Basically all the successful progressive movements in history have had coherent limited goals (the labor movement, civil rights, women’s suffrage and feminism more broadly, even MeToo more recently). These have certainly not all been “polite”, nor to my knowledge is anyone ITT calling for more polite action now. The history of “burn it all down” totalizing leftist movements is almost universally failure or disaster.
1 Like
Portland has been protesting for 110 nights to disband the police (I think). The participants are largely white.
Rochester has been protesting for 10 nights over Daniel Prude’s death. The participants are largely minorities.
Speakers read the names of others who have died during or after police encounters in Rochester over the years and advocated for “Daniel’s Law” which would create a mental health task force consisting of medical personnel specialized in aiding the de-escalation of mental hygiene arrests.
I see a demand for legislation that could very realistically be enacted and might actually help people in short order. I also see calls to defund the police - which most of us agree is a good idea (even if the level of defunding is vague). I don’t see a call to completely disband the police or other pie-in-the-sky stuff that’s never been tried.
Maybe we should listen to what the actual protesters in places outside Portland want.
March on Selma just gets about a million times more History Channelling than Rochester Riots, Harlem Riots, Philadelphia Riots, Watts Riots, Newark Riots, Chicago Riots, and Washington DC Riots which all lead up to the 1968 Civil Rights Act.
(159 Race Riots in the summer of 1967)
2 Likes
You see what the fucking news shows you.
But not like you, clever people. You know it is all a lie.
You sound exactly like Chiefsplanet yelling “fake news!” at any story they don’t like - not even bothering to refute it or even acknowledge what’s in the story.
https://twitter.com/WHEC_Moussignac/status/1304581367708217346
Here’s a head of the protest calling for Daniel’s Law. Is this a deep fake?
This is exactly what ChrisV was talking about - real progressive, detailed proposals, that their promoters are more than happy to discuss in depth to anyone who will listen.
This woman doesn’t seem to think pushing for legislation is futile. She is not low-info. I tend to respect her opinion.
Sure? I’ve never said violent protest is not an effective tool. I know I’m massively simplifying here but the primary goal of the Civil Rights movement was desegregation and the equality of the races in governance at least in explicit terms. Those goals were achieved. Obviously I’m not saying “and everything has been great ever since” but it’s always possible to compare the world to a utopian vision which doesn’t exist and find it wanting. The lesson from history here doesn’t seem to me to be “no progress is possible except as part of a total overhaul of social and economic organization”.
The other thing to keep in mind is that I’m talking about primary voters - who presumably are a notch above general election voters on the political info knowledge scale. They have strong political opinions. You can’t just discount that as - well they’re voting on name recognition or w/e imo.
That’s thirty seconds of a ten day protest(taken out of context). There’s nothing to refute.
LMAO, how about we abolish the Tone Police first?
1 Like
Last time when you were spewing regarding me it was a whole lotta crap about how I was a degren who was going to make a habit of going just up to some imaginary line as a goof and just needed to be banned ASAP.
Which was lol-tasticakl gibberoish as I was doing nothing of the sort. And in fact I was doing nothing at all. Period.
So you pretty much shot your credibility. Fuck off.
Oh wait… I’ll dunk on you a little bit first. WTF is “tone poicing” about calling out a fool making shit up and being incredibly rude about it. It’s like you aren’t aware how peeps use that phrase. You are like this…
- Fool to Dude: You have a glass eye and your mom dresses you funny.
- Dude to Fool: That’s gibberish and rude.
- Kerowo to Dude: Stop “tone policing” the fool!
Yeah, that was when you were in some spat with someone and spamming and thread with horseshit.
I don’t read the forum very closely anymore, mostly just the tweets, so I don’t know how much horseshit your spreading but that post I responded to was just sad. Your whole existence here is being rude to people you don’t agree with. So hearing you call out Suzzer was amusing enough for me to post again.
Oh, and yes, everyone thinks you’re stupid enough to not see how telling someone their argument is rude isn’t tone policing.
1 Like
This is flat out wrong on multiple levels. All of those movements began with and still have very broad goals, many of which are still unrealized, and some of which were won and subsequently lost again. The current topic itt is a continuation of the civil rights movement, which clearly has been, at best, only somewhat successful. The labor movement is dead and buried. Women still don’t have equality. If those are the success stories we are truly fucked.
And every single one of those movements has been sandbagged by an army of Good Liberals who say the right things and vote the right way, but then say, “Whoa whoa whoa, not too much all at once, folks! Don’t go getting all radical and putting my personal comfort at risk!”
The center-left liberal ideas of how to affect incremental societal change are very self-serving to a comfortable middle class, and largely useless at gaining true justice for the oppressed. I absolutely do not understand how anybody can look at the USofA in 2020 and think the solution is more of what got us here.
The past 50 years have been almost constant failure from what passes for the left. How much longer should we wait before insisting on meaningful, large scale structural change in favor of tepid bullshit that perpetuates the status quo? Maybe sometime during Barron Trumps 5th term when the planet is cooked and London is an aquarium?
Can we afford not to take drastic steps? The paths we have taken to get where we are have failed us, and a future based on the present looks pretty damn bleak to me.
8 Likes
That didn’t happened. That was when you jumped in a thread you weren’t reading, and started trolling me off-topic and personally about gibberish you wee just make up, as I mentioned above.
Did I mentioned fuck off and stop trolling.
ETA: the post I mentioned that was rude and gibberish wasn’t an “argument”. It was an off-topic personal attack.
Here’s another thing that liberals just don’t seem to be able to get. There are no “heads” to the G.Floyd Uprising. Not BLM. Not any NGO. No Donkey. Nobody.
What we have here is a politician making a stump speech at a demo. Which, depending on who organized the media availability, is sometimes tolerated.
Anyway, let’s… Get to know Stanley Martin.
Ms Martin has a graduate degree in Human Services, used to be a prison counselor, now works for a NGO, and is running for city council.
1 Like
Except it’s really bad, unpopular, unpersuasive propaganda. So what’s the point?
1 Like
Is it your position that desegregation, women’s liberation, LGBT rights etc etc have been pointless because they didn’t go far enough?
There is a double standard here because there have been movements advocating radical, wholesale change since at least the 1960s, but while you’re allowed to tell me that incrementalism has failed because there are defeats as well as victories, I’m not allowed to tell you that radicalism has failed because it hasn’t created a utopia yet. In the minds of radicals we’re always One Weird Trick away from solving everything in one fell swoop.
If you look at the modern world, there are virtually no good, humane countries which have sprung from leftist revolutions, and this statement stands even if we exclude the many countries where leftist revolutions were undermined by the capitalist West. What we would consider the best countries in the world, the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, Germany and so on, were all built with incremental improvements. East Germany even involved the defection of an area of one of the aforementioned failed leftist revolutions into a country which succeeded via incremental building. Deeming incrementalism a failure is simply a US-centric view of the world which doesn’t hold true if one looks elsewhere.
I do agree that the future looks extremely bleak with regard to climate change among other things, but I don’t see how this is going to be improved by hitching unrelated issues like police violence to the same seemingly-hopeless bandwagon. That’s just making matters worse.
In summary, you can’t look at failures of incrementalism and say “see, hopeless” then when I point out the failures of revolution, be like “oh well, try try try again!”. Either the verdict of history is relevant or it isn’t.
Edit: Probably should move this into a revolution v incrementalism derail thread, although I’m hopefully getting to the end of my soapboxing.
1 Like
We know the modern day abolitionists have been calling themselves that for over 20 years. They must have their reasons.
Maybe one of those modern day abolitionist linkees that get posted (and ignored) from time to time mentions that part of the history.
Sure, mostly about how hell no they don’t actually want to abolish the police.
Incremental change is failing us at least in part because half of our existence is spent being dragged backwards by the GOP. I support the right of the oppressed to smash and burn as necessary in order to be heard. But we’re also eating our own itt and elsewhere, while simultaneously losing half our elections to civil rights anathemas.
It’s an empathy fail to say that the burners are unjustified. It’s also an empathy fail to say that all the people focused on winning elections are doing so only in order to limit the speed of progress.
Breaking things is one way to potentially advance change. So is winning elections, consistently. The problem is we’re half-assing both of them and yelling at each other about our lack of advancement. I don’t see why we can’t do both; win at the ballot box and in the streets. We’re up against a bunch of a-holes who want to drag us into fascism. They can’t win. We need to.
6 Likes
Except the populace overwhelmingly opposes the abolition of police. Like 78% of blacks oppose police abolition. Because as flawed as the police are, they are overwhelmingly viewed as having a vital role in society.