It’s the perennial coordination problem. Consider these truths: 1. Anybody who stands up alone will get viciously hammered down. 2. If a large number of people stand up together, they can make a difference. 3. People have to trust others to stand up with them, otherwise see #1.
How do we organize a large crowd of people that trust each other without the people in power catching wind of it and viciously hammering down the organizers? It sure would help to have some support from people already in positions of power…
This is part of why, as much grief as it gets, the 4B movement is something that can plausibly gain traction. Because it doesn’t really require anyone “outing” themselves and thus putting themselves at risk, it can be done without coordination, leadership, and trust. Boycotts function on a similar premise.
They are a useful tool in some ways, but the issue is the relatively limited scope of what these sorts of efforts can accomplish.
I don’t even know what this text is in reference to and I have no concrete suggestions immediately. But I will be thinking, connecting, and sharing in the coming months as a strategy emerges. Trumpism can still be defeated. The election was plan A but it’s time to come up with plan B. I am thinking that it’s going to take massive organized civil disobedience. We directly disrupt their ability to govern and harm marginalized people.
But it’s going to take more than just me, so I ask everyone here to be ready and participate in whatever capacity you can.
My “text” is a direct response to your comment that proceeded it. Im not sure how that’s confusing.
The fact of the matter is the election results are legal, certified, and recognized by every country on Earth. As much as I hate it, and I really really hate it, that’s reality.
Unless things get ridiculously out of hand, which has yet to be seen, the only real thing anyone can do is create protests and marches, and vote for change when the time comes.
If you think you’re going to create a “resistance army” you’re going to be checked very hard by reality. Your little keyboard warrior “massive organized civil disobedience” will be as lame as Jan 6.
Speaking of your voice ACTUALLY carrying: As a kid, my voice changed to a deep bass really early, so when, attention ravaged with undiagnosed ADHD, I talked in class, the teacher would instantly know it was me 😮💨😄
if you want things to change, first you have to find a way to be able to confidently say “I’m ready for things to change”. Then, you have to help other people find a way to say it too. And when there’s finally enough people, nobody has to “go first”.
I mean that’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not the late 19th century anymore. Even if it was, that’s not really how revolutions worked in the past.
The majority of revolutions that have been successful in the past have sprung from pre-arranged hierarchical bodies like the military. There is a reason the US military was developed to be domestically apolitical, and is forbidden to operate in any real sense within the United States.
If there is some sort of revolution it’s perfectly reasonable to assume there will be Martyrs, it’s also perfectly reasonable to not want to willingly participate in martyrdom.
I honestly don’t understand how you can read what I’m saying and think that I must be specifically talking about people martyring themselves or violent political revolutions and I would really appreciate it if you could just take my words for granted without making broader inferences about them.
And when there’s finally enough people, nobody has to “go first”.
I mean, it’s what the person you responded to was talking about… Am i supposed to “take your words for granted” and also assume you were making a point completely disjointed from the original context?
so like I’ve spent a lot of time studying history and revolutions and political movements, so personally when I see somebody say something as vague as “we should do something about this ourselves instead of expecting other people to” it’s very hard for me to assume that they must be talking specifically about violently overthrowing the government.
If you’ve spent a lot of time studying history and revolutions…in your opinion, what does it mean when someone says “we should take care of this ourselves”?
In reference to our current political situation, how else would an individual or a small group of like minded individuals “take care” of the situation?
it could mean a lot of things, such as widespread civil disobedience. It’s also not necessarily asking anybody to do anything right now, but to be open to the idea of organized direct action. The real point I’m trying to make is when a person says “you go first” reactively in response to any call to action, they actually become part of the problem that needs to be overcome.
I went to DC and yelled at a bunch of brutalist buildings. I’m sure someone in one of those knows a guy who knows someone who sometimes gets close enough to see a representative. I did my part!
The part of the 60s that enacted change was not peaceful.
That said, here is an especially relevant section of a document from 1963:
[ We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”]
The civil unrest of the 60s worked because the black panthers were presenting the path to real change, so the establishment compromised by giving rights to people without threatening their power.
How about we do something about it instead of expecting someone else to?
It’s the perennial coordination problem. Consider these truths: 1. Anybody who stands up alone will get viciously hammered down. 2. If a large number of people stand up together, they can make a difference. 3. People have to trust others to stand up with them, otherwise see #1.
How do we organize a large crowd of people that trust each other without the people in power catching wind of it and viciously hammering down the organizers? It sure would help to have some support from people already in positions of power…
This is part of why, as much grief as it gets, the 4B movement is something that can plausibly gain traction. Because it doesn’t really require anyone “outing” themselves and thus putting themselves at risk, it can be done without coordination, leadership, and trust. Boycotts function on a similar premise.
They are a useful tool in some ways, but the issue is the relatively limited scope of what these sorts of efforts can accomplish.
I’m reading a book on this topic right now. It’s called civil resistance. Hope to find the answer soon!
You go first. Let us know what and how it worked out.
I don’t even know what this text is in reference to and I have no concrete suggestions immediately. But I will be thinking, connecting, and sharing in the coming months as a strategy emerges. Trumpism can still be defeated. The election was plan A but it’s time to come up with plan B. I am thinking that it’s going to take massive organized civil disobedience. We directly disrupt their ability to govern and harm marginalized people.
But it’s going to take more than just me, so I ask everyone here to be ready and participate in whatever capacity you can.
My “text” is a direct response to your comment that proceeded it. Im not sure how that’s confusing.
The fact of the matter is the election results are legal, certified, and recognized by every country on Earth. As much as I hate it, and I really really hate it, that’s reality.
Unless things get ridiculously out of hand, which has yet to be seen, the only real thing anyone can do is create protests and marches, and vote for change when the time comes.
If you think you’re going to create a “resistance army” you’re going to be checked very hard by reality. Your little keyboard warrior “massive organized civil disobedience” will be as lame as Jan 6.
(They meant the text in the OP, not your comment)
(Let them fight for our entertainment)
(Why are we whispering?)
SORRY Y’ALL, THIS IS MY WHISPER. MY VOICE JUST REALLY CARRIES.
Speaking of your voice ACTUALLY carrying: As a kid, my voice changed to a deep bass really early, so when, attention ravaged with undiagnosed ADHD, I talked in class, the teacher would instantly know it was me 😮💨😄
(thanks, I didn’t realize that. I appreciate it)
if you want things to change, first you have to find a way to be able to confidently say “I’m ready for things to change”. Then, you have to help other people find a way to say it too. And when there’s finally enough people, nobody has to “go first”.
I mean that’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not the late 19th century anymore. Even if it was, that’s not really how revolutions worked in the past.
The majority of revolutions that have been successful in the past have sprung from pre-arranged hierarchical bodies like the military. There is a reason the US military was developed to be domestically apolitical, and is forbidden to operate in any real sense within the United States.
If there is some sort of revolution it’s perfectly reasonable to assume there will be Martyrs, it’s also perfectly reasonable to not want to willingly participate in martyrdom.
I honestly don’t understand how you can read what I’m saying and think that I must be specifically talking about people martyring themselves or violent political revolutions and I would really appreciate it if you could just take my words for granted without making broader inferences about them.
I mean, it’s what the person you responded to was talking about… Am i supposed to “take your words for granted” and also assume you were making a point completely disjointed from the original context?
so like I’ve spent a lot of time studying history and revolutions and political movements, so personally when I see somebody say something as vague as “we should do something about this ourselves instead of expecting other people to” it’s very hard for me to assume that they must be talking specifically about violently overthrowing the government.
If you’ve spent a lot of time studying history and revolutions…in your opinion, what does it mean when someone says “we should take care of this ourselves”?
In reference to our current political situation, how else would an individual or a small group of like minded individuals “take care” of the situation?
it could mean a lot of things, such as widespread civil disobedience. It’s also not necessarily asking anybody to do anything right now, but to be open to the idea of organized direct action. The real point I’m trying to make is when a person says “you go first” reactively in response to any call to action, they actually become part of the problem that needs to be overcome.
well buckle up…
I agree with you on that.
I went to DC and yelled at a bunch of brutalist buildings. I’m sure someone in one of those knows a guy who knows someone who sometimes gets close enough to see a representative. I did my part!
There’s a reason peaceful protest is legal, and that’s because it seldom accomplishes anything meaningful.
The 60s did happen.
The part of the 60s that enacted change was not peaceful.
That said, here is an especially relevant section of a document from 1963:
[ We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”]
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
The civil unrest of the 60s worked because the black panthers were presenting the path to real change, so the establishment compromised by giving rights to people without threatening their power.
What are you referring to exactly?
o7 commander
Yeah! You first