Nina going off today
Nina going off today
Cross-posted from "Nina going off today" by @seahorse@midwest.social in !antifascism@midwest.social
You're viewing a single thread.
255 comments
-
I know this is an anarchy community, but peaceful protests have been successful before. And the thing is, if the authority literally fired and killed a civilian, the authority will immediately lose legitimacy. This is what protestors are railing on. They are like "what are you gonna do kill us?"
-
Their goal is your death or pacification, there's no reason to do their job for them. If you want to see the disgusting depths pacifism goes to, look at this gandhi quote:
-
No one said anything about voting. But if peaceful means does not work, let them fire the first shot and then fire back.
-
If you let them fire first, then you die. Why let them harm you at all?
This is kind of pointless because I know you don't have the patience to read an article anyway.
-
You do realise that firing at the authorities first will give them perfect justification and legitimises their use of force? This is literally what Trump is waiting for. It is a blinking game and see who blinks first. You don't give the ruling corrupt power any more legitimacy.
-
How does letting a cop shoot you, give you "legitimacy"? Self-defense is not some corrupting infectious disease, and a refusal to be bullied is honorable.
I know you won't read this, but at least others should know the religious basis of these pacifist arguments:
-
How does letting a cop shoot you, give you "legitimacy"?
So far no police or soldiers are carrying lethal weapons. But once they do...
Again, Trump is looking for reason to use lethal force. As soon as any of the protestors shoot the police, he can invoke the Insurrection Act as per authority given to him by the constitution. You or anyone don't want to give him reason to do that and legitimise his deployment of force. If it comes to it, YOU wait to be given the reason to use violence on authority. You gain the moral high ground for not provoking lethal violence in the first place. Therefore, it is not pacifism. It's not pacifism to do peaceful demonstrations. Pacifism implies being completely passive and completely rejecting violence in any shape or form. It is not pacifist to both peacefully protest but being prepared if violence erupts. Violence is only the last resort. There is a reason why the court favours someone who was the first to be physically assaulted, despite that person being a complete jerk for being verbally abusive in the first place. You would to prefer to be the person provoked to self-defense, than be the provoker to someone. You lose the public court of opinion for provoking physical violence first. That public court of opinion will shift to the side of Trump if any of the protestors shoot and kill the police or soldiers.
-
-
Talk about completely not grasping the situation
-
Well, are you willing to go to LA and draw the first blood? Are you even aware what Insurrection and Posse comitatus acts are?
-
Yes. Too bad it would be for naught because people like you are afraid to hurt Nazi feelings.
![(https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c2f864e5-c952-4814-bd43-6b01ea374c0c.jpeg)]
-
What does that have to do with anything?
Since you are so trigger happy, are you going to LA and shoot to kill the police and soldiers yourself?
I thought so.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gross.
-
-
Civilians have been teargassed and kettled before while peacefully protesting - recently - and the public reaction to it was largely either 'meh' or 'oh no I feel sorry for the poor people who live near those violent riots'.
-
The tear gassing isn't new. What's new is deploying the national guards and marines. And what would be newer is if the national guards and the marines killed a civilian. Trump is escalating and trying to provoke Los Angelinos to justify the use of force.
-
-
It turns out you can just kill protestors.
-
Well, it did propel further the withdrawal of US from Vietnam. It further de-legitimised US involvement in Vietnam by the public.
This time is far more consequential and existential though. If the guardsmen and marines killed any of LA civilians, it could cause a civil war and perhaps the collapse of the United States as we know it. But you still would not want to be the one to fire the first shot and give Trump legitimacy.
-
Well, it did propel further the withdrawal of US from Vietnam.
The Vietnamese people themselves did that. The US anti-war protest movement was a great thing, but the Vietnamese people defeated the US empire through their own efforts.
-
Of course, but the American public's lost appetite to prosecute the war is what pushed Washington to pull out completely. After all, American troops actually killed more North Vietnamese soldiers than vice versa; but a North Vietnamese official declared "that may be the case, but that is irrelevant". War is as much fueled by the will to fight as the number of bodies the belligerents throw into the battlefield. A country could attain more casualties than the opponent and still not lose the will to fight (like the USSR during World War 2).
-
-
-
-
Yeah. They don't care about legitimacy, they will literally kill everyone if they think they an replace you with robots.
-
You do realise that we are still far away from having robots to replace humans?
-
-
Okay, but are we talking about right now Americans being replaced at any second? And how efficient are the robots doing their jobs overall? Can they fix themselves if a small screw got stuck in small nooks and crannies in the conveyor belt? Can they verify that the alarm is genuine and not false alarm? Can this be rolled out en masse?
There is a reason that robots are still not as prevalent than one would expect, because they lack the human dexterity needed for most jobs. Also, this is a reason that the fascist American government at the moment still believe working in factories is the future.
-
-
-
-
255 comments