3 ms·

Not sure why this is downvoted. It's an uncomfortable thought but very little change has been brought forth in the US (and the world, historically) with peacefu

Not sure why this is downvoted. It's an uncomfortable thought but very little change has been brought forth in the US (and the world, historically) with peaceful protest. Too easy to ignore when politicians get paid millions to ignore it. Think the abolitionist movement (pre-Civil War) was peaceful? Nope. Think women's suffrage was peaceful? Nope. Think Vietnam protests were peaceful? Nope. Think civil rights movement was peaceful? Nope. BLM peaceful? Nope. Was the Occupy Wall Street movement peaceful? Yup. Was the protests of NSA spying peaceful? Yup. Was the Iraq war protests peaceful? Yup. Was the US Patriot Act protests peaceful? Yup. Are the net neutrality protests peaceful? Yup. What's the difference between the peaceful and non-peaceful protests I listed?

castis 9y ago
It probably got downvoted because people think violence is the absolute wrong way to go about things and assume getting to that level means you've lost a moral battle. I understand why, asking nicely and blocking some streets for a few hours has been so clearly effective throughout history /s.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  I happen to subscribe to a rather uncommon school of conflict. Once you have identified an existential threat to you, annihilate it utterly, and don't look back. But be absolutely certain before you start, because that's not a transaction you can easily roll back. And if you can't win, try not to lose for as long as possible. I'm about 98% of the way to certainty that the current crop of ruling elites present an existential threat to (mostly) peaceful human civilization. Thinking about Putin, Kim, and Trump--all with their fingers on their launch buttons--inspired me to think about possible strategies and tactics for 5th generation warfare, and I'm sorry to say that I believe a shockingly large number of innocents are going to die in this century. Your choice isn't going to be a matter of some people getting hurt and no one getting hurt. Your choice will be whether seven billion people die, or just a few hundred million, possibly including you and your whole family. All those "preppers" out there are very likely planning for the wrong kinds of disasters. This is not going to be a conflict whose outcome hinges on the number or quality of the guns, or the number of years of stored provisions. It will instead depend upon one's ability to discriminate friend from foe. It doesn't manner how many guns you have if the one in your hand is pointed at your own foot, particularly if you have psyops-induced agnosia. I'm not certain if I have the fortitude for war. And I'm not sure if I have the moxie for covert ops. I'm not even sure who would be in the smallest possible set of people that have to die in order for the least-bleak future to come about. My heart wants there to be a solution where no one has to die, but my head has already run too many thought experiments where passive acquiescence leads directly to ruin. There's no doubt in my mind that killing people and destroying property hurts one's own moral center, and that those who grow skilled at war become less suited to serve non-destructive roles in a world at peace. I think maybe I'm just too selfish to make a choice based on the proposition that a future might not exist unless I actively disqualify myself from being a part of it. I'm certainly not going to be the one that moves first. But I am thinking about the second and third moves.
binaryblitz 9y ago
This has been my point for months, and we'll probably both be downvoted to hell, or just have our comments removed by mods. People need to be scared of screwing over the average joe. Companies and politicians are scamming us every day, and all we do (if anything is done) is fine them pennies on the dollar.
nasredin 9y ago
BLM? Black Lives Matter or that Bureau of Land Management standoff? I wouldn't categorize BLM (Black Lives) as NOT peaceful (or at least in the same category as Vietnam protests). If you mean riots, IMHO it's a separate issue.

castis 9y ago

It probably got downvoted because people think violence is the absolute wrong way to go about things and assume getting to that level means you've lost a moral battle. I understand why, asking nicely and blocking some streets for a few hours has been so clearly effective throughout history /s.

logfromblammo 9y ago
I happen to subscribe to a rather uncommon school of conflict. Once you have identified an existential threat to you, annihilate it utterly, and don't look back. But be absolutely certain before you start, because that's not a transaction you can easily roll back. And if you can't win, try not to lose for as long as possible. I'm about 98% of the way to certainty that the current crop of ruling elites present an existential threat to (mostly) peaceful human civilization. Thinking about Putin, Kim, and Trump--all with their fingers on their launch buttons--inspired me to think about possible strategies and tactics for 5th generation warfare, and I'm sorry to say that I believe a shockingly large number of innocents are going to die in this century. Your choice isn't going to be a matter of some people getting hurt and no one getting hurt. Your choice will be whether seven billion people die, or just a few hundred million, possibly including you and your whole family. All those "preppers" out there are very likely planning for the wrong kinds of disasters. This is not going to be a conflict whose outcome hinges on the number or quality of the guns, or the number of years of stored provisions. It will instead depend upon one's ability to discriminate friend from foe. It doesn't manner how many guns you have if the one in your hand is pointed at your own foot, particularly if you have psyops-induced agnosia. I'm not certain if I have the fortitude for war. And I'm not sure if I have the moxie for covert ops. I'm not even sure who would be in the smallest possible set of people that have to die in order for the least-bleak future to come about. My heart wants there to be a solution where no one has to die, but my head has already run too many thought experiments where passive acquiescence leads directly to ruin. There's no doubt in my mind that killing people and destroying property hurts one's own moral center, and that those who grow skilled at war become less suited to serve non-destructive roles in a world at peace. I think maybe I'm just too selfish to make a choice based on the proposition that a future might not exist unless I actively disqualify myself from being a part of it. I'm certainly not going to be the one that moves first. But I am thinking about the second and third moves.

binaryblitz 9y ago

This has been my point for months, and we'll probably both be downvoted to hell, or just have our comments removed by mods. People need to be scared of screwing over the average joe. Companies and politicians are scamming us every day, and all we do (if anything is done) is fine them pennies on the dollar.

nasredin 9y ago

BLM? Black Lives Matter or that Bureau of Land Management standoff? I wouldn't categorize BLM (Black Lives) as NOT peaceful (or at least in the same category as Vietnam protests). If you mean riots, IMHO it's a separate issue.