thinking about MLMSynopsist thought myself

damn, new branch of socialist thought just dropped

Do yall really believe this?

Look at that document and tell me it looks normal to you

Look at the referenced book in it

😭😭😭

what is our government’s historical reaction to peaceful protests if peaceful revolution is met with violence or indifference, and the government is corrupted by corporate influence, then what is there left to do to bring about change that is more beneficial to the common american vs those in power?

theintercept is a pretty reputable publication when it comes to s*** like this, but the pic in the tweet is weird

however, it would be par the course for the US historically, and would line up with that white house press release on domestic terrorisms the other day

1 r u agreeing with soul? 2 r u gonna consider that last year's protests were a combination of tolerance and intolerance on behalf of the "government"? u can't just point to 1 and be like "this is how they react"

meanwhile NYC just dropped a s***load of charges for many of those who rioted last year

violence is not equatable to terrorism, considering the definition of both. also, the government was tolerant of protests that did not elicit any effective change. How can peaceful
protests elicit change if they don’t do anything that causes attention? If you went and marched every day during your free time and still went back to work what difference would occur?

uh he's saying that violence is a justifiable reaction to the violence the state enacts

in a vacuum totally
however if u r agreeing with soul (which i genuinely dunno) then calling for violent revolution (soul's words) is gonna be seen as terrorism by the state, which is the pov this doc is taking

yes but even then the state defines democratic socialists, or peaceful socialists in this definition as well

i know that, but if the examples mischaracterize the gov's reaction as being only 1 thing when it's a multitude of things then outsiders aren't gonna see the "justification" as justifying much

the government responds with violence to peaceful protests all the time

yeah, and it also doesn't respond with violence to peaceful protests

it does both
not at the same time obviously
but over a course of time

i can't think of a peaceful protest movement that it did not eventually respond to with violence lol

well then we have to a***yze at what points peaceful
protests elicit violence

and we also have to wonder why they’d respond violently in the first place

i agree w/ that
i was jus thinking about what the ratio of violent response vs. non-violent would be. that'd actually be a decent thing to figure out because it'd make for a good argument depending on which side it favors

also there’s the issue of militarization of police

mf killed them all

i mean

george floyd protests met with violence
ferguson and OG blm protests met with violence
occupy wall street met with violence

thats just in modern times

ya. i think the intention is to scare protestors, but really it just ups the stakes for everyone involved. protestors get nervous about what could happen, so they're on their toes. police get nervous because the "need" for military stuff has them on their toes for same reason -- what could the protestors do that'd justify this tech? both a rhetorical and non-rhetorical question

i fr think that such a presence factored heavily into some of the riots that got more out of control last year. i'm not sure how such could be toned down while establishing a similar level of controlling presence bc i aint familiar with all the tech the police got. in general i agree with you there