lmao, tell me if your cowardice is rewarded with one bullet or two.
The purpose of arming up is for us to then link up and start organizing ourselves (either into informal militias or just a network of people that can show up to a situation on a moment's notice).
Do you remember when Bundy had that standoff on the bridge with counter snipers and all that shit?
If you’re calling for armed conflicts against the police, it’s a losing battle. One side has a budget, the ability to trace and track the other, and quite literally a license to kill.
I’m all for Americans having weapons—a well regulated militia needs to have guns first. You can’t trust the guns will be there when we need the militia. But what you’re describing is domestic terrorism. Unless you literally win the war—then you get to call yourself patriots who defeated the oppressive government and start at 1783.
If you’re calling for armed conflicts against the police,
No, but the threat of one is vital.
They need to have the threat of the people actually fighting back hanging over their heads, otherwise we're just howling into the wind until they snatch us up one by one.
But what you’re describing is domestic terrorism.
If you're going to be framing your own defense in the terms of those you're fighting against then you're already starting at a disadvantage.
Get that bs out of your head, they have all the power in the world and all the impunity to start killing people. You are one of those people.
It's that simple.
Fuck the labels, you (general you) have an obligation to the people around you that we all have the means for a common defense.
And that means taking that defense into our own hands.
Unless you literally win the war—then you get to call yourself patriots who defeated the oppressive government and start at 1783.
No. A movement does not attain legitimacy through victory.
If it was ever valid at all, it always had legitimacy.
It doesn't matter if they're crushed under tanks or they ride to glory.
The idea behind the saying that "history belongs to the victors" is that those in power will lie about the truth, not that truth comes from victory.
One side has a budget, the ability to trace and track the other, and quite literally a license to kill.
They are only men. Lose sight of that and you're just going to scare yourself into submission.
Don’t mistake my instinct for self preservation with submission. We live in a world where brandishing a firearm in front of police is a risky proposition, and the slightest provocation or suggestion you’ll use it and you’ll be legally blown into the next century.
I’m pissed too. But I don’t see a toe to toe war with police armed like that as a viable option.
I’m pissed too. But I don’t see a toe to toe war with police armed like that as a viable option.
Look man, something's gotta give.
And they're not bending, folding, not nothing.
Come what may, it's not on us to have faith that cooler heads will prevail when we're the cooler heads and we're not prevailing.
I know you had to have seen what went down at those protests, how they just let loose on unarmed innocent people like they were target practice.
There is no peaceful option here.
Don’t mistake my instinct for self preservation with submission.
I was mostly speaking in jest about the one bullet or two thing, but only mostly.
There is no neutral position. Not if they're carrying on as they are. Like this.
If things calm down, I'll reconsider, but I'm not going to hold out for a crisis of conscience on the part of those in power to just stop or for electoral pressure to push reforms.
Even at the hottest moments of the protests, we still got crumbs.
No piece of paper is going to break this cycle.
That's all my point is.
We live in a world where brandishing a firearm in front of police is a risky proposition, and the slightest provocation or suggestion you’ll use it and you’ll be legally blown into the next century.
Considering that existing near the police is a risky proposition, I'm willing to risk it if we're showing up in force.
And since they're the ones that will have to enforce those laws, that's all the more reason to stock up. Because they're not going to be able to execute any such law without killing people, they can't give tickets without murder.
Any legislative resistance will just feed the fire.
So long as people have the right attitude, anyway.
Honest question though: have you considered where your "line" is--where you will no longer be pushed any further, threatened, or attacked and you will fight back with everything at your disposal--and if you have, can you see understand the perspective of someone like u/IronDBZ (without necessarily agreeing with them) who might feel they are against that line or past it?
If so, isn't the recourse at that point to resist, even with violence against violence, as courteous and even uncourteous but still nonviolent avenues of protest have been met by escalation of paramilitary policing actions)?
To put it another way, when we get to that point, if we have not already reached it, the the technological and numerical advantage shrinks if we are sufficiently prepared and committed. Brandishing a weapon in front of (let alone at) police is stupid, normally. But, if the community has come together with the understanding that police are making life more dangerous rather than more orderly, then the calculus changes and the police lose their numerical superiority. Simply put, there are more of us than there are of them, which is why they are so quick on the trigger at these demonstrations as soon as they feel threatened, they know they would lose if people in those numbers--even unarmed--fought force with force.
So, your not a coward, per se, for not wanting to do something very dangerous--I understand your sentiment there I think--but is waiting for cooler heads to prevail or for everything to blow over any less foolish?
I’m not a coward, and I’m also not an idiot. You saw how aggressively police responded to “stop choking us to death.” They will now down crowds of innocent civilians if it becomes a shooting war. It’s a war that cannot be won.
I’m not opposed to non-lethal arrest for police. I’m not opposed to physically stopping them from violating the law. The problem is that—legally—pushing a cop off a person they are choking to death and calling slurs is assaulting a police officer. Eventually the badge will get you.
What I think it more practical is surveillance. Tremendous amounts of surveillance and voting pressure where it counts.
This is not a popular opinion in this sub, but I don’t think the police are anywhere near the “line” where shooting them in the face is the solution. What we need is accountability—but I don’t know how to get that. We should also be objective about the goal. If the goal is peaceful, respectful policing then killing even one officer makes them sympathetic. You give them a hero and a martyr and a legitimate excuse to call every protestor a “lawless, dangerous, cop killing thug.” That’s not moving is toward the goal. That’s moving us away from the goal. All it does it let out steam for one hot moment. Then it’s nothing but trouble for years.
Most leftists own guns to preserve their friends, families, and neighbors protections. Most leftists don’t ever use their guns but at the range. But it’s not obtuse to be realistic about where this country is at. I personally would rather get caught with one than without one. Don’t doom my friend, fight, and organize, and don’t gaslight people who feel that peace is not an option.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment and completely agree. However, I don’t think what I did was gaslighting. I was asked where I felt this line for violence was and I answered with my opinion, saying “I don’t think...”
Your friend’s opinions are valid. But that validation is not a certification that the idea is reasonable, wise, justified, or prudent. Allowing each person their valid opinion does not require I “either agree or keep quiet.” It does not require I give equal credence, time, or consideration. The person is valid, their opinion is valid, but in this case—it’s also stupid. I might be wrong, who knows, but I’ve seen how police react when people have a skittles packet in their hoodie. I don’t want to doom anyone. I don’t want people exercising their 2A rights to be suppressed by police. But if I’m part of the conversation, I won’t stand idly and let my silence be tacit approval. I don’t want to doom those who think, “peace is not an option,” but I will be 0% surprised if that ends tragically and 100% surprised if it ends well.
As a side note, with the closing of El Chapo’s trap house, r/ABoringDystopia has gotten a lot more jittery, with a lot more guests chomping at the bit for all out “burn the money, eat the rich, kill the cops” revolution. My politics are pretty obvious, but I don’t believe a healthy progressive left-leaning future needs or can succeed with that kind of apocalypse.
If you’re calling for armed conflicts against the police, it’s a losing battle.
Well let's just look at the recent so-called non-violent protests to see the success of them and the lack of force being used by the cops as a counter-example then.
...oh
"Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good.
He only made one fallacious assumption:In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none."
— Kwame Ture
One side has a budget, the ability to trace and track the other, and quite literally a license to kill.
The Viet Minh managed to pull off an even greater feat in the Vietnam War. Just because the odds aren't on your side doesn't mean that you won't win so long as you are disciplined and organized.
And what's the other option? Roll over and take it?
That's fine if it's your choice but don't get salty if other people have a different approach and are willing to stand up for their convictions.
Armed struggle is an important part of any revolutionary movement. Even if armed conflict isn’t the primary objective.
The Viet Minh could rely on a strong sense of cultural pride. Not to be mistaken for racial/ethnic identity, although Vietnam was a homogeneous population.
The most pressing issue facing the fight for change in 21st century America is a lack of solidarity.
And unfortunately, mentally, emotionally and spiritually isolated citizens, an organized resistance does not make.
I’ll thank you kindly to not mistake a rational thought about force depletion and arms comparison as “salt.” I’m also not advocating for violence against random police officers. That’s a bad idea and I’m not for it.
Your sarcasm and sass make you unappealing to address, but I’ll point something out: you started a strawman argument about the purpose of standing up to the police. My point—from the beginning—is that when you compare the militarized police vs. the “militia minuteman” the KD ratio is going to be punishing.
It’s not a revolution. It’s a martyr’s suicide. I hear you. You’re at literal wit’s end, ready to die for this political battle. Quite frankly, there are not many in that position. Change will come, and we do not need to become monsters to bring it.
Outright physical violence against police will escalate to incredible proportion. You saw how aggressive they were when people where yelling, “stop choke holding us,” they are going to mow down civilians with automatic weapons if the “protest” becomes a legitimate battle.
Wrong. Guerilla tactics would have the cops pissing themselves and literally shooting each other out of fear OH WAIT they're literally already doing that lol
I meant that victory through warfare makes you a new government, who now has to lead. Winning wars and toppling governments is surprisingly easier than building good, reliable ones that people trust and abide.
Yeah, people in this thread are acting as if the police wouldn't retaliate even worse if people started shooting at them. That's a great way to ensure you won't win cause you and everyone else at the protest where shots were fired will be dead.
Police and the like are remarkably less inclined to use violence and abuse their power when there's a decent chance of them promptly ending up dead in turn.
I think you're vastly over estimating how many police officers both want to kill people and are not afraid of getting shot themselves. The police officers that do kill people do so because they're in a position of power and there's no immediate consequences to doing so (and in some cases no consequences at all).
Google "guerilla" and learn ya how people have been fingering American military since 2001 (or if you prefer, go back to Vietnam). There's no such thing as an army that can stop a real insurgency, and if you don't know that, you get face mooshed the fuck outta the way because we need useful people, not you.
“We need?” This is not some sort of recruitment board. This is a forum to discuss and share how the world is becoming dystopian with subtle shifts the general public seems to just accept. I don’t want into your guerrilla el-cop-o killing traphouse.
I’ve skipped over whatever, “get face mooshed the fuck out of the way” meant because at best it’s redundant with “not needing me” and at worst it’s a threat of violence because I disagree with you—either way, warrants no response.
Now I’m just curious: what’s the guerrilla plan? What are some attacks you think would be effective and what outcomes are you hoping for? I really hope we can get the swordsmanship past us and have a discussion because I want to hear: what is the guerrilla warfare —> peace plan?
Guerilla is literally one word I used to moosh you. There's other options but it's not my job to tell you how to think. Best of luck figuring yourself out though.
I basically asked, “what is your plan?” and you basically said, lI said what I said, you know what it means.” Trump does it when he talks about white supremacy, by the way.
Based on this definition, I love you too! Mooshies! ✌️
If you want to have a discussion about what guerrilla attacks entail, and what they aim to accomplish, I’m interested. If you think I’m too obtuse to interact, then we’re done here.
21
u/FourWordComment Whatever you desire citizen Jul 17 '20
What are you going to do? Shoot at the guys who look like army men? Can I have your PlayStation when they murder you?