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.
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.
Historically, it has always taken violence to remove fascists from power.
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.
Well, just WHO THE FUCK is responsible for pushing it off-track, hmmmmm? It didn’t push itself off-track. It was only a year ago when we had an economy that was the envy of the world, and was called Goldilocks, etc. What happened since?
I wish just for once that the fucking Republicans, most especially all the dumbass voters, took responsibility for all the trouble they have caused.
You can’t argue nazis out of your government. Churchill didn’t convince Hitler to back out of Poland over a friendly cuppa.
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.
No, there’s a growing number of brainwashed idiots that have been groomed to believe in powerful white men.
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.
America, you have the right to bear arms for a reason.
I only glanced the article but a question we need to answer first is what exactly is violence?
It seems straightforward but in multiple countries now i have read politicians making claims about violent mobs while in effect it was destruction of property.
Aggression isn’t violence so i am curious how many people say one thing while meaning the other.
Peaceful general strikes would be a better first option imho
violence is already happening, it’s just that people are too scared to fight back against it
Because of shit like this
Trump certainly does, or at least it’s what he claims.
Just because it will probably be, doesn’t mean you have to initiate it first. Not only is there a lot of preparation that needs to go towards a revolution that isn’t just arming and shooting, but it’s also better if the other side is the one to initiate it first. First is getting rid of the delusion that the federal government hasn’t been corrupted beyond repair, getting rid of the delusion that you can work inside a system that’s now exponentially worse than it was 4 years ago and somehow fix it. Then you can look at your own history and where power can actually be consolidated, and begin preparing knowing you are working against compromised social networks with the next generation of Cambridge Analyticas so you can’t rely on ignoring the elephant in the room.
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.
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?
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…
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.
Incredibly recently. The Civil Rights movement included advocacy for political violence, and arguably one of the only reasons it worked was Malcolm X and the Black Panthers saying “hey here’s our alternative if our nonviolent fight doesn’t work, we’re all strapped and willing to hand out more guns if shit requires it”.
that was only possible because of the more free atmosphere those wars established in this country.
And a healthy dose of “or else” political violence.
But Trump (lied and) said he didn’t know anything about Project 2025.
You’re not allowed to say the part in brackets without summoning the Gestapo.
