4 ms·
Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms." The reality is the vast majority of social progre
by zug_zug 5mo ago
Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms."
The reality is the vast majority of social progress in the last millenium was achieved with force and threat of force. I find this weird revisionist "violence is never the answer" trope recited as a fact that needs no justification to be incredibly weird and unreliable.
- amazingamazing 5mo agoSo what are you advocating for?
- new_account_100 5mo agoI feel like you're trying to bait people into saying something that violates the site guidelines.
- zug_zug 5mo agoFor throwing the tea into the harbor. By the way -- Where do you stand on throwing tea into the harbor? And where do you stand on the legitimacy of publicly discussing throwing tea into the harbor?
- amazingamazing 5mo ago[flagged]
- pydry 5mo agoIt's not complicated. They are in favor of public vandalism such as that which was committed by the Boston Tea Party whereas you appear to be suggesting that you are vehemently against it.
- mothballed 5mo agoWhat a load of shit. You're essentially goading someone to fedpost and holding their argument hostage if they don't.
- dandellion 5mo agoWhat riddle? I'm not a native English speaker, and it's pretty clear even to me what he's saying.
- zug_zug 5mo agoBased on the number of upvotes I'm getting I think it's you who's really struggling to make a point. I don't think your arguing in good faith and you are getting called out on it by a few people. So you answer first, then I'll answer -- Was the boston tea party justified? Is civil disobedience ever justified? Is breaking the law a good thing sometimes if it's a bad law (e.g. Rosa Parks)? If you can't answer those then I think you'll have convinced me and the rest of us that you aren't even trying to make a good-faith effort to make a point.
- amazingamazing 5mo agoAgain this is not the Boston Tea Party or the Civil Rights movement. I also don’t really care about upvotes either. You keep making comparisons with the past instead of explicitly stating your opinion on the topic at hand in the article. Anyway no point of further discourse.
- prepend 5mo agoI think its better to lodge displeasure by placing sticky notes instead of destroying. It decreases camera usefulness and I’m not quite sure it’s a crime.
- raincole 5mo agoViolence is only the answer if you're willing to cost a few thousands (sometimes millions) of lives.
- newAccount2025 5mo agoThat’s an instant debate winner if we can’t differentiate between breaking cameras and mass death.
- raincole 5mo agoYes, breaking cameras never results in positive changes. Mass death sometimes does.
- prepend 5mo agoI wouldnt call property crime violence.
- mrtesthah 5mo agoProperty destruction is not the same crime as battery/assault/etc. Let’s not call breaking a camera “violence”.
- tptacek 5mo agoYou could use this Boston Tea Party logic for virtually any violent action no matter how dumb or counterproductive.
- whatshisface 5mo agoTo be fair to the loyalists, a lot of people were making this point at the time. Tally ho, gents.
- tptacek 5mo agoIt's like the "watering the tree of patriotism with the blood of centrists" or whatever the fuck it was. You probably wouldn't want to hang out with the groups of people most likely to deploy these arguments.
- petre 5mo agoIt's not violence, it's vandalism. Quite diferrent. But why smash'em when you have the right to bear arms? I'd do target practice instead. Improve your shootong skills while getting rid of surveillance. Win-win.
- NDlurker 5mo agoExtra charge for using a gun. Slingshot maybe? Or as I said before, just put a bag over the camera. Is that even illegal?
- piloto_ciego 5mo agoI'd say, "you can't commit violence against a camera" but now everything is violence if it costs someone money.
- KennyBlanken 5mo ago...only if it costs a corporation money. Someone shoplifts $50 worth of stuff from Wallyworld and the cops come a runnin' (if they're not already there, because they station a cop full time there.) Someone steals your $500 bicycle and cops tell you not to bother filing a police report because nothing will happen. How did we start tolerating public employees not only discouraging people from making them do their jobs, but them justifying it by saying they're incompetent and nothing will happen? And before someone screeches that wallyworld has cameras: so do many people now, too. The cops won't do anything even when a tracker like an airtag shows the bike is in a specific house. Facebook Marketplace and OfferUp and other forums are chock full of obvious stolen bike listings and people are easily tracing them to lost-bike posts. There's a huge encampment under a bridge in my city that is known as the regional bike 'chop shop' where tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of bicycles are being cut up for their parts and the parts sold through fences and the frames et al going out for scrap metal. The cops do not give a shit.
- cindyllm 5mo ago[dead]
- piloto_ciego 5mo agoThey're only there to enforce property rights ultimately.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ai_critic 5mo agoThat's...exactly what happened with the Boston Tea Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts Had France not been willing to subsidize an insurgent campaign to distract the British, it's incredibly likely those Acts would've remained in place for some time. People who rush to using violence as an answer frequently do not consider the outcome if they've misjudged their opponents' capacity for it.
- linksnapzz 5mo ago>People who rush to using violence as an answer frequently do not consider the outcome if they've misjudged their opponents' capacity for it. It's part of the fun of being an internet revolutionary. Eventually, though, most end up thinking things through.
- naniwaduni 5mo ago> Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms." I mean, that it... quite literally did? Yeah, you can externalize enforcement of sanctions against you to drag other people into a conflict with you, but I wouldn't suggest getting caught making that argument.