Trump is baiting it to get violent. That’s why he pardoned the Jan 6rs. They are his goons.
Don’t feed the troll king.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
8643 readers
5709 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You guys really don't get it.
There is no scenario where they won't blame this on everyone but themselves. It does not matter. Their end goal is violence. Full stop.
Fascists only relent when they are met with direct physical force. They will not move until they are afraid for their lives.
Hard disagree. He’s not afraid for his life. Far from it. Notice how exposed he left himself yesterday during his parade and that was all after his so called ‘assassination attempt’ where his ear magically mended within hours
He will double down where he can. The only thing that is stopping him going full swing is the federal arm right now.
Mark Esper book A Sacred Oath. He’s baiting the dems hard so he can get what he wants and that’s a free ticket to kill dems on sight. If it makes him look a victim that only makes him look lis a martyr to his MAGA crew which will only make them think it’s justified violence.
Don’t justify it.
This is a really dumb notion that still keeps popping up. There wasn't a staged attempt, and the best reason is simply that there's no way to fire a fake bullet or intentionally miss with a real one that wouldn't put Donalds life in danger. And Donald cares about his own life more than anything else. It's a stupid idea and just because it was kinda weird doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.
Yes, he values his life more than anything. That’s the point. If he actually were a surviving victim of a targetted attack he’d never not be behind bulletproof glass. If he actually thought his life was ever in danger.
so far as he’s become president he’s put himself out there in full view for a sniper. Including driving around race track. And stand up in various places out in public.
You are making a lot of assumptions that a bullet existed at all. Or a gun.
An ear doesn't heal in a matter of hours. Which is the biggest problem with that entire story.
the guy cannot resist making a drama no matter how poorly staged it is.
Democrats drove away all the fighters by attacking anyone who was the slightest bit controversial or politically incorrect for the last 40 years. Basically the party was taken over by fools and cowards. This is our opposition party, and this is why we're screwed. Ban Fox News.
Someone finally gets it. But get this. All that gun control is literally helping the other side Dems are helping the auth regime and voters are too dumb to have that epiphany.
All WHAT "gun control"? My sibling in Christ, do you perceive there to be insufficient access to guns in america?! Really?
It puts you in an ideological lock to say the least and when the purity tests start about which in group is "correct", the debacle begins
as we all know, meaningless purity tests are the best way keep an already fragmented ideological movement cohesive and not totally in a permanent state of full fragmentation
No one gives sympathy to protestors who fire the first killing shot on the authorities. Syrian peaceful demonstrators turned rebels have sympathy from the world because they were fired at first by Assad. Many people soured on the French Revolution at the time when The Terror occurred after the people started executing just about anyone deemed enemies of the revolution.
No one is against violence if it has to come to it, but on Lemmy it is the usual suspects (I probably don't need to mention what political ideology they tend to be) who want to pull the trigger first on the army and police without ever thinking of consequences (they wilfully ignore the existence of Insurrection act). They are like the 2nd amendment right wingers, looking for any opportunities to fire their guns and live their fantasies, but on the opposite extreme end of the political aisle.
Or, it could be anti-Western actors stoking violence on Americans to maximise political divisions because it will tremendously help if US is thrown further into chaos.
Edit: wording
I think Gene Sharp characterized it nicely in his essay, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Notably, this essay has been cited as a major influence on the Arab Spring uprisings, so it's especially relevant to the Syrian protests.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you're at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?
If violence is off the table, the state is free to apply violence.
Always has been. We literally elect them for that
Remember when the founding fathers held a peaceful protest in Boston and the British were like, "Woah, we better Bach the fuck up"?
Yeah, you don't fuck with Bach. If it was Beethoven, we wouldn't have stood a chance.
Here we go again,
The Peaceful LA Protests of June, 2025 worked. We're all talking about it now. If the LA protests weren't peaceful, we would have different talking points for this weekend's protests and protesters would have been killed. This administration wants this.
YSK - That there is a lot of trolling and brigading starting to happen around the LA peaceful protests to start violence. Here is a roadmap from 2015 on how they do it.: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39873361
Also, this:
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/protest-trump-resistance-power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
This one was only made possible after war was fought 100 years prior
This one came about as the final straw in the British Empire's back that was started off by the American Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
This one was was caused by the USSR suffering multiple setbacks after its war in Afghanistan, multiple proxy wars (e.g., Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War; the Angolan Civil War; Somalia and Etheopia; Nigerian Civil War; etc.), putting down attempts at reform in the eastern bloc (Praque Spring the Polish Crisis), the massive unrest that had plain-clothes secret-police beating protesters just before the Berlin Wall fell, a violent revolution in Romania, and the August Coup failed.
That doesn't really refute the point, at all?
I thought you were making the point that they were peaceful , and I was refuting that stuff was peaceful.
"There were violent acts previously" does not refute "These groups achieved success with moral persuasion"
Fuck's sake, you're connecting Gandhi's success with the American Revolution, MLK Jr. with the Civil War, and the fall of the Soviet Union with every major war it was involved in throughout the Cold War.
gandhi succeded at nothing, his last movement was at 1942, and India got it's independence at 1947. Delayed effect ig
I'm not familiar with the bottom three so I can't speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I'm sure you know because it's brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
It's almost like a bank robber with the BLA may not be a great authority on how change is achieved.
Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
Okay? What does that have to do with the blatantly false assertion that no one has ever achieved their freedom by persuading their oppressors on moral grounds?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
No. Like, just no. Mahatma "British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse" Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign, and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers. I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK's assassination. And that's not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Mahatma Gandhi was also helped by the fact that India had been waging INCREDIBLY violent resistance since the late 1800s. Like, there were ambushes that wiped out whole companies of soldiers in the mountains. His campaign of non-cooperation was just the last straw for a war-weary empire that saw little use and even littler public will to dump more soldiers into India.
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign,
Okay, so we're going to ignore literally every quote of his about convincing the British and that the point of his nonviolent campaigns was to highlight the moral aspect of the conflict. Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers.
Jesus fucking Christ. What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination.
...
... do... do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1968 was a minor addendum.
I'm really not fucking sure you should be telling me to 'learn more about this stuff'.
And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Oh, so violence was the main factor? I'm sure, then, that opinions in the US were changing at the time because no one was persuaded, they were just scared. After all, that's how ethnic resistance movements so consistently throughout history persuade the majority of a country, definitely not resulting in long-standing ethnic conflicts and enduring prejudices with literal centuries-long irregular warfare.
Good thing these brave revolutionaries knew that moral persuasion was worthless!
Okay I'm really not interested in continuing this conversation; you're sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
... do... do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
Oh, so violence was the main factor?
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can't blame them.
Liberals aren't leftists.
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
I sound like a 'liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history' because... I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger's Cat bullshit is this?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn't some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you're at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn't an option, there's no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn't benefit the oppressors.
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
So your argument is... what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate... doesn't count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would've gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we're talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
'Coercive nonviolence'
Lord.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn't have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
True left praxis. I am in awe.
The most intelligent liberal, folks.
The most intelligent liberal, folks.
"Violence is a tool but so is moral persuasion, both have their place and both have their victories."
Wow, what a shitlib I am for thinking that moral persuasion has ever had a role in society. A shitlib just like MLK Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. Amazing how many shitlibs there are out here.
Moral persuading goes hand in hand with actual violence to show that you mean business. The moral persuasion just goes to get the common folk on your side so to try to prevent future issues. Look at Malcom x and MLK. MLK wouldn't have got nearly as far without the threat of Malcom X causing actual immediate change. Like open carry laws.
Moral persuasion is a great tool, but alone, enacted zero real change.
Not going to lie, I have no sources to back this up, it's just what I was taught in highschool.
That said, even with both violence and non- violent persuasion, racism still perpetuates within America.
"We've tried non-violently pressuring people into violence so that they can die for our beliefs and it hasn't changed anything for the better in a century. Therefore, non-violence doesn't work."
- Tankies
Is, I think, what this boils down to.