3 ms·

Let me make this blatantly clear. I am not advocating "shooting up the bosses house", arson, assault, etc. I AM advocating education, by both employees and com

by pierat 3y ago

Let me make this blatantly clear. I am not advocating "shooting up the bosses house", arson, assault, etc. I AM advocating education, by both employees and companies' legal council. Go study your union history. Teach it to colleagues. Understand your rights as non-union worker and union worker. And, unionize. (A company would consider that violent, given how they respond with illegal actions.) And, you'd be surprised just how effective a PEACEFUL protest at the sidewalk at the bosses' house is. Ive seen a variation of that with a peaceful protest of our mayor doing dumb shit. The grievances got solved real quick.

philwelch 3y ago
> Let me make this blatantly clear. I am not advocating "shooting up the bosses house", arson, assault, etc. So what did you mean by "Maybe they should be reminded?" > I AM advocating education, by both employees and companies' legal council. Reminding people of the "history" that violence and terrorism have (occasionally, arguably) been effective still comes across as an implicit threat. If you were advocating violence but trying to disingenuously pretend otherwise, you would have used the exact same words. I can and will assume good faith here, but you need to be a lot more careful about the implications of what you're saying here. Moreover, that kind of rhetoric normalizes the use of violence and terrorism to achieve social/economic/political goals. At any rate, while we are having a dispassionate discussion of history, I would also point out that violence doesn't always work out for the left/labor side of the equation. Sometimes populists use public fear of that terrorism to justify right-wing authoritarian regimes. Sometimes those regimes start throwing the leftists out of helicopters. Sometimes catastrophic world wars break out between leftist-revolutionary dictatorships and right-populist dictatorships. And to me, the moral of that long and bloody story is that you do not normalize or advocate violence as a means of achieving social/economic/political goals.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by pierat 3y ago

philwelch 3y ago

> Let me make this blatantly clear. I am not advocating "shooting up the bosses house", arson, assault, etc. So what did you mean by "Maybe they should be reminded?" > I AM advocating education, by both employees and companies' legal council. Reminding people of the "history" that violence and terrorism have (occasionally, arguably) been effective still comes across as an implicit threat. If you were advocating violence but trying to disingenuously pretend otherwise, you would have used the exact same words. I can and will assume good faith here, but you need to be a lot more careful about the implications of what you're saying here. Moreover, that kind of rhetoric normalizes the use of violence and terrorism to achieve social/economic/political goals. At any rate, while we are having a dispassionate discussion of history, I would also point out that violence doesn't always work out for the left/labor side of the equation. Sometimes populists use public fear of that terrorism to justify right-wing authoritarian regimes. Sometimes those regimes start throwing the leftists out of helicopters. Sometimes catastrophic world wars break out between leftist-revolutionary dictatorships and right-populist dictatorships. And to me, the moral of that long and bloody story is that you do not normalize or advocate violence as a means of achieving social/economic/political goals.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]