I’d like to thank everyone for my most upvoted post on lemmy ever. Not only have you upvoted it to the top for like 2 days you commented the shit out of it. I’d like to take this opportunity to say fuck the mods of this instance. This was my second post coming off a 30 day ban and I want to say these fucking mods have been nothing but bitches. I’ve never been more attacked on any other instance, subreddit, forum, etc. then I have been in this fucking instance. Not only have I been attacked I’ve been told my memes arent memey enough again and again.

I’ll be honest, I do not know how to make a meme but I keep posting just to piss in these mods cheerios.

Thanks lemmy.world/politicalmemes for being the worst community I’ve ever been a part of.

  • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    Street protests are one of several necessary activities for a change movement. They can help build awareness and let off some steam, but need considerable mass to affect change on their own.

    More change happens when paired with organised political action, strikes, obstruction, PR and ofc violence/terror.

    The trick is to coordinate the sides towards the goal. Only street protests or only terror won’t do anything, but pulling together you did get 8 hour workdays,or more recently grain import regulations (in Poland).

    Then again, a million protesters over three months, including transport striking and uncoordinated violence, did not affect the French pension age.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Street protests are one of several necessary activities for a change movement

      Yes, name any successful movement for political change that didn’t involve street protests.

      ✅ French revolution ✅ Suffragettes ✅ Indian independence ✅ The Boston Tea Party

      And, I would imagine that it’s extremely rare to have big protests without first having some small protests. People need to know they’re not alone. It’s really hard to be one of the first people at a protest. But, the bigger they are, the easier it is for people to find out about, and to feel confident in attending.

      Add to that that everyone knows that to be effective these protests have to take place in DC, but the US is huge and DC is relatively small (and very strange as a city / metro area) so it will be a while before you can have mass protests in DC. The logistics of just getting there are difficult and expensive. In many countries, the capital is the biggest city in the country: London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Tokyo, Bangkok, Seoul, Mexico City… And, in countries where the capital isn’t the biggest city, it’s at least normally a very big city, Beijing: 22M, New Delhi: 28M, Ankara: 5M, etc. The Washington DC metro area spans the District of Columbia plus parts of 4 states, but is still only the 6th biggest metro area in the US.

      I imagine there will be huge protests in DC. It will just take a while for all the logistics to be worked out.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      you are incorrect that only street protests (I have a dream) or only terror (9/11) “won’t do anything”, but you are correct in agreeing with me that the more forms of protest occurring simultaneously, like the protests happening now, the more likely a movement is to effect change.

      • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’re over simplifying the first, and conflating the other.

        The MLK protests made change on the back of decades of campaigning together with multiple organisations applying different types of pressure and activism for the same goal, including president Kennedy, and several PR disasters for the opposition.

        As for the 2001 attacks, what would you say was their political goal? Was it fulfilled by those attacks? If not, I’d scratch that up as a failed attempt.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          “You’re over simplifying the first, and conflating the other.”

          incorrect.

          you are claiming that protests do not affect political change.

          you are wrong.

          “The MLK protests made change…”

          that’s right!

          “As for the 2001 attacks, what would you say was their political goal?”

          to destroy an important symbol of the US, terrify the US population and force them to waste resources chasing an unseen enemy.

          which, since none of you seem versed in history, is exactly what happened and is still happening.

          • comfy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            to destroy an important symbol of the US, terrify the US population and force them to waste resources chasing an unseen enemy.

            Are you implying the ‘inside job’ conspiracy theory, or suggesting these were the goals of Al-Qaeda?

            I’m not saying that to reject the former, it has some debatable credibility, but if you’re proposing the latter, “to destroy an important symbol of the US, terrify the US population and force them to waste resources chasing an unseen enemy” doesn’t make sense from Al-Qaeda’s perspective, contradicts the choices of targets, and contradicts their stated motives both years before and after the 2001 attacks. (quick wiki summary to launch from)

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              'Are you implying the ‘inside job’ conspiracy theory, or suggesting these were the goals of Al-Qaeda?"

              …how? do you get to these non-sequiturs.

              If you don’t know something, just ask.

              On 9/11, a bunch of Saudi terrorists destroyed two very tall buildings in NYC in 2001. The quote of mine are several of the explicitly stated goals of that terrorist group that were successfully carried out.

              I can’t help you if you don’t “believe” in 9/11, that’s…what happened. You can just read about it. Like, everywhere.

              • comfy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                If you don’t know something, just ask.

                I did. I asked a question.

                The quote of mine are several of the explicitly stated goals of that terrorist group that were successfully carried out.

                Where are these goals explicitly stated by al-Qaeda? Please provide sources.

                For example:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motives

                In November 2001, bin Laden defended the attacks as retaliatory strikes against American atrocities against Muslims across the world.

                He also maintained that the attacks were not directed against women and children, asserting that the targets of the strikes were symbols of America’s “economic and military power”.

                This is why the planes were sent to the Twin Towers (symbol of economic power) and the Pentagon (symbol of military power).

                In bin Laden’s November 2002 Letter to the American People, he identified al-Qaeda’s motives for the attacks:

                U.S. support of Israel[48][49] Bin Laden’s strategy to support and globally expand the Second Intifada[50][51][52][53] Attacks against Muslims by U.S.-led coalition in Somalia U.S. support of the government of Philippines against Muslims in the Moro conflict U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon U.S. support of Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya Pro-American governments in the Middle East (who “act as your agents”) being against Muslim interests U.S. support of Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia[54] The sanctions against Iraq[48] Environmental destruction[55][56][57]

                Their goal was to combat US military intervention .They don’t care about random US citizens being scared, that doesn’t help them combat the US military, and they didn’t want the US to be in their country so why would they want to be chased? It makes no sense for "terrifying the US population and forcing them to waste resources chasing an unseen enemy” to be the goals of al-Qaeda. They didn’t want to waste resources, they wanted soldiers gone or killed.

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  Thank you for agreeing with me and providing the sources you’re asking for.

                  I don’t get what you’re trying to do here.

                  i see you’re just making things up here:

                  “they don’t care about random US citizens being scared, that doesn’t help them combat the US military, and they didn’t want the US to be in their country so why would they want to be chased?”

                  but again I’m not really sure what you’re after.

                  Good luck.