this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
897 points (97.8% liked)

Progressive Politics

1064 readers
786 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

if you want things to change, first you have to find a way to be able to confidently say “I’m ready for things to change”. Then, you have to help other people find a way to say it too. And when there’s finally enough people, nobody has to “go first”.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean that's a nice sentiment, but it's not the late 19th century anymore. Even if it was, that's not really how revolutions worked in the past.

The majority of revolutions that have been successful in the past have sprung from pre-arranged hierarchical bodies like the military. There is a reason the US military was developed to be domestically apolitical, and is forbidden to operate in any real sense within the United States.

If there is some sort of revolution it's perfectly reasonable to assume there will be Martyrs, it's also perfectly reasonable to not want to willingly participate in martyrdom.

[–] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I honestly don’t understand how you can read what I’m saying and think that I must be specifically talking about people martyring themselves or violent political revolutions and I would really appreciate it if you could just take my words for granted without making broader inferences about them.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

And when there’s finally enough people, nobody has to “go first”.

I mean, it's what the person you responded to was talking about..... Am i supposed to "take your words for granted" and also assume you were making a point completely disjointed from the original context?

[–] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

so like I’ve spent a lot of time studying history and revolutions and political movements, so personally when I see somebody say something as vague as “we should do something about this ourselves instead of expecting other people to” it’s very hard for me to assume that they must be talking specifically about violently overthrowing the government.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

If you've spent a lot of time studying history and revolutions......in your opinion, what does it mean when someone says "we should take care of this ourselves"?

In reference to our current political situation, how else would an individual or a small group of like minded individuals "take care" of the situation?

[–] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

it could mean a lot of things, such as widespread civil disobedience. It’s also not necessarily asking anybody to do anything right now, but to be open to the idea of organized direct action. The real point I’m trying to make is when a person says “you go first” reactively in response to any call to action, they actually become part of the problem that needs to be overcome.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

There is a reason the US military was developed to be domestically apolitical, and is forbidden to operate in any real sense within the United States.

well buckle up...

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

I agree with you on that.