Even if you want a peaceful protest, the state security apparatus will turn into a riot when they need to discredit the protester, ie Floyd Protests is recent example.

Then older people start pearl clutching over "black youth" "looting" a corporate location! The horror!

Liberals will bring some generic race arguments etc

Now we got a proper circle jerk and discussion about police brutality is third order of operation.

its afraid.jpeg because we have not seen such class unity in modern history.

Good.

But taxes!!!!!

Said anyone who doesn't know that minus $600/month that only covers the basics plus $300? in taxes that covers a lot more is a net savings.

Lol, "voting".

I mean personally I do vote every election I can, but people did change how they voted after protests were ignored. The pro-Palestinian protesters and the uncommitted movement during this 2024 election had a basic demand they wanted met, that was ignored by the Harris campaign and some number of them didn't vote because of it. And yet a lot of people blamed the protesters for Harris's loss (of Michigan at least), even though that is literally changing your vote because a protest didn't get her to change her position.

And that's also skipping over however many people didn't show up because of other positions she changed, like healthcare, fracking, the border, etc. And I do get it, I know Trump will be so much worse, and like I said I did vote, straight Democrat down ballot like I always do. But if the point of a protest is meant to show that a group of people is unhappy and you're losing their support, having that group turn around and vote for you anyway means that you can just ignore protests.

And again, I know I'll probably need to keep saying this, I voted for Harris. But the fact that the lesson a lot of the DNC is seemingly taking from this is that they should go more centrist just boggles my mind, because the point of people not showing up to vote for her after they protested and were ignored is literally that going more centrist and ignoring your base will lose democrats elections.

It's no surprise though, the DNC receives a ton of corporate donations so why would they seriously support policy that hurts those donors income. Like Josh Shapiro condemning the killer and those who supported them, and thanking the police who caught him in PA isn't surprising when he received $10,000 dollars from UHG in 2023 (the second most of any candidate). This is what people mean when they say voting is pointless, even if you somehow voted in a senate of 100% democrats, a house of 100% democrats, and Bernie Sanders as the president, they wouldn't support a proposal for something like single payer healthcare because most of the other democrats in the house and senate get money to not support major reforms like that.

Who are you supposed to vote for when both parties drift right indefinitely?

Voting means nothing if no candidates represents how 75+% of the nation feels on the biggest issues.

What's funny is the majority of the country supported the war, at the time. Less than a quarter of polled citizens were against the war. (That's me! I was there!)

When polled now, the majority of the country claims they were against it at the time.

Echoes of the Civil Rights era, where at its peak, it was deeply unpopular, but the Boomers spent the last 50 years re-writing their own history to pretend they were always on the right side of history... only for Trump to make them feel safe in being racist again.

There's two episodes in the podcast Cool People who did Cool Things that talks about basically that in regards to the violent wing of the nonviolent civil rights movement. You need both.

A massive peaceful march from home to home of owner-class individuals. With a little occasional shots, as a treat?

Yeah, the point of a peaceful protest is meant as a neutral option, just to show that a large group exists who has some demand, and if the demand is not met it will escalate, either via disruption to the economy with strikes or disruption to society with violence. It shouldn't be blamed on protesters if it ends up escalating that way, because the protest was meant as the warning. Most people wouldn't blame a country that has repeatedly warned a neighbor to stop annexing it's land for fighting a war with them. If the country never went farther than warnings then they would all be empty threats. Somehow protests are thought of differently though, and if one turns violent it's blamed on the protesters and not the government for basically completely ignoring every protest movement in recent memory.

Listened to the first season a while back, I genuinely had one (1) note/dispute, for a series spanning nearly 11 hours on the Iraq invasion. They brought receipts, sources, archived media snippets, and a lot of context that mainstream media still glosses over with 9/11 remembrance justifications.

Very listenable, add it to your queue if you remotely enjoy geopolitics

They need to make it easier to find their podcast on their website, instead of dumping everyone into the Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify Podcasts pipeline...

https://blowback.show/BLOWBACK

There's a playlist of the episodes near the bottom of this page.

Reminds me of the graphic novel "The Bush Junta."

Episode Zero with H. Jon Benjamin as Saddam Hussein is pretty gold.

I think their assessment that the history of the Iraq War is important to understand our current place in history is absolutely correct. Especially not prosecuting war criminals and how that lead to not prosecuting Trump.

I was a bit skeptical as well, but there's at least one seemingly reputable academic researcher who says as much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests (first citation).
So even if it wasn't, one could easily be forgiven for the mistake.

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests

Specific news articles about that day:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040904214302/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54365

From Guinness World Records:

On February 15, 2003, anti-war rallies took place across the globe – the largest occurring in Rome, Italy, where a crowd of 3 million gathered to protest against the USA’s threat to invade Iraq. Police figures report that millions more demonstrated in nearly 600 cities worldwide: on the same day, 1.3 million rallied in Barcelona, Spain, 1 million participated in a peace march through the streets of London, UK, and 500,00 people in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, joined the biggest marches since the Vietnam War peace protests.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100326221254/http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=6067

The French political scientist Dominique Reynié has estimated that, between 3 January and 12 April 2003, some 36 million people took part in nearly 3,000 protests around the world against the Iraq war.

(It's worth noting here that I have been unable to find Dominique Reynié's paper that estimates this. I have searched and searched for a PDF with no luck. Lots of references to this work, but can't seem to find the actual document.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20190921125652/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm

Between six and 10 million people are thought to have marched in up to 60 countries over the weekend - the largest demonstrations of their kind since the Vietnam War.

A key aspect of what made it so big was because it was happening worldwide, simultaneously, in multiple cities all over the world.

Like I said in another thread too, every state (as in nation, not US states), uses violence as an answer all the time. Police violence against criminals or protesters, military violence against other states, death penalties against those deemed too dangerous to live, prisons in general. So what is it about state sanctioned violence that is considered moral by most people who would also decry individual violence as immoral? Even Brian Thompson oversaw an increase in claim denials from ~10% to ~30%. How many people did that kill, or torture, or cause suffering? Obviously a lot of people have already talked about social murder, but again, why is social murder more justified? Just because it's legal and allowed by the state?

Laws aren't some inherent measure of morality, and states don't have some inherent sense of justice that is superior to that of their people. Just look at slavery, it was fully legal and rescuing slaves was a crime. That didn't make it moral, or the abolitionists who ran the underground railroad immoral. Or look at prohibition, or the current version we have with the war on drugs. What makes someone indulging in a vice like weed, or mushrooms, or honestly even something more addictive like cocaine be guilty of a crime, when someone indulging in alcohol, or cigarettes, or caffeine, or sugar isn't? And what makes someone doing that on their own, assuming they don't harm others because of it, worse in the eyes of the law than someone who gambles?

In order to see the imbalance of power and violence, you only need to look at the recourse each party has for violence by the other. Look at what happened when an individual committed violence against UHC by killing the CEO. There was a national manhunt, tens of thousands of dollars offered in rewards for finding them, and once a suspect was arrested they were humiliated by the police, put in jail to be held until trial, and are likely facing life in prison if they are convicted. None of that would happen to any of those responsible for a wrongful death due to an illegally denied claim. In that case, in order to get recourse, the family would need to sue the company, which takes a crazy amount of time, money, and effort. And if by the end of it they win, what punishment would UHC face? The CEO wouldn't be given jail time for murder or manslaughter. The company wouldn't be broken up or shut down. At most you'd get some money, and they'd maybe have to pay a fine to the government. During the lawsuit the CEO and board would be free to continue business as normal, killing or hurting who knows how many people while doing so.

So obviously the government, corporations, politicians, and billionaires will denounce this as a "tragedy", a "horrible act of violence". Those celebrating in it are "advocating violence" or simply the minority, existing in "dark corners of the internet". Because admitting that violence is an acceptable strategy means they'd accept it turned upon them, instead of being the sole group allowed to use it as they see fit.

This isn't necessarily me advocating for violence either, as I think in general neither one should be accepted, no matter if it's done by an individual or a state. But the legality of that violence is also not what should determine its morality, and there are exceptions to every rule. Personally I consider myself a pacifist. I'm vegan, I would go to jail before being drafted because I would never want to serve in a war, and obviously like most people I would always prefer a non violent answer to a conflict if possible. But things don't always work out that way, and it's nonsensical that anyone would consider Brian Thompson, or any other CEO of a major company, better or more morally acceptable than the one who killed him. State approved violence, legal violence, is not and should not be seen as any more acceptable or moral.

Well, and as I'm trying to make clear, being non-violent doesn't make you not a target. The US government was busy trying to target the most non-violent group that exists in the US as terrorists. Violence is so antithetical to their religion they cannot be drafted into the US military, due to freedom of religion. The real name of their religion isn't Quakers it's "The Religious Society of Friends."

The more non-violent you are, the more likely these freaks are willing to view you as easy to take down and remove from the conversation.

It's just like... the first Gay Pride demonstration was literally a riot.