here are having while the rest of us get it, so I hope this helps.
Thank you, I incorrectly took the ‘harm reduction’ comment as satirizing progressives, rather than symbolizing the right-wing’s mocking usage of progressive terminiology.
Yayy glad my explanation made a difference. :)
I like the rhetorical goals of this post but obviously it’s not very effective due to the amount of misunderstanding getting in the way of discourse.
-
That there is a coordinated effort in the USA between police and the wealthy to privatize all land and institutions.
-
That harm reduction causes this.
Yeah, okay. Ask an indigenous American if there isn’t a coordinated effort in the U.S. to privatize all land.
And ask a Republican if they want any public institutions at this point.
Also, the whole point is that it isn’t harm reduction. Whoosh.
I would say “coordinated” is not the right word. It’s just an orgy of greed.
So you think they’re just arbitrarily grabbing whatever they can?
Yeah.
I guess? Though I would question that, given how successful they’ve been in the acquisition. Typically speaking, things don’t happen on this kind of scale arbitrarily.
-
If nothing else, the
there is no right to assemble on private property, which is why we’ve privatized everything
Which isn’t true and the latest events which seemed to trigger this post happened on private business buildings, which is absolutely not a given right to protest there.
You can’t just take over a building and claim right to assemble, it’s just as ridiculous as Michael Scott’s claim of bankruptcy as a cudgel to assuage all issues, when that just isn’t how things work
Lastly, refusal to work within the legal framework does make those groups extreme.
When MLK did sit-ins, they didn’t destroy property and graffiti walls and the like. It’s not the same
Sorry… that sounds like you’re agreeing with it. And no, what triggered this post was police reacting violently to protestors on university campuses.
Removed by mod
I am not sure what argument you 2 are having but my perspective is that private property of any shape of form is but theft of the commons. And i don’t listen to (subjective) morally wrong.
Nuance is that personal property is as sacred as a someones physical body.
I believe there is a complex discussion to be had what defined personal versus private property. Naturally i have my own ideas (the place you eat sleep live and work is personal, the place you technically own on paper but never visited is not) but in the end we need to decide as a society where or values are and this is a conversation we really need to start having publicly.
We are all born on the same planet as all our ancestors. Why would your rights to it be any less then anyone else?
We are all born on the same planet as all our ancestors. Why would your rights to it be any less then anyone else?
Because money.
Those that have the money get to “own” the property, with ownership comes power, no capitalist/private property worshiper is ever going to willingly give that power up.
They wont give up the power to trample on our rights but there still our rights.
I am taking a natural rights perspective here, important to note cause i feel some people interpret “rights” as a system of a legal framework rather then natural justice
Lastly, refusal to work within the legal framework does make those groups extreme.
When MLK did sit-ins, they didn’t destroy property and graffiti walls and the like. It’s not the same
MLK wasn’t working within the legal framework. That’s the point of civil disobedience.
It’s always funny to see authoritarians talk about MLK and miss the point of the protest completely.
Re your edit about Dr. King:
And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met.
When MLK did sit-ins, they didn’t destroy property and graffiti walls and the like. It’s not the same
You’re an ignorant fool if you truly think MLK would be on anyone’s side in this situation except the protestors.
When MLK did sit-ins, they didn’t destroy property and graffiti walls and the like. It’s not the same
That is exactly what pundits at the time accused MLK of doing, and based on your comments here, if you had been alive during the Civil Rights Era, you would have agreed with them. For context, here’s how King was depicted in 1967:
