Liberals are under no illusion as to how workers rights were run. That's why they did the Taft Hartley act after all. Don't go getting too uppity now.

[–] webdoodle@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I went to the NoKings 'protest' in Missoula MT and watched the 'protestors' all gather into a group and they walk down the road starting at the Courthouse. I chose too walk on the side walk, as the road was too busy and nobody was going to see my awesome signage and plumage. While walking down the side walk a lady in warning color orange clothing said "Would you please walk in the road, we're not supposed to use the sidewalk." I was dumbfounded, but quickly answered, "That doesn't sound like a protest it sounds like a parade." Come to find out they did in fact apply for a parade permit. hahahaha

The NoKings parade in Missoula ended up funneling all of the 'protestors' away from the roads and off into an unused portion of downtown that wouldn't block any traffic. I thought, "They've been cowed so well they even protest like cows while being herded straight to the slaughter house."

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Can anyone tell me where the term Redneck comes from?

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

IIRC it refers to how rural farmers' necks are often sunburned and red.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Try reading about the Battle of Blair Mountain. You will be surprised

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

wrong https://daily.jstor.org/redneck-a-brief-history/

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

yes
But if you think it's from the red scarves worn by workers who fought for their rights you're wrong

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

"I can totally answer but I don't wanna, you're wrong tho"

Damn I bet your girlfriend who goes to another school is really impressed right now

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Thanks for your cringe infantile and unnecessary hostile comment.
https://daily.jstor.org/redneck-a-brief-history/

See you're wrong tho.
And I expect better from a ML

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Hang Don Chafin 🎶

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Being able to fight for rights without spilling blood was a hard fought privilege. Blood spilling is not the only way to succeed. Though I will not deny it works, safer options should not be fully scorned.

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 7 points 1 week ago

It is a privilege that has never existed. Also these pictures are of self defense, it is not the recommended course of action, once the peaceful methods run the course the state is the one that starts the violence. If you do not respond and are not prepared you die.

[+] ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org -40 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Don't do this stupid shit.

Advocating for violence like this is exactly the kind of shit that all the digital ID assholes and the internet censorship nazis are going to point to for why their way is right.

the ignorant, elderly old farts that have every seat of every elected position are going to believe those evil people

stop validating what they believe

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Don’t do this stupid shit. Advocating for violence like this

I'm curious, did you read about Don Chafin before posting this comment?

check out the song too: Hang Don Chafin

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 53 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Oh fuck off. These pictures are of Blair Mountain, a fight started by the government. The armed people are defending themselves against militarized strike breakers who started the violence.

[+] masterspace@lemmy.ca -16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

do you think workers got rights by asking nicely?

if factories didn't get set on fire with the owner inside people would still be breaking their backs working 16h a day in conditions that shorten their lives by a year every month spent working, every day going deeper in dept to the company store. Oh and they asked for better conditions, they protested, they demanded, they went on strikes, but there was no way out.

violance isn't the answer - violance is what happens when you take away someon's hope. And this is not a new relevation:

Sun Tzu said 'When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard'

because a desperate, hopeless foe will fight to the death

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

This is the most xenophobic and liberal brainworm comment I got so far, congratulations.

"This is something I don't agree with must be those shifty CHINESE."

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

Atleast they chose a communist nation founded on the rights of the working class over Russia an ex commhnist country that is now capitalist. So it could get dumber

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"don't fight corporations because then they would justify fighting back"

yeah no shit.

[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They even justify starving us even when we don't fight back.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

that's the kicker. they will find justification to fuck us anyway!

[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 week ago

Okay, officer.

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberal’s initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.

The way the oppressor tries to stop the oppressed from using violence as a means to attain liberation is to raise ethical or moral questions about violence. I want to state emphatically here that violence in any society is neither moral nor is it ethical. It is neither right nor is it wrong. It is just simply a question of who has the power to legalize violence.

I used that example only to point out that the oppressor never really puts an ethical or moral judgment on violence, except when the oppressed picks up guns against the oppressor. For the oppressor, violence is simply the expedient thing to do.

Is it not violent for a child to go to bed hungry in the richest country in the world? I think that is violent. But that type of violence is so institutionalized that it becomes a part of our way of life. Not only do we accept poverty, we even find it normal. And that again is because the oppressor makes his violence a part of the functioning society. But the violence of the oppressed becomes disruptive. It is disruptive to the ruling circles of a given society. And because it is disruptive it is therefore very easy to recognize, and therefore it becomes the target of all those who in fact do not want to change the society. What we want to do for our people, the oppressed, is to begin to legitimatize violence in their minds. So that for us violence against the oppressor will be expedient. This is very important, because we have all been brainwashed into accepting questions of moral judgment when violence is used against the oppressor.

Excerpts from The Pitfalls of Liberalism, written 1969

https://redsails.org/the-pitfalls-of-liberalism/

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

See also

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: Who was right?

In Guatemala, was it Arbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit's unarmed party didn't survive. Allende's democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the d'etente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

That group was annihilated.

Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

Battle of Blair Mountain(among others).

Read your history.

Learn what rights have been won by violence and those that were won by non violence.

You will be surprised.

Stop being ignorant.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

Pointing out objective historical fact is "advocating for violence" now?

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

Stfu loser

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Look everyone it's Bernie the sheepdog!

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

Validating what they believe? We don't give a fuck, we just want them to stop what they're doing. We asked nicely for years. Still are.

Can you explain how folding into their suppression of political opposition (both violent and not) helps fight against digital IDs and censorship?