You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
There's a book on the subject written by Srdja Popovic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution
Summary: protests that start (and try to remain) non-violent have a greater chance to succeed, because they can attract more people to their cause.
Critique: with some regimes, it's not possible to non-violently protest. For non-violent protest to work, the environment must respect a minimum amount of human rights.
Case samples:
...etc. In some places, you can't organize. Then your only option is to fight. As long as you can publicly organize, definitely do so - it's vastly preferable. :)
When Palestinians protest peacefully they get shot at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests
When foreigners peacefully protest in solidarity they get shot or run over.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/30/1241231447/rachel-corrie-gaza-palestinians-aid-israel-hamas-war
Thanks for correcting. You're right, I should have written something else than "probably yes" about Israel under Netanyahu. :(
Your point is so important that I don't think it can be stressed enough.
Nonviolent protests are more popular in public opinion. Public opinion gets you more people on your side. More people on your side is more power, and when the regime starts cracking down on peaceful protests, it will be easier to get more people to fight than it would be of we advocate for violence from the start.
I gotta ask, how the hell was the US in the 1960s a safe place to nonviolently protest? Police violence aimed at colored protesters during that era was notorious. Plus the church bombings, the lynchings, the assassinations...
I don't think anyone said that nonviolent protest was safe...
Imaginary history.
They murdered hundreds of palestinians during peaceful protests. GTFO with this BS.
How many times can you list russia/ussr? Give me a break with this lib imperialism.
I may list it as many times as I need. I was born there and grew up there, and have a whole lot of information about how life was.
Not sure you should include Gorbachev since he illegally dissolved the USSR against the will of the people.
Seems to be just about everybody wanted to leave the USSR.
Yes, the USSR, famous for respecting the will of the people ...
The end of East Germany was crazy precisely because it was so peaceful. A number of popular outcries in the late 80s instigated civil reforms. And then one of the defense ministers was asked on national TV in '89 "hey, does this mean we don't need the Berlin Wall anymore". He shrugged and confessed it was no longer needed. And the military took that as a signal to step aside and let the wall get torn down.
In less than six months, the country was holding free elections. And by the following year, they'd reunified.
No shots fired. A purely popular and peaceful revolution that happened practically overnight, by historical standards.
Excuse me, I have a question. Who was the leader of the USSR when this happened?
Gorbachev.
However, its the GDR Communist Chairman Erich Honecker that ultimately changed policy that resulted in reunification.
Ah Schrödinger's Gorbachev, both a great respector of the will of the people, as well a traitor who went against the will of the people.
Then why did you comment on a post that was about the USSR?
What? Do you believe everyone in a country has identical political views?
That's a very naive understanding of popular politics.
The GDR was a member of the USSR.
You're a bit dim aren't you? The parent post that I replied to claimed that Gorbachev was a traitor who went against the will of the people, I said the USSR wasn't wel known for respecting the will of the people in the first place, and here you are giving an example of when the USSR actually did respect the will of the people ... when Gorbachev was in power.
So my conclusion is that Gorbachev must exist in a state of superposition, where he is both things at once.
What does the G in GDR stand for?
The GDR was a member state of the USSR. And the dissolution of the GDR happened under Gorbachev, in a manner that did respect the public's rights.
At the same time, Gorbachev's dismantling of the USSR came in direct opposition to his communist peers, to the point where he was couped by his military leadership in an attempt to stop him.
I know you're attempting wit, but its coming at the expense of your expressed understanding of history.
Gorbachev did, in fact, manager to govern in such a manner that he pissed off just about everyone - the Yeltsin reformists on his right flank (who froze him out of office after he survived the coup) and the Communists on his left flank (who joined him in the dust bin of history after Yeltsin sold the country off piecemeal).
The GDR is the German Democratic Republic, also known as East Germany.
It was a communist country, a member of the Warsaw pact, and aligned with the USSR, but it was not a member state of the USSR.
See also: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria.
See above.
Tankies are going to hate this comment.
It's crazy to talk about the US Civil Rights movement as peaceful, given the police / domestic terrorist bloodbath it resulted in.
How many civil rights leaders need to be shot to death before a movement isn't peaceful anymore?
I understood US Civil Rights movement to be peaceful, as in the people in the movement did not instigate violence. Calling a protest violent because those in power struck back violently seems nonsensical to me.
I'm more responding to
then citing the US during the civil rights movement as a place where non-violent protest was possible.
When the police run into a crowd with attack dogs and billy clubs, while members of a white mob drag black demonstrators off to the nearest large tree to be lynched, I can't imagine how you define that as "peaceful".
The police running into the crowd are violent, certainly; as is the white mob. The response to a movement being violent doesn't make the movement violent, any more than getting mugged makes the victim violent.
It makes the event violent, which poisons the movement and discourages more civilians from participating.
The '60s Civil Rights Movement wasn't the first such movement in the US. We'd had multiple protest waves and minority ethnic civil revolts going straight back to emancipation (and before it). They largely failed because they could not win enough support from the broader proletariat.
The '60s movement was only seen as a success because it won legislative and private sector concessions in a way prior movements failed to achieve. That happened first and foremost in cities and states where the police didn't come in guns blazing and the political apparatus was ready to negotiate concessions quickly, to avoid further economic disruption. Those that did failed to enjoy the 60s/70s era of rapid economic growth and lost national influence as a result.
But to say the Civil Rights Movement succeeded where it began? In Selma, Alabama and Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Mississippi Delta? Absolutely not. State violence crushed it. The movement ended in violence in these early enclaves. It was not peaceful because it was not received peacefully.
They already are. :) I didn't quite expect this effect, but I welcome it. :)
Crazy how triggered (and retarded) they are. Even got one who, rather than admitting he was wrong, doubled down arguing that the GDR was a USSR member state. For some reason that was important to his "argument".