20 ms·

Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how that works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there has to be a credible threat of extrem

Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how that works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there has to be a credible threat of extreme and overwhelming violence that will follow unless the government listens. Government should be afraid of the people. Those groups cannot begin to challenge the government with violence. What you are suggesting is much more likely to end up in an orgy of bloodshed with innocent people being the victims. It's time we evolve.

simlevesque 9y ago
The parent was clearly refering to the early 2017 protests, not those of 1989. It's as if you did not read one of his paragraphs, the one just before what you quoted.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cdubzzz 9y ago
  OP said: “Nobody forgot that. (the 1989 protest)”. Thus the implication seems quite clear - rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now).
  - 5ilv3r 9y ago
    The US has no problem doing that as a service for other countries...
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > Thus the implication seems quite clear - rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now). (OP here). The other implication is use the rules of the system first. Yeah the system is rigged, there are lobbyists and special interests, and propaganda at work. But that is preferable to violence in the streets. > rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now). The point about the violence is that large protests as an effective tool to make the government listen or do anything are not effective in US, but are effective in Romania, for example, and the reason is that there is a collective memory of relatively recent past of what had happened there. Another point is that the threat of violence has to be implied or imminent. There might be another way to create that belief than killing a leader.
jotm 9y ago
Evolve to what? The government isn't afraid, so why would they do anything for people? People were literally bombed for wanting better worker's rights a century ago, apparently it's time for that again?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service. Violence is the lazy and cowardly way out. You can't beat your opponent so you beat them up. When I say evolve, we're not the apes in 2001 anymore are we? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strWmj-vZ88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strWmj-vZ88
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    Bad news. We still are and we're getting worse these days.
  - jdironman 9y ago
    The only problem is that immediate and imminate repercussion has more immediate effects. Governments should be held accoubtable just as people are. If you knew I could steal 1 billion dollars and that somewhere along the line a kid is gonna grow up, go to high school, go to college, become a judge eventually and then try me for my crime after any number of years then I cant help but wonder how many would not go ahead and do it. Just based on the fact that they could be dead before they are even held accountable. However, if you knew you would be caught and challenged in less than a week I think that number would drop significantly.
  - audrelorde 9y ago
    The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    > Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service. Notwithstanding the conclusion, the argument is a bit naïve. It's not like we have third party candidates winning left and right. There are established players who crush outside competition, regardless of the quality of the candidates. And there's no guarantee that even if you have any influence, you'll see the benefit in your lifetime. The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth. Pretending that simply being dedicated to a good cause is all it takes to fix a problem entirely misses why people are proposing other paths in the first place.
norswap 9y ago
The OP's position is naive. So is yours.
rdtsc 9y ago
> Those groups cannot begin to challenge the government with violence. Voting is obviously better. I was just explaining why those protests in Romania were so effective in contrast to the protests here. I remember the science march, the women's march, occupy, which lasted for a long while. Good things came up from those sure. But there were just not an effective way to make the government listen or do anything, at this point in time, in this particular country because the precondition where not there for it. Organizing and planning for next elections, having a desirable platform that resonates with voters (in all states, not just on the coasts) is the way to go. Without that things, and focusing on how many scoops of ice-cream Trump had, or how long he shook Macron's hand is also not a valid strategy, and it just sets the stage for a re-election.

simlevesque 9y ago

The parent was clearly refering to the early 2017 protests, not those of 1989. It's as if you did not read one of his paragraphs, the one just before what you quoted.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cdubzzz 9y ago
OP said: “Nobody forgot that. (the 1989 protest)”. Thus the implication seems quite clear - rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now).
- 5ilv3r 9y ago
  The US has no problem doing that as a service for other countries...
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > Thus the implication seems quite clear - rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now). (OP here). The other implication is use the rules of the system first. Yeah the system is rigged, there are lobbyists and special interests, and propaganda at work. But that is preferable to violence in the streets. > rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now). The point about the violence is that large protests as an effective tool to make the government listen or do anything are not effective in US, but are effective in Romania, for example, and the reason is that there is a collective memory of relatively recent past of what had happened there. Another point is that the threat of violence has to be implied or imminent. There might be another way to create that belief than killing a leader.

jotm 9y ago

Evolve to what? The government isn't afraid, so why would they do anything for people? People were literally bombed for wanting better worker's rights a century ago, apparently it's time for that again?

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service. Violence is the lazy and cowardly way out. You can't beat your opponent so you beat them up. When I say evolve, we're not the apes in 2001 anymore are we? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strWmj-vZ88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strWmj-vZ88
- thriftwy 9y ago
  Bad news. We still are and we're getting worse these days.
- jdironman 9y ago
  The only problem is that immediate and imminate repercussion has more immediate effects. Governments should be held accoubtable just as people are. If you knew I could steal 1 billion dollars and that somewhere along the line a kid is gonna grow up, go to high school, go to college, become a judge eventually and then try me for my crime after any number of years then I cant help but wonder how many would not go ahead and do it. Just based on the fact that they could be dead before they are even held accountable. However, if you knew you would be caught and challenged in less than a week I think that number would drop significantly.
- audrelorde 9y ago
  The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service. Notwithstanding the conclusion, the argument is a bit naïve. It's not like we have third party candidates winning left and right. There are established players who crush outside competition, regardless of the quality of the candidates. And there's no guarantee that even if you have any influence, you'll see the benefit in your lifetime. The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth. Pretending that simply being dedicated to a good cause is all it takes to fix a problem entirely misses why people are proposing other paths in the first place.

norswap 9y ago

The OP's position is naive. So is yours.

rdtsc 9y ago

> Those groups cannot begin to challenge the government with violence. Voting is obviously better. I was just explaining why those protests in Romania were so effective in contrast to the protests here. I remember the science march, the women's march, occupy, which lasted for a long while. Good things came up from those sure. But there were just not an effective way to make the government listen or do anything, at this point in time, in this particular country because the precondition where not there for it. Organizing and planning for next elections, having a desirable platform that resonates with voters (in all states, not just on the coasts) is the way to go. Without that things, and focusing on how many scoops of ice-cream Trump had, or how long he shook Macron's hand is also not a valid strategy, and it just sets the stage for a re-election.