3 ms·

I find it funny how in every example I have ever seen of "companies oppressing poor workers on strike" every single time the workers started it by doing illega

I find it funny how in every example I have ever seen of "companies oppressing poor workers on strike" every single time the workers started it by doing illegal and wrong things, and attempting to force the company to give in by force. Every. Single. Time. If someone can give me one example where the poor oppressed strikers were 100% in the right and did not actually start with the violence or credible threat of violence before being set upon by the state/company I would really appreciate it, because so far after going through dozens of such events not once have I found one

hooverd 3y ago
Ah, so strikers not being 100% perfect victims justifies it. Got it.
- appleskeptic 3y ago
  Views on collective responsibility for riots have changed a lot. These days, it's only the individual rioters who commit specific crimes that are thought of as bearing responsibility. But before the 1960s or so, a violent crowd was seen as collectively responsible, and it wouldn't have been considered unjustified to treat them accordingly, the way you'd be justified in violent self-defense against an individual rioter today.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  I'm not saying they have to be 100% victims, but if you start off by violently assaulting people I'm not going to say that the people stopping you from doing so by force are in the wrong for doing so. If you want to say a company was evil for sending armed goons to break up a group of armed goons assaulting people or destroying stuff, then you're just plain in the wrong.
fragmede 3y ago
To my knowledge, healthcare workers at Kaiser Permanente of California haven't burned any buildings down or had a brawl in the middle of the parking lot. The Starbucks workers strike was also non-violent. The most recent Writers guild of America strike didn't seem violent to me, but maybe that's Hollywood. The Oakland teachers union strike also didn't result in bloodshed as far as I know, but also it's Oakland.
- appleskeptic 3y ago
  He means cases where management is accused of violence against the strikers.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    ah I missed that context and it's too late to delete it. thank you for pointing that out
  - johngladtj 3y ago
    Exactly

hooverd 3y ago

Ah, so strikers not being 100% perfect victims justifies it. Got it.

appleskeptic 3y ago
Views on collective responsibility for riots have changed a lot. These days, it's only the individual rioters who commit specific crimes that are thought of as bearing responsibility. But before the 1960s or so, a violent crowd was seen as collectively responsible, and it wouldn't have been considered unjustified to treat them accordingly, the way you'd be justified in violent self-defense against an individual rioter today.
johngladtj 3y ago
I'm not saying they have to be 100% victims, but if you start off by violently assaulting people I'm not going to say that the people stopping you from doing so by force are in the wrong for doing so. If you want to say a company was evil for sending armed goons to break up a group of armed goons assaulting people or destroying stuff, then you're just plain in the wrong.

fragmede 3y ago

To my knowledge, healthcare workers at Kaiser Permanente of California haven't burned any buildings down or had a brawl in the middle of the parking lot. The Starbucks workers strike was also non-violent. The most recent Writers guild of America strike didn't seem violent to me, but maybe that's Hollywood. The Oakland teachers union strike also didn't result in bloodshed as far as I know, but also it's Oakland.

appleskeptic 3y ago
He means cases where management is accused of violence against the strikers.
- fragmede 3y ago
  ah I missed that context and it's too late to delete it. thank you for pointing that out
- johngladtj 3y ago
  Exactly