politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Peaceful protests build the sense of consensus and unity. Violent solutions can't succeed without both popular support and enough participants to make a difference, but if everybody's scared of standing alone they're doomed. Sudden upheaval is likely to make more people oppose the change, because most people like stability.
Peaceful protests that get gradually more frustrated are more likely to support more drastic measures than a sudden upheaval. Whether or not you believe peaceful protests will fix anything, they're the best solution that's viable right now.
I live in Russia, I'm having flashbacks of explanations why all the opposition is doing is peaceful protests.
Nah, it doesn't work. The faster you get to throwing Molotov cocktails, the better.
If it's five people throwing them, they're terrorists. If it's five million, they're a problem. (Depending on the size of country and military, I'm pulling numbers out my arse to exemplify a point, not as accurate measures).
Numbers matter. If you have enough people on your side and willing to join the throwing for your cocktails to make a difference, that might work for you. But if most of the populace are scared to lose more than they stand to gain, you'll end up with the brave throwers arrested or killed, the media denouncing their "undemocratic" acts and possibly the people even more afraid to do anything.
Any revolutionary movement will need to hit a point of critical mass that allows it to succeed. It's hard to gauge just when that point is reached, but if you misjudge, you'll end up another failed insurrection.
The bad guys know this too, they'll penetrate your organization (if it's decentralized, they'll still poison it with plenty of agents, they've got taxpayers' money), they'll use your inaction to communicate apathy, they'll even have something false flag to still cause the effect you're describing without real people using force. And their media doesn't need anything real to happen to report it.
Not hard for a government, no. Anything predictable and organized will not succeed. As chaotic and brave as possible or not at all.
That's sounds accurate for Russia, but could it be that different strategies remain possible in the US? The US could be on it's way to be a totalitarian state like Russia, but it's not there yet, and still has a lot of (flawed) democratic institutions. I think in the US you can still protest without being put in jail.
I don't think so, because what I said didn't mention anything about already having totalitarianism. The means today's governments have at their disposal allow to achieve most of things done by classic 30s totalitarian regimes without visible violence.
Thanks for the reply. I'd argue it's still worthwhile to speak out in a peaceful manner and hope that truth will prevail, but maybe you're right and I am too optimistic
Peaceful protests are really only effective if they are seen as an alternative to more militant groups.
Martin Luther King non violence wouldn't have been that popular if it wasn't seen as an alternative for Malcolm X's more radical ideology.
I'm pretty sure something similar occurred with the suffrage movement but I didn't remember the details.