What's more depressing is this was completely predictable, totally avoidable, but half the country welcomed this wave of oppression with open arms.
replies(7):
And the other half? They seem to welcome this as well, but with crossed arms. Where are the protests? Seems most people end up writing upset messages on Twitter/Bluesky, but also seems there are no grassroots movements to actually protest the borderline coup that is happening?
Now comes the part where we see if the administration abides by those legal decisions or not, and how the final legal decisions here turn out once these cases inevitably land in front of the Supreme Court.
At the point where the administration ignores the courts and laws and continues on with their illegal impoundment, that's the point where you have to protest.
Money - the folks doing this already have a ton of money, and used it in large part to get to this point.
Violence - necessary for change, but against who exactly? anyone trying to be violent against the folks running this will be disavowed by 90% of the rest of the population, and galvanize an outsized violent crackdown against anyone and everyone who even somewhat looks like them.
It’s going to have to get a lot worse before there is appetite to do the things that will actually make it better. people aren’t bleeding enough yet.
In fact there is an active community of very Trumpy libertarians on this very website who pop up in the handful of political threads that make the front page. They seem to be silent here, one hopes maybe they've been given pause.
This is too pessimistic. Consider successful grass-roots movements: civil rights and maybe anti-war (Vietnam).
> and is overwhelmingly unlikely to get us out.
In the sense that nothing is likely to get us out? Sure. At some point you need to stand up for what you believe is right, though.
Most rights that workers have today have been earned through protesting (and sometimes the bloody consequence of protesting while the state is resisting wanted changes). Protests only "doesn't do anything" when you don't do it enough or give up. Maybe I'm too European to understand, but the "pacifist" approach of the US working class seems to not be working out great.
I can talk to people about it, but the difficult part is not talking but getting people to truly listen.
So yes, ordinary people are limited in their power and capacity even if these adds up.
So anyone actually trying to fight back will be destroyed by their own side. Where the folks doing this, won’t be.
The pitchforks aren’t just for show!!
And I’ve lived in Europe for over a decade now and frankly much of Europe is painfully naive about how much people in power care about protestors waving clever signs.
Government workers going on strike means they're doing what we want them to do, which is nothing. As a Trump voter, I want these federal government workers to stop working so the astronomical waste of our time/money and disturbing of peace stops.
The best work the US government does is when it's doing nothing, because it's hardly working properly unless it's forced to (ICE is an example of government actually working again).
Whether the workers resign, strike/protest, or get back to work implementing MAGA policies in the office, we win.
People slowly figure it out. On HN 2-3 years ago, any critique of Elon would bring out the brigades of simps babbling about autistic genius. That’s mostly gone now.
He was declared immune for all actions he and he alone declares as official.
He will die in office, in his mid 90s. Democracy has been cancelled.
Trump: 77,168,458 votes (49.9%)
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqne...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-re...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/...
More people voted for Trump, but it wasn't half the country. There were a lot of people that did not vote at all. The most accurate would be to say that nearly half of the votes cast went for Trump. That is not half the country
I guess the same goes the other way, Americans seems painfully unaware how effective the public's will can be, when you act together. But I think that's to be expected, the US is still relatively new and young, compared to other countries, so lessons others have learned still need to be learned by the Americans themselves. I guess this is what we're witnessing right now.
I'd urge you to look up changes brought by protesting and riots, but I think we both know you're not interested in learning, since you already stated twice you think it's pointless.
So when your glorious day comes, and your State asserts their rights and levies your bank account to pay for your parents medical bills as your filial responsibility, (or whatever your personal tragedy ends up being) you’ll have the feels, and will flip to the next cult of personality.
There are at least as many ways to respond to repression as there are avenues of repression: https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/
If they have instilled this much cowardliness in you they have won. Imagine you’re kid looking at what you wrote twenty years from now and think of how he/she would think of you. Courageous or coward?
Protests get the word out and create comrades.
Starting a trade war has consequences. That mortgage of yours is pegged to 10 year treasury rates. Bend the demand curve for foreign investors seeking safety in US government debt and stuff happens, like real estate bubbles deflating. What happens when foreign investors start dumping loans for vacant NYC buildings on the market because of their governments restrictions?
Look at the the classic Bogglehead investment - VTI. 30% of that portfolio is 10 companies, half of which are extremely vulnerable to foreign action. What happens to Apple stock when there’s a 30% tariff on iPhones?
You have reckless idiots turning knobs and people are going to get hurt. Then they get angry. LARPing right wing morons love to talk revolutions on their podcasts, they may get their wish.
A bunch of Americans have been taught that protests only "count" if they don't inconvenience anyone. Laws have been changed to make effective protest impossible. It's legal to ram protesters with your car in Florida, for instance. The cops use force to suppress protests and the media tells everyone your protest was invalid because it broke the law.
If we press the point more aggressively, we'll probably start another civil war. The right holds Rittenhouse up as a hero, and that's not an isolated thing. For decades, average, rank-and-file GOP voters have made jokes and jabs about shooting liberals. It used to be a few tasteless blowhards, but it's commonplace now. See also comments from Kevin Roberts about how the "second American Revolution" will be "bloodless if the left allows it."
There are resistance movements extant and forming, but it's a wicked problem. The size and population of the US requires more resources and participants to make an impact. The speed at which the situation is changing makes it hard to find purchase to do so.
Ideally, of course, you have a functioning democracy, but I don't really think that describes much of the US at this point (the people who'd protest are mostly in blue states anyway where their votes, even if correctly tabulated, count less). Other examples might be Ghandi, who promoted nonviolence but really only got India's freedom when the British empire was in terminal decline, or the civil rights movement, which happened when the US was a much healthier democracy and swaying public opinion was enough to remove people through elections. You might cite the velvet revolution too, but that also was targeting an empire in decline.
I argue that elections in the US _will not matter_ (Trump's cryptic comments about how Elon knows all about these voting machines and they won Pennsylvania thanks to him are telling....) and in that context protest doesn't do anything because the people in power have nothing to fear if they ignore the protestors.
If anything it was the 1.6% of votes that went to other candidates that could be seen as a spoiler. You'd have to say that all of that 1.6% would have gone to Harris for it to have been a spoiler though, and I doubt that's the case.
But perhaps they're advocating a return-to-the-Earth philosophy with every person (or family) aiming for self sufficiency in a frontier-style economy. I doubt it (when I try to point out that their truck requires a lot more gas than they can refine as a hobby I get pushback), but maybe.
They immediately got what they wanted.
Normally, in a democracy, when you get a lot of people together complaining about something, it is already an implicit threat of removing politicians from power.
But if you manipulate the electoral system enough, it stops being. The fact that this mostly doesn't work nowadays is loudly telling people all they need to know.
Indeed. Not quite as far back in time as you sarcastically suggested, but down-to-Earth enough that Congress stops enjoying absolutely abysmal approval ratings and President Reagan's infamous line of "I am from the government and I am here to help." stops resonating so strongly as a prime criticism.
If we also have to destroy ostensibly useful institutions like NASA to achieve it, well then so be it. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the chances for more amicable processes have come and gone.
I was trying to adopt to your own tone, not sure why you'd feel that it is condescending or dismissive.
> I am curious to hear more about peaceful protests working
Some starting points: 2024 protests in Serbia leading to the resignation of the Prime Minister. 15-M protests in Spain leading to the formation of new political parties and reforms. Velvet Revolution (I know you already mentioned this) leading to the overthrowing of the communist government. The Singing Revolution leading to the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity leading to the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. These are just recent examples, I could go on...
Honest question: Have you attempted to lookup examples yourself, and you didn't find a single example?
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...
I don't believe you are arguing in good faith otherwise I'd think you'd also be upset about the millions of tax dollars spent so that one man can golf? Which there are actual receipts for [1].
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/02/05/691684859/government-watchdog...
Edit: I think I was being disingenuous about foreign aid, sometimes foreign aid can be necessary to protect the well-being of US citizens. Stopping pandemics early or preventing them. Standing by a treaty so people know our word is good. Maintaining access to a resource our economy depends on etc. I just find it telling that the only foreign aid that was exempted was to Israel.
International politics is complicated. Anyone who shows you a single line item without context is deceiving you. Especially if the number is related to sex and a disease associated with promiscuity. That's a red flag. Their stats may be true, but their stated goal isn't.
[0]: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c7870.html
Hopefully someday you’ll ask yourself why you paid heed to some misinformation nonsense about African condoms and got upset about it.
In the meantime, try to stay away from power tools.
you are now part of the problem
It is quickly being organized for 2/5/2025 at each state capital.
- In Nazi-occupied Europe, during World War II, various groups wielded nonviolent resistance (such as hiding Jews) against the Nazi regime and managed to hamper the regime's efforts, and in some cases saved lives. Not ineffectual.
- In Germany, in 1923, the German population wielded nonviolent non-cooperation and strikes (the Ruhrkampf) against the French and Belgian occupation and managed to gain international sympathy and hinder the occupiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Nazi-occupied countries--Denmark (Engaging in public protest and social boycotting, along with acts of noncooperation and striking), Holland (Developing an underground press network, social boycotting, noncooperation, striking, and hiding and facilitating escapes), Norway (Sending letters of protest, maintaining social boycotts, engaging in cultural resistance, noncooperation and creating alternative institutions such as unofficial sports leagues), France (Stalling and obstruction the forced relocation of Jews, noncooperating, developing clandestine media, and demonstrating open defiance, eg wearing the yellow star in solidarity), and Belgium (Hiding and facilitating escapes, noncooperating, and obstructing authorities protected the lives of Jews, made it harder for the Nazis to enforce their policies, and weakened their ability to maintain order)--during World War II, various populations wielded nonviolent resistance against the German occupiers and managed to present a unique challenge to the Nazi regime, which was more equipped for violent conflict. Not ineffectual.
- In East Germany, in 1953, workers and other citizens wielded strikes and demonstrations against the Communist regime, revealing the extent of public dissatisfaction with the working conditions, inspiring groups such as the Volkseigener Betrieb Industriebau's Block 40 section and the Zeiss factory at Jena to make bolder collective demands such as the release of a fellow worker who had been arbitrarily arrested and even inspiring sympathy from Russian/Polish soviet soldiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Russia, in February 1917, striking workers and other citizens wielded massive strikes and peaceful demonstrations against the Tsarist regime and managed to lead to its disintegration. When troops did fire on demonstrators, as occurred in Znamensky and Kazansky Squares, it backfired. The soldiers who obeyed these orders later felt remorse and questioned why they had shot at the crowds. This resulted in mutinies, such as that of the Volynsky Regiment. These troops then went into the streets to proclaim their support for the people. Not ineffectual.
- In the United States, during the mid-20th century, civil rights activists wielded sit-ins, marches, and boycotts against segregationist authorities and systems and managed to dismantle racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, and discriminatory employment practices. Not ineffectual.
- In India, during the early to mid-20th century, Gandhi and his followers wielded civil disobedience, boycotts, and strikes against British colonial rule and managed to challenge that rule, demonstrating the power of non-cooperation and willingness to suffer for a cause. They won independence. Not ineffectual.
So, now the burden lies on you, really, to demonstrate that our opponent in this moment is somehow more fascist, more cruel, and also more independent of the consent of the governed than any other fascist administration in history against whom nonviolence prevailed or, at least, mitigated.
But in order for me to even read your response, you would have to open by convincing me that you will do something other than sit on your ass and pull in a SE salary until the next election. Because even if nonviolence were ineffectual--and, again, it's not--you could, at the very least, opt out of participation in the socioeconomic systems from which the fascists draw power.
Because "nothing but violence will work," is a total cop-out from someone who also isn't already training with their local Antifa regiment.
But at the end of the day a lot of people didn’t listen and voted for this direction instead.
So the people who protested and tried everything for a decade are done. Now we are just waiting for the 70 million people who still support this direction to finally burn themselves on the stove and discover it is in fact hot, just like we’ve been saying. The next protests have to be Republicans and Democrats or there’s no point.
Or all the examples from non-facist regimes, where those regimes were less murderous? Or from pre-Nazi Germany, where it was clearly ineffective at stopping the abuses or the rise of the Nazi regime.
Stalin and the USSR were a huge, murderous problem (Holodomir being just one example), but they also weren’t Nazi germany, yes? And while murderously authoritarian, they were also fundamentally different in many key ways from facists. Notably, they tended to target and destroy ‘their own’ through terrorizing different (and shifting) internal factions, rather than having a more consistent set of ‘out groups’ they were targeting. And for all the problems in the USSR, they were generally pro-labor. It was the intellectuals and property owners they tended to target.
Unlike Nazi germany, where it was more ethnic identity, and willingness to bend a knee to them ideologically. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-night-...].
I don’t think we are at that point. Yet.
But striking against Nazi Germany later in the process was clearly a bad idea. [https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/general-strike-amste...]. A common theme in concentration camps was people being forced to work, often to the death. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camp-...]
Nazi Germany was very good for business (at first), as the State actively supported and provided cheap labor to business, among many other kinds of support. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany]
A key differentiator between Nazi Germany and the USSR was essentially that Nazi Germany was pro-big-business (as long as you’re ‘one of us’), and the USSR was pro-worker (as long as you do/believe what we say).
The biggest danger in Nazi Germany was being one of the ‘others’ - if they found you. And it was often a death sentence for anyone trying to hide one of the ‘others’ too. Hiding people, while it did work for a small number of people, was completely ineffective at stopping the larger holocaust. [https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689272533/the-invisibles-reve...]
In fact, the holocaust continued up until Hitlers suicide and subsequent German surrender, after the allies had totally obliterated Germany in a war of annihilation they had been forced into, and were literally within shooting distance of his bunker.
Ok, that's somewhat goalpost-shifting, because you said "ineffectual," and I showed effect. It satisfies me enough to extrapolate from there.
Edit: Are we to believe, then, that you are taking up arms? Or just waiting to see if it gets so bad that you must? Or, don't you think an ounce of civil disobedience might be worth a pound of civil war?
I did everything I could do in the US without getting arrested. I got large portions of my life destroyed in the process. Talking to people, even people that should know better, was basically just pissing in the wind.
I found out years ago that a distant relative of mine (Jewish) left Germany in the mid ‘20’s to immigrate to the US, leaving his entire life behind. At the time, I wondered how he knew, or what could have happened for him to take such a drastic step.
Now I know. I’ve been taking similar steps for years. At least I can provide a Plan B for myself and others.
Maybe that makes me a coward. I don’t know. But I won’t help evil, and I won’t be a pointless martyr for someone else’s idiocy either.
If I had thought taking up arms at the time (or even now) would have accomplished anything except making them more powerful while getting thrown under the bus by anyone that it in theory would be helping, I would have.
But that isn’t the situation is it? Because I’d be a ‘lone wolf’ because there aren’t enough others would can or would stand with me. Yet. Maybe there never will be. Maybe I’m wrong and everything will be fine, yeah?
We’ll find out. At this point, I just want to give double middle fingers to US society and tell everyone to fuck off.
Productive? Probably not. But I’m only human.
You're right that Nazi Germany fell to the tanks of Liberalism and Bolshevism.
There are so many strange and, to be, baseless assertions in your replies that fear we're simply not going to discover common ground in this venue.
Godspeed.