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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
The civil rights movement did not succeed because of Martin Luther King Jr's peaceful speech, it succeeded because the Black Panthers bought a firearms en masse and took their rights.
We didn't win the revolutionary war because we asked nicely and protested peacefully, we won because we ignored the standards of chivalry in war at the time and fought like guerillas.
Anyone who says violence isn't the answer has never studied history.
Violence is the only thing that's ever worked.
This is probably a bit too reductive. Violence is sometimes necessary, but isn't always the best strategy.
In general, the left should take an approach of nonviolent, disruptive agitation, combined with a willingness to use violence in self-defense. Arm up, protect each other, but don't try to instigate a shooting war.
Moderates only ever succeed with and because of a radical flank demonstrating the alternative.
MLK succeeded because the powers that be realized that Malcom X was the fallback plan. Malcom X did not have a problem with violence. And that’s not a dig at Malcom X.
No. The left should use violence as the tool it is that has always gotten results. Every right and freedom has come from the blood of those who fought.
Leave the peaceful donothings to the lib/centrists, because they won’t do shit anyway.
If you're going to use violence, be very smart about your targets who, where, how. You want those in power to fear, not the average gun toting American who is just trying to pay rent and buy food. If you make that population fear for their lives they won't hesitate to kill you and in most of this country they could do so legally.
It smells like Fed in here. ಠ_ಠ
Anarchists have a significant history of using "Propaganda of the Deed" and accomplishing fuck all with it. No shortage of examples among the history of the broader left, too. So yeah, I'm gonna have to call BS on this.
Violence is a tool, and there's a time and place for it. Don't be an idiot adventurist about it though.
Violence is the threat backing up the demands of the peaceful. A group of people asking nicely are easily suppressed by violent opposition, unless a threat of escalation exists. If those demands fail, escalation is the necessary response. Otherwise, the threat will have been a bluff and future threats won't be taken as seriously.
On the other hand, violent change still needs popular support to have lasting effects, and it needs to feed back into a nonviolent result. Many tyrants have claimed power by force, only to have their dynasty crumble within a few generations.
Thus, violence in the name of progress always needs to be preceded, accompanied and succeeded by peaceful efforts to get people on board with that progress and help them actually feel the results.
It was both, fellow worker.
We need a diversity of tactics. The literature describes a "radical flank effect" where the radical and moderate wings of social movements mutually benefit.