120
‘Anger and radicalization’: rising number of Americans say political violence is justified
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
120 points (93.5% liked)
politics
18651 readers
3574 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like it’s a lot closer to “well those fuckin’ Nazi wingnuts seem like they’re gonna start something at some point soon, so I think it’d be prudent to have some contingency plans”. That’s where my head is, at least.
I believe we will get no necessary reforms without threat of violence. The rich will absolutely shoot us, so we just be prepared to do the same
Look up the Battle of Blair Mountain
You need a two hand approach, the larger peaceful movement and a smaller more aggressive movement to lead toward success. MLK & Malcolm X during the Civil Rights Movement is the example you want to set. You sway public opinion by showing violent actions committed against the unarmed peaceful protestors. You pressure by have your more aggressive wing just be themselves. Throughout American history this has been the path to change. The aggressive side doesn't even need to be violent, they just have to be intimidating and scare the MAGAs. That us enough for them to attack the peaceful protestors who they will attack because they are cowards who crave conformity.
I’m familiar with it, and I agree.
Exactly this.
Non violent mass protests work because the implicit threat is, "make the changes we're demanding or we'll drag you out here and beat you to death."
MLK was only effective because of the alternative of dealing with Malcolm X.
This, but don't reform, abolish and build new. Our current oppressive systems are insidious and will rise back up through whatever crack they find. We need to create a society that would categorically stomp them out when they do.
Any suggestions on how to do that?
Excellent timing. In a conversation I learned only yesterday that Red Neck wasn't always a pejorative term. The miners wore red neckerchiefs. They were workers standing up to the man / system. It's been completely changed in meaning deliberately, or so I was told, as part of the effort to erase them from history. Seems possible to me.
Also, there's apparently no mention of this class battle in West Virginia history books. Anyone here able to verify that?