Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Democrats drove away all the fighters by attacking anyone who was the slightest bit controversial or politically incorrect for the last 40 years. Basically the party was taken over by fools and cowards. This is our opposition party, and this is why we're screwed. Ban Fox News.
No one gives sympathy to protestors who fire the first killing shot on the authorities. Syrian peaceful demonstrators turned rebels have sympathy from the world because they were fired at first by Assad. Many people soured on the French Revolution at the time when The Terror occurred after the people started executing just about anyone deemed enemies of the revolution.
No one is against violence if it has to come to it, but on Lemmy it is the usual suspects (I probably don't need to mention what political ideology they tend to be) who want to pull the trigger first on the army and police without ever thinking of consequences (they wilfully ignore the existence of Insurrection act). They are like the 2nd amendment right wingers, looking for any opportunities to fire their guns and live their fantasies, but on the opposite extreme end of the political aisle.
Or, it could be anti-Western actors stoking violence on Americans to maximise political divisions because it will tremendously help if US is thrown further into chaos.
Edit: wording
I think Gene Sharp characterized it nicely in his essay, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Notably, this essay has been cited as a major influence on the Arab Spring uprisings, so it's especially relevant to the Syrian protests.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you're at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?
Here in America the police have already been shooting and killing us - without repercussions - for years. The weapons they're using on protesters right now are called "less lethal" for good reason.
How many killing shots do the police need to take before we can take one? Should we just wait until the first murder at each city, or at each individual protest within each city, or until we see one personally?
It's not an either/or situation.
In the (supposed) words of Al Capone
You get a lot more from a kind word and a gun than from a kind word alone.
Critically however, a gun without the kind word is also far less effective. They are like the tip and shaft of a spear. The shaft has the range, but lacks the punch. The tip has the punch, but lacks the range. Together they are far more than the sum of their parts.
In terms of protest. A peaceful protest is like the kind word. It's a polite but forceful delivery of a message. Radical action and violence are the gun. They work best as an implied threat. The target much know that you are willing to escalate, if required.
Too much violence, and you have a riot. These can be put down with force, and have little to no public backlash. (This is what trump currently wants to happen).
Too little violence, and the protest can be safely ignored.
The perfect balance has enough to keep the government on their toes, but not so much as to drive away supporters, and burn off the anger powering things.
Currently, Trump and co are trying to goad people into over reacting and justifying an aggressive crackdown. In light of that, a message of don't take the bait, err towards passive over violence isn't so bad.
Remember when the founding fathers held a peaceful protest in Boston and the British were like, "Woah, we better Bach the fuck up"?
Um, a lot gets done without violence, including regime change. In fact, nothing swells the numbers of a movement like state brutality on peaceful protests, and that is amplified with the ubiquity of the cell-phone camera and the internet.
This is not to say a movement by violence is bad, just that it can detract sympathizers.
But don't worry, when the regime has to choose between giving up (say in the face of a general strike) and sending out the goons, they'll always choose the latter. No one tosses the One Ring into the fires of Mt. Doom. It's the same paradigm that leaves us with senile geriatrics unwilling to relinquish the power of office until it is pried from their cold, dead hands.
Usually, by then, the military has realized the regime is illegal and as luney as Aerys II Targaryen (The Mad King, who Jamie slew, SoIaF) and is willing to do the wet-work. By artillery if necessary.
Then again, destruction of property like burning the Waymo cabs, is a common necessity. That wasn't the act of rioters, but saboteurs. Waymos are snitches and have been reporting to ICE the location of targeted civilians.
in the grand scheme of world history, a hell of a lot more has gotten done with violence than without.
You obviously haven’t seen the litigation tracker for this particular regime. Lots has been happening.
Going violent is what trump has been baiting for. He’s looking for a reason. Don’t feed the troll king.
Here we go again,
The Peaceful LA Protests of June, 2025 worked. We're all talking about it now. If the LA protests weren't peaceful, we would have different talking points for this weekend's protests and protesters would have been killed. This administration wants this.
YSK - That there is a lot of trolling and brigading starting to happen around the LA peaceful protests to start violence. Here is a roadmap from 2015 on how they do it.: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39873361
Also, this:
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/protest-trump-resistance-power
How did they work? ICE is still in my neighborhood snatching people up
They're fucking brainwashed. They equate just protesting with some victory in their heads. No matter how small, every protest is some achievement
In the lib's mind, protesting is not a tool, it's the goal on itself. Just show up, wave a little flag and the bad guys will magically change their mind like it's a fucking movie.
It's all performative actions.
This administration already called in the national guard for a peaceful protest. Do you think that it will stop here and the they will not continue to commit more and more violence against peaceful protestors until we reach a breaking point and have to start defending ourselves?
Or are we supposed to allow ourselves to become martyrs and die before we fight back against those that would see us dead.
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts
This is misleading. Nonviolent resistance is obviously going to be more likely to succeed because armed conflict only happens when the government digs in its heels after the nonviolent resistance. What? Did you want Syrians to nonviolently resist Assad's Sarin gas?