conditional_soup @ conditional_soup @lemm.ee

Posts

11

Comments

2,013

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh, is the curfew not city wide?

I'm moving to both piefed and .zip

They're opposing the people opposing ICE. They're supposed to be the opposition party, but all they ever seem to oppose seriously is the left.

Fuckin assholes

Let me guess, the protests in TX aren't even that remarkable.

Democrats: okay, we've had our two days of larping like we don't agree with the republicans lmao. You need to sit down, shut up, and let our special fascist boys do their work.

Regarding the calls for non-violence, I don't want to put anyone down or say anyone's doing anything wrong. Good job being out there and trying. I would also like to point out

1. Dr. King was NOT spoken of as a paragon of non-violence by conservative contemporaries. It was very common to refer to Dr. King's protests as riots and in terms of inciting violence, even if the violence being invited, much as today, was police on protestor violence. If Dr. King had bowed to the cries that he was sparking violence, we never would have gone anywhere. There was a huge acceptance washing campaign by conservative America after the civil rights wins.
2. In the 2014 Maidan protests in Ukraine, protestors were getting cut down by police snipers during peaceful, unarmed marches. The police snipers were shooting people who were running out with stretchers to get the people who'd been shot. When they finally got sick of it and announced that they were going to come back tomorrow and do an armed march, the cops suddenly remembered that they all had dentist appointments in Belarus that day and skipped town. Nobody got shot during the armed march. See: https://youtu.be/yzNxLzFfR5w . So, it's not so much that you have to use violence, but the state is a lot more likely to hesitate about kicking your shit in if they know you can be violent back and believe that you're willing to do so. Ask any conservative what an acceptable protest is, and it's likely to be something like "shouting into your closet"; as far as they're concerned, peaceful marches ARE ALREADY violent if anyone notices them or they disrupt anything at all. Our cops don't give a shit if you're peaceful, they shoot reporters with rubber bullets and force people to grab billy clubs so they can beat the fuck out of them. We're past that. It's time to remind the state that there is alternative to peaceful protest if they really want to go that route.

Talking a whole lot of shit for someone riding around in a machine that will find literally any excuse to break down. Helicopters are sketchy as fuck, and even if you manage to autorotate perfectly to try and recover from a stall, you're still liable to suffer severe or fatal injuries. It's super easy to crash due to human error or some kind of mechanical failure.

Bruh wow

None, because the cops skipped town; I think it was said that they all left for Belarus, for the most part.

West coast checking in, sure would appreciate the assist.

There is no way Newsom has this much balls. There is no way he could possible be this based.

Right? Golly, I hope he proves me wrong.

Daily reminder that the media of the time did not hail King as the paragon of non-violence as we do today. The rhetoric were that his protests were violent and disruptive, and that they ought to be stopped. It was only after he was successful that all that rhetoric was blown away and retroactively painted with the brush of acceptance and approval.

Also worth noting that in the 2014 Maidan protests, one of the only times nobody got hurt was when the group announced an armed peaceful march and the cops made themselves scarce.

https://youtu.be/yzNxLzFfR5w

Yeah, nobody's been hurt except by the cops. Some waymos and cop cars got burned; that's what they call Monday in LA.

I think a really good lesson comes from the documentary "Winter on Fire" about the 2014 Maidan protests. The tl;Dr is that the protestors organized a peaceful march, and the police set up a sniper corridor and started mowing people down indiscriminately. They shot people who ran out with stretchers to carry the people who'd been shot. That night, the protestors regrouped and announced their plans to march again tomorrow, and to do so armed, all 90,000 of them. Like a Christmas fucking miracle, the cops found somewhere else to be the next day, and nobody got shot.

https://youtu.be/yzNxLzFfR5w

Well, shit. There's a lot to not like about Newsom, but I can think of 100 democrat politicians that would have folded like wet Kleenex by now. He could be a lot more aggressive about this, but he's clearly trying to exhaust all the normal channels. Critical support for Gavin.

Basically, the cold war was already starting to wind down in the 80s and late 70s. We were comfortable enough that we'd won the Cold war that Reagan embarked us on the 40 year project of strip-mining worker benefits and social welfare programs. The most culturally aggressive aspects of the cold war happened during the mid-60s.

There's a really good documentary on it called "Winter on Fire". The full thing is available on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/yzNxLzFfR5w

You don't need violence per se, as much as the threat of it. Take the 2014 Maidan protests; the cops were happy to set up a sniper corridor along the planned peaceful march route and cut down unarmed protestors. That night the protestors announced they'd be coming back tomorrow, only all of them armed with guns. Cops today might be militarized, but that's nothing in the face of 90,000 people with guns, and they know it, so they miraculously found somewhere else to be the next day and nobody got shot.

Fascists are never to be taken seriously when they say that they're very worried about protecting anything.