Thanks, I hadn't come across that yet. Newsweek is hiding these kind of articles form their frontpage, I have no idea why. I appreciate you taking the time to source it well.
Not really, since I don't think he sent anyone for the Air Force.
The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military's reserve components of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force when activated for federal missions.[2] It is a military reserve force composed of National Guard military members or units of each state, the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. It is officially created under Congress's Article I, Section 8 enumerated power to "raise and support Armies".[3] All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of U.S. state governments and the U.S. federal government.[2]
“The opposition party is the media,” Steve Bannon, who helped run Trump’s 2016 campaign, told PBS Frontline five years ago. “And the media can only — because they’re dumb and they’re lazy — they can only focus on one thing at a time.”
So the solution, per Bannon? Overwhelm them.
“All we have to do is flood the zone,” he said. “Every day we hit them with three things. They’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all of our stuff done, bang, bang, bang. These guys will never — will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity.”
If you look across the different streams, the comments are all almost exactly the same. It leads me to believe bots. I guess it could be 10 really prolific copy and pasters though.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. People are being mixed in to the comments that want violence and are promoting violence all over Lemmy. I apologize for somehow lumping you in with that.
What are you trying to say? That the demonstrators should start killing people, looting and setting everything on fire? I don't think that's a good solution. In fact, that would just get a lot of protesters killed.
There's no purity testing. I'm counteracting a lot of people saying to bring their guns and start shooting. I wonder why people are calling for that? It doesn't seem in the protester's best interest.
Not to help the AI companies, but why don't they program them to look up math programs and outsource chess to other programs when they're asked for that stuff? It's obvious they're shit at it, why do they answer anyway? It's because they're programmed by know-it-all programmers, isn't it.
This is not an invasion of our land, these are democratic protests. There is a huge difference between Russia sending bombs to bomb LA and Americans protesting. If Russia sends bombs, fuck them up.
I think I need to be clear, I don't give a shit if windows are broken or they throw scooters off bridges onto cop cars, I'm talking about violence against humans. TBH, the looting sends the wrong message of greed instead of being for a cause, but not because they're damaging shit.
I see what you're saying, but I live in Seattle. I saw how they spun our city as a "hellhole" and "it's on fire" for months. I had family members calling to see if I was okay when it was very contained and our cops had been quiet quitting for years anyway, it was that fucked up. You have to have the people on your side, and not be on the side of the soldiers/agents/whatever.
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.
There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.
Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.
Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field. They primarily considered attempts to bring about regime change. A movement was considered a success if it fully achieved its goals both within a year of its peak engagement and as a direct result of its activities. A regime change resulting from foreign military intervention would not be considered a success, for instance. A campaign was considered violent, meanwhile, if it involved bombings, kidnappings, the destruction of infrastructure – or any other physical harm to people or property.
Thanks, I hadn't come across that yet. Newsweek is hiding these kind of articles form their frontpage, I have no idea why. I appreciate you taking the time to source it well.