▲ 872 ▼ Why are most people in real life like Cipher? (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 months ago by inkblade@lemmy.world to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] alapakala@quokk.au 7 points 3 months ago* (1 child) And it worked, historically, and fictitiously. You can't vote your way out imperialism, you need to feverish oppose all forms of oppression. Whether at the ballot, and at a deathcamp. #Landback when? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pfried@reddthat.com -1 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It did not work fictionally. Nobody supports rebels in a democracy. They are rooted out of their communities and punished as terrorists. Only when it was no longer a democracy did the rebellion work. The same is true historically. If the people being oppressed can vote for their rulers, violently attacking them instead always fails. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alapakala@quokk.au 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Yet Myanmar , Thailand , Nepal , and Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy. South Korea kept it's democracy by taking the tyrant violently . It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pfried@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) Yet Myanmar , Myanmar wasn't a democracy. Thailand , This prime minister was removed by the court, not by violence. Nepal , and This is the only example you gave of a democratically elected official who was violently overthrown. I said that if you violently overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the majority will simply democratically install a new tyrant. That's exactly what happened in Bangladesh, with the same party being elected after it was violently removed. Nepal seems to be a vanishingly a rare counterexample. We'll see how long that lasts. Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy. Spain also wasn't a democracy. South Korea kept it's democracy by taking the tyrant violently . Also removed by the court, not by rebel violence. It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency. No, if you violently remove a democratically elected official, that official will be democratically replaced with more of the same. Violence doesn't magically change voters' minds to agree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pfried@reddthat.com -1 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It did not work fictionally. Nobody supports rebels in a democracy. They are rooted out of their communities and punished as terrorists. Only when it was no longer a democracy did the rebellion work. The same is true historically. If the people being oppressed can vote for their rulers, violently attacking them instead always fails. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alapakala@quokk.au 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Yet Myanmar , Thailand , Nepal , and Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy. South Korea kept it's democracy by taking the tyrant violently . It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pfried@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) Yet Myanmar , Myanmar wasn't a democracy. Thailand , This prime minister was removed by the court, not by violence. Nepal , and This is the only example you gave of a democratically elected official who was violently overthrown. I said that if you violently overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the majority will simply democratically install a new tyrant. That's exactly what happened in Bangladesh, with the same party being elected after it was violently removed. Nepal seems to be a vanishingly a rare counterexample. We'll see how long that lasts. Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy. Spain also wasn't a democracy. South Korea kept it's democracy by taking the tyrant violently . Also removed by the court, not by rebel violence. It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency. No, if you violently remove a democratically elected official, that official will be democratically replaced with more of the same. Violence doesn't magically change voters' minds to agree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alapakala@quokk.au 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Yet Myanmar , Thailand , Nepal , and Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy. South Korea kept it's democracy by taking the tyrant violently . It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pfried@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) Yet Myanmar , Myanmar wasn't a democracy. Thailand , This prime minister was removed by the court, not by violence. Nepal , and This is the only example you gave of a democratically elected official who was violently overthrown. I said that if you violently overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the majority will simply democratically install a new tyrant. That's exactly what happened in Bangladesh, with the same party being elected after it was violently removed. Nepal seems to be a vanishingly a rare counterexample. We'll see how long that lasts. Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy. Spain also wasn't a democracy. South Korea kept it's democracy by taking the tyrant violently . Also removed by the court, not by rebel violence. It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency. No, if you violently remove a democratically elected official, that official will be democratically replaced with more of the same. Violence doesn't magically change voters' minds to agree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pfried@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) Yet Myanmar , Myanmar wasn't a democracy. Thailand , This prime minister was removed by the court, not by violence. Nepal , and This is the only example you gave of a democratically elected official who was violently overthrown. I said that if you violently overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the majority will simply democratically install a new tyrant. That's exactly what happened in Bangladesh, with the same party being elected after it was violently removed. Nepal seems to be a vanishingly a rare counterexample. We'll see how long that lasts. Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy. Spain also wasn't a democracy. South Korea kept it's democracy by taking the tyrant violently . Also removed by the court, not by rebel violence. It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency. No, if you violently remove a democratically elected official, that official will be democratically replaced with more of the same. Violence doesn't magically change voters' minds to agree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
