Politics
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
view the rest of the comments
No, because some States have entrenched parties that wish to stay entenched. And since we're 50 countries in a trench coat, nothing will change about that soon unless you live there and enjoy making gasoline cocktails.
I am pretty sure that making gasoline cocktails will much further entrench the pro-gasoline-cocktail party. There aren't a lot of collapsing democracies where adding political violence to the mix is what finally rights the ship and lets civil society continue unhindered and fair again.
There also aren't a lot of totalitarian governments that cease their tyranny because the opposing populace hold peaceful protest. Eventually, prospects will become better only when the institution burns.
That said, I don't relish the thought of tearing down an institution that people rely on for personal stability and safety, but if the system's malicious actions outweigh the good that said system does passively, then the only option, the last option, is violence.
That isn't true. It's surprising.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
The TL;DR version is that all participation in a society is, at its core, volitional. Even in the most ruthless dictatorship, the police, the dictatorship's judges, the executioners, and all of them, are still just people waking up in the morning with their families, walking out the door, and deciding how they're going to handle the situations they're faced with. There's no such thing as "the system," truly. There are just a ton of people interacting, with a bunch of habits they've developed for what patterns they're going to adhere to. What they see, and in particular what they see from any "enemies" they're faced with, is going to impact their allegiances and what reactions they think are appropriate to the situations they're faced with.
Some of the most repressive regimes have crumbled, at the end, because the police simply saw which way the wind was blowing and refused to fire on the strikers. Some of the most determined and justified violent revolutions have turned around to become even more repressive than the injustice they were overthrowing.
The details are important, and broad generalizations will always break down sometimes. It's hard to say what approach is better in all situations. But, if you're going to make a single general rule, peaceful is better. Certainly in a situation like now, where we still have a mostly civil society, with most of the trappings of the rule of law and stable institutions are mostly intact, peaceful is better.
I like your worldview.
I've been having a surge of anxiety and anger about this election. I really hope I can see things your way... Right now, it doesn't feel that peace is an option. It doesn't seem like we'll get the choice.
The crazy thing is that each county can also have variations on how to apply the state's rules. It's mind boggling.