this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
761 points (98.8% liked)

News

32649 readers
2733 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.

It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 284 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It’s a horrific moment to see that people honestly believe that there’s no other alternative at this point than to resort to political violence.

I mean… is it? I think it’s pretty obvious in the context of the regime essentially giving itself carte blanch to perpetrate political violence on its desired scapegoats and opponents.

I’m frankly getting pretty fucking tired of people complaining about how this is a startling development and being shocked by what’s happening. They wrote a playbook back in 2019. They published it on the open internet. They said they would follow it. They are now following it. You are not allowed to be surprised by any of this.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 54 points 6 days ago (3 children)

This country is BUILT on political violence. The revolutionary war. The civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people died in those conflicts. Only more recently have non-violent protests accomplished anything and that was only possible because of the more free atmosphere those wars established in this country. That freedom is now almost entirely gone. What choice do people have left?

[–] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Don't forget the riots and strikes between 1900 and 1920 (or 30?).

Successful application of violence today is complicated by the sophistication of surveillance and the electronic, centralized distribution of money.

It's difficult to pull together a large enough coalition to be able to fight effectively because the process of finding those people is short circuited by early discovery.

Nonviolence is the only way until a large enough segment of the population is desperate enough to trigger action.

Before that happens, effective leaders must be found and a support network must be readied to go into action quickly to professionalize and unify it when it happens, but before that is used to manage nonviolent action..

[–] kozy138@slrpnk.net 22 points 6 days ago

While I agree that non-violent is the way to go, I think we need to change our definition of "violence."

Property destruction should not be considered violent. Especially when precautions are specifically taken to ensure that no people were harmed during act of property destruction or sabotage.

On the other side of things, actions such as destroying wildlife habitat or polluting the air, water, and soil systems of the Earth should be considered "violence." It is violence towards all of humanity, and towards life itself.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 50 points 5 days ago (6 children)

Historically, it has always taken violence to remove fascists from power.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago (8 children)

The problem with all of this is that the right is literally saying this exact same thing.

We dismiss it because it's ludicrous, because they HAVE all the power, their guy IS the deep state that controls everything, but our media world has fashioned a narrative for our stupidest segment that they're the oppressed underdogs.

Meaning, no matter what happens, even if we get our best outcome and drag this administration onto the White House lawn, we still have to live next to millions and millions of people who think we've been planning to do that to them for decades now.

There is no good solution that doesn't involve some kind of new leadership that needs to be built from the ground up and will likely take generations to nurture and develop.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 133 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (11 children)

We need a general strike. The country would be brought to its knees if deprived of profit and labor. That tactic was extremely effective in Chile in 2019, and had they not fallen for the trick of liberal reform, they would've had a successful revolution on their hands with virtually no bloodshed.

If you aren't in a union, then please consider joining the IWW to unionize your workplace (bonus: you'll get higher wages, better benefits, and more time off if you succeed!) to strengthen a general strike if we finally manage to enact one (the UAW is planning one for May 1st 2028, but it could happen sooner)

And for our international friends, you should join one as well, as fascism is gaining momentum globally. If your country isn't listed below, just contact the IWW directly in the link above.

  • 🇦🇷 Argentina: FORA
  • 🇦🇺 Australia: ASF-IWA
  • 🇧🇷 Brazil: FOB
  • 🇧🇬 Bulgaria: ARS, CITUB
  • 🇩🇪 Germany: FAU
  • 🇬🇷 Greece: ESE
  • 🇮🇹 Italy: USI
  • 🇳🇱 🇧🇪 Netherlands & Belgium: Vriji Bond
  • 🇪🇸 Spain: CNT
  • 🇸🇪 Sweden: SAC
  • 🇬🇧 United Kingdom: UVW
[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago (20 children)

Can you afford not to get paid for 2 weeks? If so you're in the minority. Most people can't. Not to mention they have kids they are worried about, medical conditions that they can barely afford even with insurance. Rising housing and grocery costs. Etc..

I'm not trying to be a downer. I would love to see this happen, but we need a "realistic" way to accomplish it, to convince a majority to participate.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 64 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

Unions build up strike-funds with membership dues so that members can continue to receive a salary while striking, that's why unions are so essential for working class people to be able to flex their power non-violently.

Consider that Chile is a much less wealthy country than the US. but was able to successfully commit to a general strike for over a month.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BCBoy911@lemmy.ca 29 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Fundamentally, elections were designed to be a peaceful alternative to the peasantry revolting against the government and beheading their king. As Americans come to grip with the reality that their elections are meaningless, their politicians are bought and their only alternative to fascism is fascism-lite with a pride pin (no trans ppl allowed though) this attitude will continue to fester.

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 66 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well if an ICE officer stops my husband based on his appearance we’ve both agreed that we should resist that arrest.

That would end in violence and probably our deaths. What else can we do? Let them take us god knows where?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _AutumnMoon_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 5 days ago (1 children)

violence is already happening, it's just that people are too scared to fight back against it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grumpusbumpus@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

There is no historical precedent for an electoral solution to a descent into fascism.

There is no historical precedent for an electoral solution to massive wealth inequality.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 58 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (30 children)

This reflects a feeling of being backed into a corner. What else are we going to do when our political views and goals and ffs human beings are being criminalized? Every decent thing getting rolled back and every horrible thing dialed up to 11. Fuck republicans. One way or another they will regret this. Whether people vote them out or get violent with them remains to be seen but this will not last, obviously.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 69 points 6 days ago (45 children)

Gee, almost as if Russian propaganda is working.

Before the Civil War one politician opined that if a war started you'd be able to mop up all the blood spilled with one handkerchief.

Anyone who thinks a new fight will be any easier has probably never been in a real fight.

[–] rozodru@piefed.social 66 points 6 days ago (17 children)

I don't think people realize that if a new US civil war kicked off the lines wouldn't be as clear as north vs south. this would be state vs state, city vs city, neighbor vs neighbor. you could draw lines in your god damn sub division/street.

And if it were alliances between states it would be a god damn logistical nightmare. Imagine California being allied with New York for example. or Hell Minnesota being allied with like Arizona or whatever. how do you move supplies, troops, and what have you between allied states when you got a shit ton of hostiles between the two.

Add to the fact that unlike the first civil war you now have US military bases all over the world. what happens when you got folks within the SAME base in the middle of Germany that suddenly don't "agree" with each other?

Cluster fuck is an understatement.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 32 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There'd also be a shit-ton of drone warfare. Thousands will die without ever seeing their killers face. It's also entirely possible AI will be bombing people and you'll basically be killed by an algorithm.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago

You can't argue nazis out of your government. Churchill didn't convince Hitler to back out of Poland over a friendly cuppa.

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well it's true. You can't be diplomatic with fascists. You can't "get on the same level" with billionaires.

They have no reason to listen or care, unless we give them a reason to listen or care.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This is exactly how it's being orchestrated. Pit the people against each other so the politicians and wealthy can get away with literal murder.

We are being governed by the "Epstein Elite", literal pedophiles and sex traffickers and the idiots that kneel to them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 6 days ago

"Those who make peaceful reform impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 45 points 6 days ago (8 children)

This is just people waking up to reality. Trump has the White House, the senate, the House of Representatives, and the courts. He controls the military and has already begun deployment to "democratic" cities. His buddy in Texas is redistricting to help him consolidate power, and I am sure Abbot is not the only one. Every move Trump makes is designed to cripple opposition to his regime. Republican states are purging voter rolls and enacting bullshit laws designed to disenfranchise people of colour.

Milquetoast democrats have made only the most pathetic gestures of opposition to Trump. The first genuine thing Trump ever said was when he expressed surprise yesterday at how little resistance he has faced from the left. Republicans were right about one thing: the American left is a bunch of pussies.

If more Americans think political violence is the only way out of the mess Americans made, it's probably because they are starting to develop a vague but accurate understanding of what is happening in their country.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 25 points 5 days ago (18 children)

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 24 points 5 days ago (5 children)

1775: Breaking News, there's a growing number of colonists who think violence is necessary...

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 37 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You can't vote your way out of fascism. Trump already launched an insurrection to hold on to power. He won't let it go now that he's better entrenched.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kepix@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 35 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Violence is how we beat the Nazis the first time. If there's a cleaner option that's actually feasible, then yes please... but failing that, cutting the head off the snake is a pretty tried and true method. And if it grows back, cut that one off too - they'll get the message eventually.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Guns do not protect you from Fox News.

I disagree with Lemmy (and the growing public sentiment), but for the opposite extreme reason: we are beyond violence changing things. This is a propaganda/reality war, and truth doesn’t really matter.

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There are only two things that counter propaganda.

Extreme direct violence. Since by necessity propaganda requires you to be at least 1 stepped remove from physical interaction.

Or long term mass and mandatory education and social freedom.

The second one isn't viable at the moment so...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Corelli_III@midwest.social 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

PBS running these insipid polls lately is so fucking offensive.

Americans are already doing violence on Americans to execute their fascist vision of this country, en masse, within and without institutions. Violent change is here. The violence question is over. Public opinion is for TV.

[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

America, you have the right to bear arms for a reason.

load more comments (1 replies)

Is killing people that are openly declaring that they want to kill you even "political violence"? I would say it is not, because at that point you are not going after them because of their affiliation with any political party, but because they are trying to kill you.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Depending on how the question was worded Im willing to bet a large portion of those means violence against the lunatic leftists.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 days ago

30%, 50%, 70% means nothing if no one takes action.

The French, the orcas, allegedly Luigi. We have to follow their example. Anything less is just glazing at how "comfy" sitting on the frying pan feels.

[–] alaphic@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (3 children)

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

  • Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, c. 1787

Not that I think political violence (or violence of any sort, for that matter) should be our first, second, or even thirty-fifth resort, but at a certain point I think one must come to grips with the fact that - whether it fits in with their delicate sensibilities or not - when confronted with an existential peril it does sometimes become necessary to defend oneself. (Fun fact: This is why self-defense can be presented as a valid defense against murder charges!)

Sure, we should absolutely make any and all attempts to be inclusive (Republicans HATE this!) and tolerant (GOP: hiss IT BURNS!) and attempt to reach solutions through education, research, negotiation, compromise and all that lovely (woke?) stuff, but... For some reason, it seems like there's consistently only one side that ever shows up to the table willing to actually do any of that. And that's just how it's been for fucking DECADES now. There's probably a lot of you (just generally speaking, not necessarily meaning Lemmy's demographic per se) who aren't even old enough to remember a time before the GOP began using "government shutdowns" and "debt ceilings" and "literal fucking coup attempts" as part of their standard, day-to-day politicking. Believe it or not (and I know this will probably be the hardest one to buy, but I swear it to be true) there was a time when the Republicans would - even if they WERE NOT in power at the time - STILL SHOW UP AND DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS. I know, what a concept, eh? Imagine going to work every day and just... doing your job, like a fucking idiot, instead of throwing absolute meltdown tantrums over your lack of control over other people's genitals.

Does any of this strike you as the behavior of (an) entity(ies) engaging in anything even remotely resembling something that could be construed as "good-faith negotiation" - let alone even approaching something as audacious as "compromise?" This isn't a willing, eager party to an arbitration, quite, is it? No... Something more akin to an assailant with a knife at our throat(s) demanding to inspect our genitals to make sure we're where they think we should be at the moment certainly sounds more apt to me...

I don't want there to be violence. Any. At all, really. But at what point does the moral imperative toward nonviolence get outweighed by the moral obligation to the people being kidnapped by masked (supposed) government agents and disappeared to very real, literal concentration camps? How many genocides at once do we need to hit the tipping point where it's finally acceptable to stand up and say, "That's enough. This far. No farther." But actually back that up, for a change.

If that means by force, then unfortunately, so be it. Might doesn't make right, but that certainly doesn't preclude it from enforcing it, does it?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] brown567@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't think getting it on track requires or will even be helped by violence

I firmly believe, however, that many powerful people will violently resist the re-tracking

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

doing infrequent protests hasnt helped one bit especially if not large numbers like other countries do it, if the enemy knows you arnt going for thier HEADS, they will just laugh and move on.

also people are unwilling to boycott/generally strike, because they sitll have thier creature comforts, plus all the propaganda against protesters in general, i think the staged eco-protests(the ones that defaced public things, were funded by the oil/gas industry) over the years was just testing the waters.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 25 points 6 days ago (10 children)

On track to what ..for fuck sakes?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

John Brown was right.

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago

Haha, it'll never happen.
Most are too complacent, comfortable, and mollycoddled to do anything. They'll just try to wait it out and hope that it'll change at the next election ...not realising that if there is a next election that it'll probably be rigged, to quote the orange child rapist himself "you'll never need to vote again, we've got it sorted".

The daft thing is you don't need to have a massive civil war to end this bullshit. You just need some backbone and to target the orange paedo from all directions and not let him have any time or space to do his evil shit. Then once he's out, or dead from the inevitable stress induced heart attack, go after his cronies. He's the biggest manbaby that's ever lived, use it against him.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Soap box, ballot box, ammo box. They're trying to take away the 1st 2, so...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›