▲ 558 ▼ No, Brian Thompson Wasn’t a “Working-Class Hero” (jacobin.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I keep telling people here that you usually cannot cure a systemic issue with violence but they refuse to believe it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Please cite all the systemic issues solved with peace permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Really? Shall we start with this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think a CIA-backed movement qualifies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not sure what CIA involvement has to do with violence, but I think it's very interesting that you're denouncing the nonviolent revolution that got Putin's minions out of power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later? "Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail. And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Please cite all the systemic issues solved with peace permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Really? Shall we start with this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think a CIA-backed movement qualifies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not sure what CIA involvement has to do with violence, but I think it's very interesting that you're denouncing the nonviolent revolution that got Putin's minions out of power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later? "Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail. And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Really? Shall we start with this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think a CIA-backed movement qualifies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not sure what CIA involvement has to do with violence, but I think it's very interesting that you're denouncing the nonviolent revolution that got Putin's minions out of power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later? "Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail. And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hark@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think a CIA-backed movement qualifies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not sure what CIA involvement has to do with violence, but I think it's very interesting that you're denouncing the nonviolent revolution that got Putin's minions out of power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later? "Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail. And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not sure what CIA involvement has to do with violence, but I think it's very interesting that you're denouncing the nonviolent revolution that got Putin's minions out of power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later? "Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail. And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hark@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later? "Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail. And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later? "Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail. And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing. permalink fedilink source parent