Blair Mountain? These are entirely different. The labor rights I mentioned were 17 years after that. Blair mountain was in 1921, fair labor standards was 1938. They are not the same thing. And triangle shirtwaist was 10 more years before that and had nothing to do with workers rights, it was an accident that exposed safety issues, not some attack. This is more dishonesty. The incident I mentioned move forward without violence. Other instances having violence doesn't change that.
Yes there were bombings, sure. There are always radicals, tell me how it moved the needle. Doesn't prove anything.
See, the problem with the statement that there always has to be violence is that it's an absolute statement. One instance to the contrary proves it wrong. This idea also puts forward this idea that violence is the ONLY way to make progress. So if you want change, start hurting people. That's so wrong, factually.
Then you bring in deaths from the depression? What? This is all over the place, those deaths were not the result of people acting for change, those are victims of the economy. Not every death ever is for a cause.
But maybe I'm wrong, how many people died or got hurt in attacks for marriage equality? Because I remember it all being very legislative in nature. Sure there were hate crimes, but that's not violence effecting change, it was the thing that needed to change.
The comment was made that violence is needed for any change. Violence happens because of issues, but violence did not help move these forward. Unless you can explain how.
Lol ok, since you want to be pedantic, let's really get into some details, because you're just wrong about MLK to start.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
How did it happen? The Civil Rights Movement itself was largely nonviolent, with most of the violence happening towards protestors. Figures like Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized civil disobedience, boycotts, and peaceful protests.
Women suffrage
Though some suffragettes engaged in civil disobedience, the broader movement relied on lobbying, protests, and legal appeals. That was the bulk. What you're calling out is one offs and trying to act like that was the norm or bulk of the movement. It was not.
Marriage Equality
Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. No violence needed.
Disability Rights Movement, also known as the ADA
Advocates lobbied for equal rights through demonstrations and legal battles. This resulted in the ADA being passed in 1990
Labor unions and activists pushed for reforms through strikes, negotiations, and legal battles.
The Voting Rights Act (1965) – Protecting Minority Voter Rights
The Selma to Montgomery March and other efforts, led by MLK and civil rights groups, put pressure on the government.
Title IX (1972) – Gender Equality in Education & Sports
Women’s rights activists lobbied for equal educational opportunities. This endned gender discrimination in schools receiving federal funding, revolutionizing women’s sports and education.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal (2011) – Allowing Open LGBTQ+ Military Service
LGBTQ+ advocates, veterans, and lawmakers worked for repeal.
So while you'd argue I'm being naive, I'd argue that you're not informed enough about the topic to make such statements. Especially such absolute statements like "every American movement has used violence" when that is objectively wrong. I don't remember the great Marriage Equality rioters killing people, or the War of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Edit: lol some people are mad that facts don't line up with their world view.
It has before. Women didn't get the right to vote from a massive war. Martin Luther King wasn't an army general. You're being just as dismissive and ignorant as the other guy.
I think knowing something like office software helps since that novel problem. Knowing how to do a pivot table can get you an outcome you need in a fraction of the time if you don't know how to do one. You need to know how to use the tools to create a solution.
There must be something. I see so many comments and how horrible it tastes and honestly I can't tell the difference. I sprinkle this stuff on my bran cereal and it tastes fine to me.
Ahhh this line of logic. Yes, people can forego luxury items and save money while being healthier. You could never eat red meat, or drink soda, or have ice cream, sure, that would be much healthier and cheaper.
I had to scroll too far for this. If your child is a school and there's an emergency, or your husband gets into an accident, or a million other very important things. You'll just get back to them whenever? This seems borderline neglectful.
No, it doesn't mean they're wrong, but asking someone to suffer for your benefit while you refuse to suffer is self centered and shows a lack of conviction. If you take it a step further and start demanding it, like some are, you start to look like what you're fighting against.
"Everyone needs to protest, it won't stop until they feel it! Not me, I mean I'm not going to do that, but people need to. Even if it hurts them and theirs! I'll be waiting."
Thanks for listening I guess.
Edit for your edit: it is about collective action. Action he is demanding that can cause great suffering to those who perform it, so that he can benefit from that action. Action, that while demanding it, he refuses to take part in. This is about people demanding others to suffer for their benefit.
The thing is, for that to have teeth there needs to be a credible threat to him. There isn't one right now.