Anonymous #2 3d

What excuse is there for dehumanization?

3

Anonymous #2 3d

this is the way Nazis talked ab Jews btw

2

Anonymous #3 3d

It’s also the way republicans talk about “demoncrats”

1

Anonymous #2 3d

We’re not defending that, we want no dehumanization on both sides

4

Anonymous #2 3d

And apparently it’s the way democrats talks about republicans too, I can do it bc they do it is the most childish justification ever, if a couple republicans went out and killed democrats would it suddenly become okay for democrats to kill republicans?

8

Anonymous OP 3d

Only violence can be used to defend against violence. That’s how every nation has persisted since the dawn of humanity.

1

Anonymous #3 3d

Dude republicans do go out and kill democrats. Look up Daniel Perry, he texted his friend that he was gonna go kill some protestors, drove into a crowd and shot someone for disagreeing with him and then got pardoned.

0

Anonymous #2 3d

So it’s okay in your eyes? That’s wild, you’re no better than them lol

8

Anonymous #3 3d

Not just my eyes, their eyes, your eyes, the presidents eyes, and everyone who has ever lived in a country with a militaries eyes as well.

0

Anonymous #1 3d

Apparently nobody understands that meeting “I think white people are superior” with “well why do you think that” isn’t an effective method of stopping white nationalism

8

Anonymous #2 3d

killing soldiers is diff than killing people for no reason other than their political affiliation if a Republican attacks you, you should attack them back in self-defense, targeting republicans bc of something another Republican did is absurd

5

Anonymous #2 3d

An eye for an eye doesn’t work, that leads to anarchy. If someone does something violent they should get arrested for it and serve time, extrajudicial killings is a terrible thing

3

Anonymous #3 3d

It’s one thing if it’s some rando who spends the rest of his life in prison. The biggest republicans in the country have openly and repeatedly supported the idea of violence against their political opponents. Genuine question: at what point does it become something bigger? What line has to be crossed?

1

Anonymous OP 3d

No, it’s led to civilization. Every country in existence follows the “eye for an eye” rule.

1

Anonymous #2 3d

Violence is a last resort, nonviolent direct action like strikes and boycotts are both far more humane and far more effective It’s hard for moderates to empathize with a resistance that presents themselves as violent

6

Anonymous #3 3d

Moderates empathize with a healthcare system that kills 40,000 Americans per year and a military which has killed millions of civilians in our rather short lifetimes. Moderates don’t hate violence, the media tells them to.

1

Anonymous #2 3d

If you think moderates are too far gone then you’re likely too radical to establish any sort of movement to gain traction

1

Anonymous #3 3d

That’s exactly the opposite of what I said lmao

1

Anonymous #2 3d

No one likes the healthcare system except the rich execs. And when did we kill millions in our lifetime??

1

Anonymous #2 3d

Research shows nonviolent direct action is the most effective way to protest from Arab Spring to the Civil Rights movement If the populace associates your movement with violence, you will never be successful or at least as successful than if it wasn’t

4

Anonymous OP 3d

Iraq alone, not to even mention all the drone runs from both Obama and Trump

5

Anonymous #2 3d

Iraq was hundreds of thousands and was widely disliked to the point of getting the first African American president into office

1

Anonymous #3 3d

The issue here, is nonviolent direct action only works when it’s allowed to work. When facing an oppressive regime that meets nonviolent direct action with violent suppression, then nonviolence becomes less of a viable option. People, you and OP included, acting as if nonviolent resistance alone is able to combat the uprising of a fascist consolidation of power, no matter what, aren’t serious about resistance imo. Nonviolence is the first route, and most preferable; but if you’re not willing

0

Anonymous #5 3d

That’s why I said violence as a last resort, there hasn’t been a single general strike or large scale boycott lasting longer than 2 weeks Saying it doesn’t work when we haven’t even tried it is defeatist and misses the point Also, violence, just like nonviolent direct action, is only meaningful and effective when deliberately planned and organized, no method works without organization, rogue resisters don’t make any meaningful change

2

Anonymous #5 3d

To adopt violent means of resistance *IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY*, then we’re not actually resisting anything, just relying on blind hope that our oppressors will “come to their senses” one day. There’s a reason why Nelson Mandela resorted to violence, after years of advocating for pure peaceful resistance in South Africa during apartheid.

0

Anonymous #3 3d

Strikes can’t work because of how many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. A strike would kill more civilians than a war would.

1

Anonymous #3 3d

But who disagreed with that, about it being a last resort? As far as I can tell, you and OP are jumping to the defense of those conditioning into supporting the fascist regime out of fear for violence becoming the necessary route Additionally, you’re behaving as if the state hasn’t already been violently suppressing nonviolent resistance and protests?

1

Anonymous #5 3d

MLK won rights for all black people without throwing a single punch. All he did was speak, walk, and sit. And this is when black people would be beaten, sprayed with water hoses, or police dogs attack them

-1

Anonymous #2 3d

That’s why Americans need to organize mutual aid networks, basic facets of community organizing, tell people where to get food and where to get rent money for when they do strike, again organization is the key

1

Anonymous OP 3d

No, MLK got shot and killed for it. The panthers won rights for all black people.

3

Anonymous OP 3d

You might want to read his letter from a Birmingham jail; where he directly critiques the white moderate that’s more addicted to the idea of civility than any sense of justice. Don’t hijack Dr. King’s ideals for your own personal goals, when he openly spoke against what you’re discussing.

1

Anonymous #3 3d

Again, who is disagreeing with that? People are organizing those networks, even if they’re disconnected atm; but this entire post reeks with complicity while hiding it behind a facade of “niceness” or “civility” I wonder who ultimately benefits from that?

1

Anonymous OP 3d

This is factually untrue, but the civil rights movement was both incredibly well-organized and well-disciplined

1

Anonymous #5 3d

I wonder who ultimately benefits from isolated acts of violence against the secret police, the secret police or its victims

1

Anonymous OP 3d

Also here’s a political cartoon from the 60s, MLK was widely seen as violent by political opposition at the time

15

Anonymous #3 3d

Do you genuinely think resistance is possible without loss?? Every other resistance movement in the last must’ve been doing it wrong, I guess? Is it possibly some “american exceptionalism” that you’re invoking here? Imo complying and just hoping for the best doesn’t do much except ensure they’re able to consolidate the power they want, but you do you ig.

5

Anonymous #5 3d

In the past*

2

Anonymous #5 3d

no, but I also don’t think leaping to violence when the most that has been done are single-day protests is the right choice either

1

Anonymous #1 3d

Worked with MLK

1

Anonymous OP 3d

You have no clue about that actual history of the civil rights movement then

3

Anonymous #3 3d

I agree; I don’t think we’re at the point for unfettered violence yet either; but personally im thinking large scale in that sense I don’t consider individual people fighting back against federal agents attempting to kidnap them or their family as violence in that context though. Like I’m okay with people defending themselves against the state, but I don’t think we’re at the point of like burning down banks and shit (too many people are still conditioned into supporting the institutions)

1

Anonymous #5 3d

Oh shit I messed up, this one got disconnected😭

1

Anonymous #3 3d

Not really. You’re essentially saying people who dehumanize hitler is equal to the nazis dehumanizing the Jews. That’s not true.

1

Anonymous #6 3d

Hitler was in fact a human, I feel like dehumanizing defeats the purpose of realizing that human beings are capable of evil or violent acts Hitler was tragically human and that’s one of the most important parts to take away from history in the first place, human beings do awful things to each other, these aren’t incomprehensible reptilian monsters

1

Anonymous #3 3d

And that’s fair. Humanity doesnt need monsters demons or gods to be evil they just are.

3

Anonymous #6 3d

yeah, I dislike when people try to dismiss human beings who do catastrophic things as merely evil or immoral when it’s often way more complicated than that

1

Anonymous #5 2d

yes I agree with this, there is a diff between someone fighting to avoid being sent to the inhumane detention facility versus someone out there just looking to hurt ICE agents

1

Anonymous #3 2d

Well, I’d still argue that people going out there with the intention of preventing ICE and other agents from kidnapping civilians is still defensive actions. I’d hope for organized resistance units designed for exactly that, if I’m being completely honest. Community policing in the truest sense.

1