SIT IMMEDIATELY - if any signs of confrontation / violence : Mirror

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu 64 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is insane advice, in a bad way, this just makes you an easy target to get beaten up and taken away by the police, if you see signs of violence you should move the fuck away from where its happening, WITHOUT running, because if you create a crowd stampede then everyone is in danger.

Translate and use these guides:

Alternatively you should NOT help the police and make their job easier, because their job is NOT to make your protest easier. If they decide to beat up people they will NOT discriminate between authors of violence and the rest of the protesters.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 25 points 2 weeks ago

The thing to understand is that the police view protests as street battles and organize themselves based on ancient warfare techniques. Do not think of them as your friends, think of them as Hannibal Barca trying to kettle, contain, and eliminate you. Because that's how they think of themselves. If you want to avoid violence at a protest the first step is to don't be violent, and then to avoid allowing your columns to become too deep or too wide for easy exploitation by the police. The police will ABSOLUTELY take the first act of violence if they simply feel like it. They will shoot you with rubber bullets or beanbags and claim they did so after the crowd started rioting to try to get them to disperse, even as they have you completely surrounded and there's nowhere to disperse to. They will handcuff you and spray you with pepper spray.

So again. Avoiding violence at protests is less about being nonviolent, and more about keeping your head on a swivel and planning multiple moves ahead. What this OP is asking us to do is to martyr ourselves for the movement. Martyrdom doesn't work en masse like this. All these mass arrests would do is weaken us for the next protest because we'll have fewer people out on the streets and more people in political imprisonment. PLEASE when you make plans for what to do about police violence start by understanding that the police are violent. They love doing violence. They are on the side of what we are protesting. They are part of what we are protesting. You cannot trust them to be kind to you simply because you didn't throw a brick but instead sat your ass down

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 59 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You should watch who posted this and consider banning them from the reddit community. This is advising people to make themselves victims for police to beat up more easily.

Helping police arrest people, what the heck is wrong with you? If these are agent provocateurs planted by the police what will happen is police will ignore them, beat the crap out of everyone else to instigate the violence they want and if necessary beat the shit out of nearby journalists and destroy the evidence. Then they will make a press release that will be parroted by all Trump aligned media how they have been attacked and needed to use force. The people who sat down will be painted as obstructing police and there will be claims like they would have pulled officers down by the legs or similar.

When police starts attacking you close the rows hook under and seek to create cover against incoming projectiles.

Also if you think you wouldn't be among the people beaten up because you are a good white middle class person, or family with kids or elderly, here is a video of cops tossing an elderly professor around last year.

https://www.newsweek.com/65-year-old-man-lucky-alive-after-arrest-campus-protest-1895846

or what about causing an elderly men brain injury during BLM protests and then being cleared of all charges?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/martin-gugino-buffalo-officers-elderly-blm-protester-cleared-arbitrator/

They will beat the shit out of you and then you will be blamed for it. Oh and good chance your insurance will not cover your injuries if police paints it this way. So aside from having the crap beaten out of you, you will also be brought into financial jeopardy.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

People are so conditioned by the idea that nonviolent change can be achieved that they will actively work against those who use the actual effective methods. Like crabs in a bucket we'll doom ourselves to the boiling pot of water. The constitutional right to a peaceful protest doesn't mean shit when the president has already dismissed the idea that he has to uphold the constitution. At this point it's nothing more than words on parchment that they're supposed to care about but don't. Don't bet your life on their adherence to it.

Nonviolent change only works if those in charge either care about us and want to improve our lives (they don't) or they fear that not giving us what we want will hurt them somehow (it won't if you fucking help them get rid of the ones willing to hurt them). Even if we achieve the fabled halting of the economy from so many people refusing to work that it can't sustain itself, the rich will be the ones who starve last. There will always be people willing to do dirty work for evil men in exchange for gold and expensive baubles.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

that they will actively work against those who use the actual effective methods

Such as?

It's incredibly naive to think than an armed rebellion would succeed, considering the large technological gap of weaponry between the general populace and those that uphold the world order.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A peaceful protest that doesn't have the risk of turning not so peaceful will just be ignored. The civil rights movement didn't succeed because the government agreed with the protesters. It succeeded because the cities were under threat of being burned down. Everything you were taught about the civil rights movement was centered around ignoring that part.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence, threatened violence, or encouraged threats to achieve meaningful progress? What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?

Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence

Not what I actually said. I was talking about protests. The leaders, even if they know violence might be necessary, will not openly advocate for it. They will speak with a degree of plausible deniability. Or they're John Brown.

Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.

What is your perspective worth? Where you there in the 60s? From an academic perspective, it looks the same.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Me: What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?

In your eyes, what protests or events in the civil rights movement (that generally threatened violence or resulted in violence) led to a significant shift or significant movement?

I was expecting you to fill the gap in my American public school education. You can also direct me to a book or any resources that help me to understand your perspective better, particularly from a historical standpoint.

What is your perspective worth?

My perspective is worth just as much as anybody else's. Everybody who cares about the present and future likely wants solutions and change in some form or another. Some people think violence is necessary, some people don't.

MLK did his best to be the change he wanted to see. Not everybody listened and he isn't responsible for everyone's actions. There is no mistaking that many in power found MLK to be a threat... why was he seen as dangerous though? Why was he targeted so viciously if he only championed nonviolence and civil disobedience?

The rich and powerful do not want people who bridge gaps and advocate joining hands in solidarity, that's why. We are far easier to control and lord over when we are fighting each other, especially over differences and inconsequential things.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's true, they likely have the ability to kill us all at this point. But if so, then they've patched the last hole of resistance that the common people had to fight back. It's either try and maybe succeed, or don't try and definitely fail. There's a reason we have a right to bear arms, and it's because bearing arms is the only way to fight back against a government that no longer cares about upholding its own laws and ideals to protect the people.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

From my perspective, the only way to convince them to not kill us all is if we promise we won't put them on the chopping block.

Am I working against anyone? No, but I really don't want to see this planet turn into a giant bloodbath. I think nonviolence, positive action, and a laser focus on solutions is the only way to move forward — and yes, I have wrestled with the viewpoint you are representing for many years.

I definitely don't approve of an armed rebellion because I know how quickly things can turn to real violence when people are primed for it. The mainstream media is prepared to stir the pot and create a perception of chaos or push whatever narrative that serves capital — and as you pointed out; plenty of people are willing to accept money and play agent provocateur.

Just as our country created an excuse to use atomic bombs on Japan, I'd reason that if violence escalated to a degree that physically threatened the powerful, they would likely find excuses to use whatever else they've cooked up to maintain order against an armed rebellion. It probably wouldn't be too dastardly, but it'd be easy to explain away to those who are not radicalized (and many likely wouldn't participate in an armed rebellion). And how long would it take to raid their bunkers and defuse the threat that the most powerful pose? Decades?

I'd argue that if there is a very large, coherent, organized, and nonviolent movement - there would be no sense of normalcy anywhere if it was systematically disrupted violently. They can try all they want to make normal people look like terrorists and extremists, but the propaganda would likely be ineffective.

Like it or not, the rich still rely on us and they aren't all entirely self-sufficient yet. They still want to be able to effortlessly reap all the abundance on this planet and they still need us to achieve that goal.

We just need to convince them that we the people can collectively be the best stewards of the planet, and that we don't need their systems anymore to enable the best outcome for everyone to manifest. Maybe I'm naive too, but there has to be a way that doesn't require us to resort to barbarism to achieve our goals.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Propaganda can and will villainize even the most peaceful of people if it serves the goals of the wealthy. It's simply too powerful of a tool; a huge swath of the population will follow a narrative that's being pushed hard enough, no matter how much it goes against their preconceived understanding of the world. Just look at how many people wholeheartedly support Israel's ongoing genocide. Sure, there are absolutely examples of Palestine committing violence against Israel, but I have no doubt that even if they'd never raised a finger, the propaganda machine would still be convincing a huge portion of the country that Israel is right to massacre them.

I'm afraid of the government using its insane weapons technology and budget against us, but the real danger is that they won't have to - that they'll just tell the propaganda machine to make our own neighbors fight us, and we'll kill ourselves to achieve nothing more than their amusement. It's true that we might be able to appease them to prevent that outcome by promising we won't put the wealthy on the chopping block, but at that point, we're not people, we're cattle. They'll have no reason to treat us any better than North Korea treats its people. Our government would fully turn from an organization meant to serve its people, to one fully committed to using them as a resource to be exploited - capitalism's final form.

I wholeheartedly believe that the only reason we're not at that stage already is because they're afraid that if they take that final step now some people might get violent and hurt some of the wealthy or their property. If they actually believed we'd sit down and allow them to enslave us, they'd be shipping in a bulk order of manacles from China right now. You're absolutely right, I don't believe we'd win, but I'd rather try to escape the fate of domestication than welcome it.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

What if a nonviolent movement included radicalizing the tools of propaganda and the people behind these apparatuses as one of its primary focuses?

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

And what if a nonviolent movement randomly made all the wealthy explode? It'd be great, but not feasible. The reason the propaganda machine works is because it's backed by an amount of money only the wealthy would be able to provide. For us to build one powerful enough to stand against theirs right under their noses within this surveillance state is the least likely scenario I've seen seriously brought up.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I am not saying compete. I am suggesting that this movement radicalizes the major arms of propaganda from within.

Not everybody is an evil villain in these organizations. There are likely many who are operating in good faith despite the reporting they do and the echo chamber they are apart of.

Popping their bubble sounds about as hard to do as convincing enough people to go die or face imprisonment to capture xyz institution with arms.

Listen, I am definitely not going to tell you to back down, to consent, to give up, and to be domesticated or be treated as cattle. Not at all. We don't have to agree on the means of revolution, but we both likely agree on the immediate necessity of change.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Basically, it comes down to whether or not a meaningful amount of people can be radicalized without being personally impacted by the radicalizing force. When the government comes after its people with an armed secret police, the people who are worried they'll be next are easily radicalized because they feel personally in danger.

The well-meaning members of the various branches of the media and education system that drives the propaganda machine are not directly in danger, at least not from that specific aspect of their lives. They may still be a marginalized race or sexuality who could be radicalized through that aspect, but those people are already being systematically removed from their impactful positions within society by DEI restrictions, likely specifically for that reason.

In the end, it will be a bunch of straight white people running the propaganda machine, who may be sympathetic toward the plight of their marginalized neighbors, but likely not enough to endanger themselves to try to fight back on their behalf. And by the time white people themselves are on the chopping block, there won't be enough power left to wield against the tyrants if we aren't fighting for it.

We can get people scared for their lives to band together and try to fight, but we can't get people who are still holding out for this whole thing to "blow over" to risk it all to try to force it out. But everyone is inching toward that point of personal endangerment; if we can be strategic, maybe we can hold out on the fighting until enough people are personally affected enough to be radicalized that we form a real fighting force. That's really the only way through I can see, and as I've said, it's a long shot even then.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I suppose we disagree on organized violence being a necessity. Spreading fear is also something I don't advocate for. I advocate for spreading courage or fearlessness, helping others to realize their power and to stand in it. Getting people scared and moving them towards violence will not create anything besides martyrs and a cycle of hatred on all sides.

20th century ideas on revolution are simply outdated. The times are different.

We have eliminated language barriers, we are vastly interconnected, and we have the means to organize digitally. We can get the facts easily and cut through propaganda. We can spread awareness and build consciousness without really taking any of the steps we once had to. We have AI technologies that we can leverage, as well.

I feel that encouraging scared innocents to threaten violence and potentially kill other scared and confused people to achieve a violent takeover of public institutions isn't going to turn out the way you hope.

I respect your resolute spirit, your fight, your passion, but I feel there are significant levers we can pull that won't unleash a cycle of violence, chaos, and uncertainty. I'm not suggesting inaction or apathy or action that effectively amounts to inaction.

I would more quickly see the merits of your viewpoint if you could guarantee that such a cycle wouldn't be created or would be limited in scope — I may be naive, but I am not so naive to believe you without some pretty weighty reasoning.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

Right, guerilla tactics could never work against a technologically advanced US and there is definitely no historic precedent for this.

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 51 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Fuck man. In Europe we’ve beent through this. Why is the USA so naive and far behind on collective activism?

If the police cares enough to plan bad actors in your protest, sitting down will do fuck all.

There are kilometers of film (miles if you like) that show police on horseback trampling non violent protesters in pretty much every major European city in the last half decade.

If they plant them, you leave or your prepare for war.

You have an active coup and foreign state(s) sponsored assault on your democracy and you think you need to sit down when the cops put a violent plant in your protest? The cognitive dissonance is off the charts with these yanks.

I would almost argue: if you’re not more violent than the bad actors, soon you won’t have any chance to go and protest. They are removing your freedoms slowly and seemingly legally.

This is the hardest part of being human: you have to act on a future almost certain hypothetical. We were too late with the Climate Emergency and you will be too late to prevent the Fourth (Nuclear) Reich.

All we seem to be good at is reacting after hundreds of thousands of people already quietly suffered or died. It will baffle me to the grave.

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

My first guess is, they're just not at all experienced with this, there's no mass protest culture, just small individual actions or very rare punctual district wide walks

But that's not an excuse, the yellow vests happened, the French pension reform protests happened, there's plenty of other examples in Europe to learn from

Its like they're reinventing the wheel and trying to figure it out on the go, but protest is cultural, it's strategic, it's thought out in depth before happening

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It’s not unheard of. Bad actors were frequently found to be the cause of the damage & violence in the George Floyd / anti-police-violence protests.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago

I do wish I shared their optimism that the police care.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Exactly, not unlikely at all. In any case, they will try to provoke violence through MAGA counter-demonstrators.

Perhaps Drump will also seek advice or even direct support from Israel, which already has a corresponding force in the US that cannot be easily traced back to the government: Israel Has Formed a Task Force to Carry Out Covert Campaigns at US Universities.

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“If people get violent make yourself a sitting duck”

-op

[–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"Guys Target didn't do anything, please stop."

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 14 points 2 weeks ago

Back in the IWW days the protest organizers would have their own security squads watching for this. Sometimes the bad actors are paid, and sometimes they are locals who want a chance to throw a rock at a cop. Either way we need to be vigilant

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago

Funniest shit I've ever seen!

Neonazis don't need you to make yourself weak to strip your rights from you.

[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Well this is an utterly horrible idea

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago

This is the worst advice I've seen

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

This is so common, and institutional, it has a name, Agent Provocateur.

[–] VasovagalSyncope@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Yesterday I learned this organization is controlled by Isreal

I am now skeptical of these appeals for nonviolence

[–] regdog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

If we lick the boot long enough it will become soft and mallable. That is when we strike.

I am a master of strategy.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Why not build an internal security force with black vans at the ready to abduct these people to hidden interrogation places where evidence can be extracted on who planted them?

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This dumb shit is why I don't show up to these useless protests

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Honestly yeah, American protests have been total dogshit. Every one that I have been to so far has been fundraising for centrist Dems running in 2-4 years, and they all spread this myth of nonviolence being our only solution. I've also noticed that there's consistent calls for protestors to out themselves by using their cellphones either for coordinated texts or social media access, which infuriates me to no end.

/r/50501 Mirror