this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
748 points (99.5% liked)

politics

27541 readers
3803 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 days ago (4 children)

When are we going to learn that strongly worded letters and protests that turn us into a shooting gallery are not a winning strategy? How many good men and women need to get assassinated before we try something different, anything different?

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Have you read any American history? This is a pattern.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I just don't understand why good people are so prone to think letting the bully repeatedly punch them in the face will work. Some people won't stop until they are stopped. Everyone knows this. There's a lot of forms that can take, but blowing fucking whistles clearly isn't it.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (3 children)

You're not wrong but you're also not volunteering to get yourself killed as well as likely hundreds if not thousands right off the bat.

Kent State was much smaller and you still ended up with iirc like 40 deaf or injured.

Open rebellion is a last resort because it's guaranteed to come with a body count.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not as well versed on that event as I would like, but isn't that another example of a peaceful protest that turned into a shooting gallery?

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Yes most of the turning points in American history have fairly high body counts.

[–] potatogamer@ttrpg.network 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Open rebellion is a terrible idea.

We have extensive data on how to fight the US. We just choose not to use the correct tactics.

[–] Bonifratz@piefed.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Can you elaborate? Do you mean guerilla warfare?

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Asymmetric is the way. Anything else is suicide.

[–] politicalincorruption@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Violence begets violence.

That’s a trite phase, but it’s no less true.

As soon as America meets violence with violence we’re cooked.

The line is crossed and now we wait for lawmakers to choose a side.

The rule of law OR Fascism

Support and encourage your representatives to stand up to Trump and impeach the childfucker.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Support and encourage your representatives to stand up to Trump and impeach the childfucker.

Did you forget that they already declined to prosecute him?

I feel like a broken clock with this, but you realize the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for any acts taken in their capacity as president, which they specifically said would include assassinating political rivals, didn’t come during Trump’s second term right? It came during Biden’s term. The Supreme Court literally told him, “You could assassinate Trump and nothing would happen to you.” He refused to even pursue him for prosecution.

Democrats WILL NEVER SAVE YOU. They never have. They’re guilty of genocide, and you’re relying on an appeal to their humanity. Don’t doom yourself, organize with actual humans.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

The line is crossed and now we wait for lawmakers to choose a side.

SCOTUS is owned; what law makers?
Wake up.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Criticism is easy. Why don't you suggest a better strategy so we can criticize it?

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Naturally, the solution is to interrogate the critique rather than the problem. That approach has an impressive record of success.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The 3.5% rule.

Nonviolent resistance has a higher success rate when compared to violent resistance. But non violent resistance does not mean the resistance movement will be bloodless. Authoritarians will respond to both a violent and nonviolent movement with aggression.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, that "rule" is bullshit. It's cherry picked at best.

Edit: for those downvoting, even the wiki page says as much right at the top.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You're probably right, but i think the point is worth making - a surprisingly small number of people acting in concert can make topple an authoritarian regime.

The thing is, grumbling on Facebook isn't enough. If 5% of people could boycott oligarchs indefinitely, that might undermine Trump's support. That's actually quite hard to achieve though.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem with that rule is that it says you have to be perfectly peaceful and roll over. For example, though it's categorized as a non-violent movement, the civil rights movement in the US had a fairly large violent wing as well. Also, the non-violent wing was said to be violent by the media of the time.

Personally, I don't think non-violence alone can accomplish the goals. I think it's useful to show the regime how much support there is, and how much force is available if it's actually needed. The violent wing also needs to be there though causing actual damage that they can witness. They need to see what will happen if they don't listen. The non-violent group will begin increasingly supporting the violent group.

In order to cause real change, there needs to be a credible threat. They don't care if you politely ask for change. They care if they're in danger. That's all authoritarian regimes ever care about. Not the will of the people.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 2 points 2 days ago

They don’t care if you politely ask for change. They care if they’re in danger. That’s all authoritarian regimes ever care about.

Ok but money is a credible threat.

Dr Jack Goldstone was talking about this on ologies podcast episode about revolutions.

The autocrat supports oligarchs, who use their influence to keep the autocrat in power.

For example, Musk, Bezos, Zucc, contributing many millions in campaign donations to support republicans.

My point is, if public sentiment turns against these oligarchs and is expressed through boycotts, they may withdraw their support for the autocrat. The problem of course is the amount of money Trump is funneling to them in the form of grants and tax cuts. It will be difficult to exceed that.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

That’s actually quite hard to achieve though.

But not impossible. Boycott big companies is as good a start as any and beats doing nothing.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

If the oligarchs start losing money Trump will be finished in a week.

That said, I dont think Americans have the commitment to sustain a boycott.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Europe is prepping to do it for us. They're rolling out EU-based payment processors and switching to Open Source and EU-based tech. Right now, they're too dependent on American companies, so they're divesting from that dependence.

Once they move away from US tech dependency, they can start sanctioning the US and hurting Trump's financial backers. 20 million bubbas with red hats won't matter when a few billionaires start losing money.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Many people, likely a majority, are not in a financial or practical position to participate in a boycott or general strike. That constraint is not accidental. Considerable effort goes into structuring economic life so that such actions are difficult to sustain, and additional effort goes into convincing people they are even more powerless than they actually are.

Even within this comment thread, some seem to overlook the range of options that exist between blowing whistles on one extreme and violent confrontation with the red hats on the other.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't really understand if I'm honest.

You don't need to have a general strike as in not going to work or whatever.

If you buy things from Amazon, stop doing that. If you visit facebook, stop doing that. If you use google or chatGPT, make better choices.

Apparently, as few as 5% of a population can cause a revolution.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You don’t need to have a general strike as in not going to work or whatever.

You're not suggesting a general strike then, you're suggesting something more like a general boycott.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 2 points 2 days ago

Correct. Boycott oligarchs. @sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works mentioned a general strike, not me.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There is that artificial homelessnes they implemented just so they can replace everyone in the case of a general strike.

But in truth most workers can't be substituted for overnight, and if we also started boycotting so nobody buys stuff anyways; it would work insantly.