124
Pls dont do violent protests, think of the poor Gestapo agents you could hurt, instead work with the System
(hexbear.net)
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
124 points (99.2% liked)
Slop.
522 readers
376 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I also think that an MLK-style "good cop" is a necessary element in a resistance movement, and should even be more heavily emphasized than the "bad cop" element.
Ultimately, violence is an effective tool for getting what you want. How it is used determines whether it is morally good or bad. The vast majority of people (hexbears included) believe violence is only good when
(Note: I'm just spitballing, so don't expect this to be comprehensive or even correct. I'm sure there are plenty of detailed examinations of the morality of violence.)
Tangent on human nature
I think we can learn a lot about human nature when we consider "trolly problems" where both tracks have significant social consequences, and those consequences direct you to one of the choices. For example, if you see someone drowning and you are able to save them, there is an overwhelming social pressure for you to save them. If you save them, it is rewarded - you're a hero! However, if you don't save them, it is punished - you are a coward.The rewards and punishments don't match typical social behavior motivators, where one option has a reward or a punishment and the other is neutral. You're not a hero if you don't beat your child, and you're not shamed if you don't donate all your money to charity.
We can design this type of trolly problem for violence, where you have a gun pointed at an active shooter and you need to decide whether to pull the trigger. If you do, you are a hero. If you do not, you are a coward. Humanity exists in the gaps between what is more "formally" moral and how we feel. It is human to approve of violence in some situations.
The Left, by definition, holds values that the vast majority of people hold. If there are people who oppose the left, it is because they hold incorrect beliefs about our values. Most MAGA chuds hold our values, they just think we're trying to kill all cis people or whatever and they think that's bad.
The Left, also by definition, gets its power from having an absolute fuckload of people pulling in the same direction. To become powerful, we MUST grow and to do that we need to show people that we hold their values.
MLK and Malcom X were both fighting for good, but fighting for good is not enough if you lose. We need to WIN, and we can not win if we don't have enough power.
And so we reach the heart of the problem: how do we balance effective resistance with growing power, which requires appealing to the ignorant, propagandized masses?
First: There are plenty of actions that are both effective resistance and good for growing the movement. I think those actions should be prioritized and promoted as the public face of the movement. That's irrelevant to the discussion of violence, though.
A resistance WILL be more effective per person if it is violent. However, it then runs a significant risk of running afoul of public perception, which slows its growth (and therefore power). Since violence is only appropriate under narrow conditions, our enemy can delegitimatize our violence by suggesting any of the above conditions aren't met ("being trans is bad, actually" or "sure, we want to keep our communities safe too, but there are other ways").
A commitment to nonviolence is a safe public stance, since it is more resistant to misportrayal and many will see violent suppression by the government as immoral. Your movement is sympathetic to the public, and should grow more as a result, but is less effective per person.
If violence is necessary, it may need to be denounced as separate from the moment. Not because it is morally wrong, but because our enemy gets to shape the narrative and they will show us in the worst light possible.
Generally agree. In this specific context, I think the combination of how heavy-handed ICE has been and the legacy of January 6th leads me to think that the protesters in LA aren’t likely to alienate the general public.
Oh yeah, totally agree.
I think the Republican/Democrat split will definitely get hot, but I do not think it will raise to the level of a civil war.
Democrats vs Republicans exists to give people the feeling like they're fighting for the soul of the country, without actually winning or losing anything material.
Which is NOT to say fighting fascism isn't important. Obviously it is. The brilliance of fascism is that it defines the fight, and it does so by being obviously, hideously cruel to a small minority of people and daring you to stop it.
We must stop it, of course. But we must also recognize that fascism does not care about which minority it targets, it just needs to distract people from realizing that they are suffering because of capitalism. Minorities suffering is the cost of doing business.
Targeting a minority group obscures capitalism as the problem for both sides of the fight. People think they choose between left and right, but they didn't build the roads.
The fascist believes that the minority is the cause of their suffering, and wants to exact righteous vengeance of the same variety that hexbears want for capitalists. "The people that have caused widespread suffering are now themselves suffering? Good."
The liberal sees the immense suffering of the minority, and denies their own suffering because it is less acute. "Yes, I'm having a hard time paying rent, but I'm not being deported. Those people's suffering is greater, so we should fight for them first."
Importantly, the liberal will NEVER effectively resist fascism, because the moment they decide their own suffering is "worthy," they will prioritize themselves over the resistance.
Republicans vs Democrats will never rise to a civil war, because liberals view resistance to fascism as charity for the minority, not as solidarity with them. They see the oppressed as pitiable, not lovable.
And so they will post their signs, uber to their protests, and maybe even throw a rock or two if they get caught up in the moment. But when they're hit with rubber bullets, arrested, or face charges, reality will set in. They will see the true face of the monster. They will finally picture themselves among the oppressed.
And they will fold.
And the fascists will exact righteous vengeance on the innocent.
And nothing will change.
And liberals will win a landslide election.
And nothing will change.
And the fascists will pick a new enemy.
And nothing will change.