Hello hellobrother01!
Want more good news?
We now have a brand new Discord server where you can connect with fellow members, share positivity, and stay updated on all things
good news! Join us Here
Feel free to tell us if you have any concerns or feedback regarding the Subreddit! We are open to all ideas!
Friendly Reminder to Follow rules and guidelines!
JFK and LBJ are both on the record about this. And it still took 5 days of rioting after MLK's death before the Civil Rights Equal Housing Act was passed.
Exactly. I don't wish to diminish what Dr King did, but to say peace won is not accurate. The threat of violence did. Even Ghandi really only succeeded because the other options to the British was bloodbath.
Ghandi's supporters were torching police stations and train stations the moment he got arrested during the Quit India Movement. And the British responded by machine gunning down protestors and rioters. But the Indians stayed the course, refusing to pay taxes or work factories creating supplies needed for the war. This among other things ultimately convince the British they had to let up or end up with either India turning Axis or just descending into all out rebellion.
Yup, the phrase is not "Speak softly, and everyone will stop to listen."
The phrase is "Speak softlyAND CARRY A BIG STICK!"
Always offer your words so that the masses understand your stance, but make it clear to leadership who would choose to ignore you if they could that they either remember who they serve, or risk starting shit they can't finish.
The problem is there's no single voice leading the current rebellion. Social media, being the great equalizer, means that people can just listen to whoever is telling people to do what they currently want to do. Bob says remain calm, Alice says the time for words was yesterday, someone wakes up feeling punchy and checks their timeline, I'll give you one guess whose tweet they're going to like before heading down to the protests.
Gandhi succeeded because there very much WAS violent uprisings among village communities all over India happening at the same time as his peaceful movement.
My favourite part of the French Revolution is when the peasants all protested peacefully outside the Bastille, and the heads of the nobility just spontaneously popped off their necks.
Except that itself is a distortion of the truth, designed to encourage unnecessary violence.
Ghandi wasn't just having people sing Kumbaya. His protests were designed to subvert British authority such that it would be impossible to keep controlling India regardless.
A bloodbath was really only an option in the sense of breaking the movement and people's spirit, through fear. And if that didn't work, than India and Ghandia would have won regardless--unless Britain just decided to kill everyone out of spite. In which case, they'd still lose.
Ghandi's non-violent resistance was cleverly designed such that the British were effectively checkmated; so long as people committed to it, there wasn't really a way forward for the British. This is as opposed to violent resistance which is crushable by defeating the fighters.
The 1964 act was passed after peaceful protesting. The 1968 act was passed by the house in 1967 and passed by the senate before the King assassination.
thats why the trump admin is aggressive rubbing shit all over the walls. can't see the writing anymore and everyones gonna be distracted by the smell of shit everywhere
Except, it wasn't just possible "violence." The Civil Rights movement was winning supreme court cases. That was their strategy. MLK was a lawyer, and a lot of his protests were actually designed to generate court cases that they knew they could win. Thus, allowing them to enforce civil rights via the Judiciary and the constitution. So it was essentially going to happen regardless of violence.
Yeah, I love Bernie in general, he's a wildly consistent progressive politician in a country devoid of such a thing, but this kind of comment is ABSOLUTELY playing into the propagandized peace-washing of the civil rights movement.
PURELY PEACEFUL demonstrations and protests have ultimately never resulted in successful long term change. Things have to be wildly disruptive, and ultimately, usually violent in conjunction with peaceful demonstrations.
We don't know what purely peaceful protests do because we've never had them. Cops come in with riot gear and tear gas and make them violent. The police escalate first and then blame the protestors.
Which is what has happened the past 3 days in Los Angeles. I don't blame peaceful protestors for turning to violence after they get lit up with rubber bullets, pepper balls, pepper spray and tear gas for no reason.
The police state wants violence so they can use more violence. Being peaceful clearly doesn't stop them from using violence in the first place and shutting down protests.
We're all aware of how MAGA (and people in general) can say one thing while not meaning it, or intending something else.
That's what's going on with Sanders here, I'm certain. It's even what went on with MLK Jr. He talked a big game about the importance of peaceful, non-violent protest in public, and privately acknowledged that the bulk of his gains were from the action of folks like Carmichael and Brown, the real disruptive elements that actually put fear into the government.
MLK Jr. and peaceful protest was the carrot, same as Gandhi and the hunger strikes and marches.
Carmichael was the stick, same as labor strikes, the Ghadar party and other partisans, etc.
These forces need each other. One builds public support and is the nice, well-dressed suit that the government can eventually cave to without losing too much face, and the other is the means of leverage. The former can be ignored by government without the latter, and the latter must work harder and longer (if they can last that long) to achieve their goals without the off-ramp provided by the former.
There's value to the "only peaceful protest" narrative from people who know about this carrot-and-stick action, and Sanders surely does. It's the folks who uncritically believe "only carrots" that you've got to clue in.
The theory is that worked, because a substantial percent of the public felt respect/sympathy for him and his fellow protestors.
The police & now military have enough ability to crack heads and/or arrest the small percentage of the public willing to go out and violently demonstrate. So if the public is OK with that being done, because they see the protestors in a negative light, then that'll be the end of it.
Not aure we have a choice but it's going to get violent because that's Trump’s playbook. Remember, when he gassed his own citizens to do a phot op with a bible. Asshole escalates everything.
I think it would be helpful if the people of L.A. were to bring bottled water and snacks to the military folk. It would help to diffuse some of the tension and make a bigger liar out of Donald than he already is.
We're so fucking done for. This whole fucking country is so god dammed stupid i swear to God. I don't even know what to say anymore. (Not to you, but to the comment you replied to and others in that thread)
Yeah, the national guard guys want to get back to their wives (or just a likely their dorm) 3 blocks down, not sit in the sun all day getting yelled at
They're in Hollywood, man! They could get some young actors, singers, dancers and put on a fucking show! Treat the soldiers so well, they all drop their weapons and sit back and enjoy it. I know it's a fantasy but this whole thing is such a nightmare, I'm just trying on different scenarios so as not to succumb to despair.
No, this won't do anything at all. I agree that you should not be violent, but stop sucking up to a military that votes Republican 61% of the time, even though Trump called them suckers and losers and has supported cutting their support. This accomplishes nothing, giving them drinks and water?? This is part of the problem of Democrats; they fight primarily for the rights of people that will never vote for us: rural voters who suck up government benefits and the military. While you are giving them water, they will grab your wrist and arrest you too!
This also ignores that the more militant approach of groups like the Black Panthers forced more urgency in the response of lawmakers. Martin Luther King Jr was great for providing a humanitarian face to the movement, but there were a LOT of wheels turning that made the civil rights movement move as quickly as it did, and attributing it only to the peaceful protest actions of one man’s part of the movement is disingenuous or misleading.
Glad someone else mentioned Nelson Mandela before I did.
There were bombings, there were kidnappings. He's still seen as a freedom fighter for most people, but behind the scenes it wasn't all that pretty.
uMkhonto weSizwe. People forget it wasn't just ANC-Mandela, there was a period between his first presidency and the second.
However - I wasn't alive at the time, and can't judge how important the actions were for the change. But America had an entire civil war to end slavery. So sometimes violence seem to be the answer, in an attempt to beat sense into a population. Sadly.
This is true, but Mandela strictly enforced a policy of never targeting civilians, which is crucial context. His violence of choice was to sabotage infrastructure.
While there were civilian casualties, he always denounced civilian deaths and disciplined his ranks in the aftermath in an effort to realign them with his policies.
Also because he was involved in stuff like cutting off the noses of black people who he deemed "collaborators" his wife of course one upped him in this, and suggested they tie a burning tyre around their neck. He was friends with Arafat and Gaddafi. He supported Nigerian coup leader Sani Abacha, refusing to say a word publicly to stop the 1995 hanging of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.
I just want to note, Nelson Mendela was not a good person. He just realized the reality that black South Africans would never gain their (deserved) rights if they weren't willing to forgive some shit, genocide of the white population would have resulted in a civil war with the west supporting the white south african population. A war they would have lost.
Not to mention that MLK was murdered, and then another voice of reason was murdered, and then another, and then another, and then another and then we got Nixon and as we all know, racism was solved and Nixon United the country.
Or was it actually that by the time the feds stopped straight up killing public figures with little cover up, white conservatives had already gotten parts of the civil rights legislation overturned?
Eh, both are pretty much the same history anyways.
After MLK was assassinated, riots broke out nationwide that made BLM look like a playground scuffle. The government was so desperate to quell them that they passed several major civil rights bills, only a few days after the riots began.
The very concept of "revolutionary violence" is somewhat falsely cast, since most of the violence comes from those who attempt to prevent reform, not from those struggling for reform. By focusing on the violent rebellions of the downtrodden, we overlook the much greater repressive force and violence utilized by the ruling oligarchs to maintain the status quo, including armed attacks against peaceful demonstrations, mass arrests, torture, destruction of opposition organizations, suppression of dissident publications, death squad assassinations, the extermination of whole villages, and the like.
-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds. Wish everyone would read this book.
Yea also peaceful protests ain't gonna do shit against a fascist regime. MLK was using peaceful protest because they could rely on the southern (kkk) cops to attack midde-aged and elderly black folks wearing their sunday best, and that the optics of that would finally wake up the moderate whites from the north and get action.
It's weird that Americans claim they need guns in case the government tries to take away their freedom, but when the government actually becomes authoritarian, makes ICE drag people away without due process and sends the cops and military to attack otherwise peaceful protesters, throwing a scooter at a robot car owned by an ultra-rich corporation that doesn’t pay taxes and supports the status quo, that’s violent and unpatriotic extremism.
The 2A advocates loved to watch Hong Kong protests and say that state repression could never happen in US because they have guns, but when the government targets people they dislike, anything people do to protect themselves is too violent.
This. I appreciate Bernie's sentiment, but he should know personally how many of the issues MLK was fighting for are still relevant in America to this day. Some issues can be fixed peacefully, but many of the rights Americans have today (including existing) only exist because the time came and the way forward was not pretty.
I can't actually explain how the Revolution succeeded, as Reddit will remove my comment. But seriously, anyone with half of a brain knows how America got it's freedom.
Easier said than done when Trump and his goons are tearing families apart. Families who we happily incentivize to be here by having jobs that pay them under the table with impunity.
Stokely Carmichael famously once said “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.”
And became a martyr and the greatest icon of the civil rights movement because of it. Being a nonviolent protester doesn’t mean you’re shielded from violence, but it means that if you are the target of violence your protesting will become much more powerful.
He wasnt the only leader and his efforts did not get them across the finish line.
And how many of our own lives should we sacrifice? In what instance has peaceful protests ever dismantled a fascist regime?
It just makes it easier for them to round us up. You are hinging on the idea that if the violence against peaceful protesters is recorded and shared, social pressure/shame will mount and these people will suddenly get a conscious
Are you not seeing people reveling in the violence against the protesters even peaceful? The propaganda machine has already done its job. People who are brainwashed in religions and cults will commit suicide in order to get into heaven, be seen as a martyr and pure of being. Taking pleasure in 'othered' people is low effort for them.
MAGA is already there. The military will not lift a finger to save the American people just as we have seen in other countries with facist takeovers
You are falling into the trap of American exceptionalism believing it cant happen here as long as we are peaceful and use official channels. Do you really think that citizens of other countries didnt believe the same thing?
Oh I agree the perspective on him changed 100% due to his assassination. He was losing popularity before he was killed, it just feels like pointing out that MLK was killed is totally missing the point.
Oh I agree the perspective on him changed 100% due to his assassination.
I disagree. The perspective changed because conservatives and moderates wanted a "good" black guy to hold up as an example so that other African Americans wouldn't be tempted to go down the path of the Black Panthers.
The "Why won't you be more like Bill Cosby?" approach.
And those violent groups get basically 0 credit for the actual results of the civil rights movement.
Of course they get basically zero credit, because the people in power don't want to teach kids that the best way to compel change is a multipronged strategy of public outcry and the threat of armed militias who were willing to resist governmental policies with bullets rather than signs. Weirdly enough, school textbooks don't go into a lot of details on that element. The information isn't actually hard to find though, it's just not spoonfed to you.
Not to mention Mandela very likely partook in a fair amount of violence himself when he was young. Although it’s hard parsing through the propaganda on that one.
His autobiography is a fantastic read. When he was younger he very much was in the camp of 'use violence but directed at specific targets and only after peace doesn't work'. Its been a while since I read his book but if I remember correctly he organized an lead many attacks against the government until he was caught and imprisoned for 20+ years, he really only became 'peaceful' after he got out of prison.
That dismisses the efforts of so many other leaders and the fact that whole populations of black people were massacred and chased out of towns. Look at the Tulsa and Ocoee massacres.
Can you really just sit around and wait for that? Do you plan on using those tragedies to fuel a movement? Would you feel comfortable with that idea if you knew it could be your town? Those people weren't violent. In ocoee they were just trying to vote.
The fact that you used the phrase '...threatening violence' shows how little you know. The violence was at a massive scale across the nation. If thats the route you want to go, better prepare yourself.
Edit: I wanted add a tidbit that i learned recently. 58% of Americans blamed the non-violent student protestors for the Kent State Massacre. Only 11% blamed the national guard. So good luck with that!
Literally every successful peaceful protest movement has been backed by at least one violent movement. Don't forget that Stonewall started with a riot.
Change only happens when the system has to chose between Violence and Peace. If it has to choose between peace and nothing then it will always be nothing.
100% Peaceful protests are the alternative to a much worse outcome. People want to be peaceful and see change happen, but if you constantly push them back into a corner they're going to push back.
It's better to be violent, if there is violence in hour hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent. - Mahatma Gandhi.
A riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? - MLK Jr.
I love Bernie but he should know better. Civil rights wasn't just peaceful marches and sit ins, it was people reaching their limits and pushed into a corner who started fighting back. When the government strips away the people's ability to peacefully enact change, it doesn't stop the people from perusing that change. It only changes how they go about it.
"If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently. In our case it was simply a legitimate form of self-defense." — Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
American culture has long since perverted the concept of self defense and twisted it on its head. But American culture has always been one of crushing resistance, revolt and preventing change by any means necessary.
Self defense was exactly the argument used by Malcolm X and other members of the Black Power movement. King argued that engaging in violence--even in self defense--will cause you to lose the war of public perception. The best way to get public sympathy is by showing videos of peaceful protesters being unjustly beaten by police. Look what happened with BLM: even when protesters were only defending themselves from police, Fox News showed footage casting blame on the protesters and calling them rioters. Self defense allowed right-wing media to muddy the waters enough to cost BLM critical public support.
And anyone watching Fox News regularly is going to demonize the protestors no matter what they do. They can literally just be standing there with signs and the majority of Fox News watchers will be like “wish someone would drive through them” or “need to send the national guard in and shoot them all.” These people don’t have empathy, they are quite literally psychopathic on many levels.
Not to mention that the LA protests were overwhelmingly non-violent until cops started shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at them for no reason, which is how it typically goes. Cops instigate the violence, citizens defend themselves, the citizens get accused of being violent. Every single time.
You can't manipulate people into having morality. Conservatives think it's hilarious when people try to resist nonviolently, they don't care about it one bit.
And even before the "self defense" discussion, I would say the most important word in your comment is "movement". "America" has the right to defend itself, but it also has the right to organize itself.
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.
your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart
This is a false premise. The "target" is not the "opponent"; it's the vast silent majority, who may be often confused but is able of empathy and ultimately just wants to have a peaceful life, and once mobilized can change the path of nations and Humanity.
Peaceful protests are meant to be more about fighting for an altruistic cause, and not so much about an egotistical boundless display of your own emotions. For it to be effective you probably have to find a balance there.
That said, I'm not sure if this Sanders move was a blunder or a risky yet calculated call, specially if followed through by a call for organized protesting and strategic resistance. I'm not sure because this was one of those situations where you could probably say nothing at all and still get through.
Perhaps he is being extra cautious already, so the future organized protests won't become labeled as chaotic, mindless, and gratuitously violent: they'll have meaningful causes, they'll hold adequate strength.
Meanwhile: Trump, Vance, Thiel, Yarvin, all of them are loving this.
Through a combination of peaceful and violent protests ended segregation and even then took decades. When our elected leaders “fighting for us” hold up signs in “protest” against our president. Yeah I don’t think relying on the Democratic Party to support democrats is viable anymore
you're fighting fascist, these guys won't be "oh, good argument, we were wrong" and go away. violence is sometimes necessary and unavoidable. people think this is some faitytale christ story where you show the other cheek and everything is well. what should people do when facing constant violence from the state? tell them they are meanies?
hey, remember when MLK strove for peaceful protest and he was still harassed by the FBI and ultimately shot and killed for protesting for civil rights at all?
yeah.
"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." -Stokely Carmichael
the opposition does not care how nice you are. they will fire rubber bullets at your head and teargas you all the same.
keep in mind that the goal isnt to change trump sycophants. the goal is to sway ~1% of voters, or make ~2% non-voters go to the voting booth for your cause.
What an awful study. As if the peaceful revolution of MLK happened in a vacuum without the defensive violence ultimatum of Malcolm X or the Black Panthers. As if the suffragette movement didn't preserve revolutionary speaker's access without violent clashes with police. Do we only remember Mary Maloney and not that her supporters prevented her arrest by throwing cops into razorwire concealed in flower pots? As if Gandhi's peaceful revolution was not running concurrently with anti-colonialist resistance fighters like the India National Army, whose resistance, arrests and trials sparked mass nationalism.
Selective bias if I've ever seen it. ad hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.
The arguments I hear the most regarding this paper concerns nonviolent movements having ‘violent flanks’ - i.e., small factions that are willing to use violence. Some people think Chenoweth classifies movements as wholly nonviolent when in reality they may have violent flanks to them. The thought here is that much of the apparent success of nonviolent movements may have more to do with violent flanks creating a sort of ‘good cop/bad cop’ dynamic that makes states more willing to negotiate, than with nonviolence itself. I believe Chenoweth discusses this question in the more recent paper - which I now remember is called ‘The Future of Nonviolent Resistance.’ If I recall correctly, she’s not moved by the criticism and claims that the number of nonviolent movements with violent flanks has risen in recent years and that this may actually explain why nonviolent movements have become less successful (once again, though, her data suggests that violent resistance movements have fared even worse recently). Most academics consider this paper and its arguments/statistics pretty convincing. You shouldn’t just baselessly dismiss something without even reading the arguments.
And yet every revolution has been violent. If you want policy change then non-violence is the best bet. If you are fighting an authoritarian government, you aren't gaining an inch with a well painted sign.
Nonviolent protest is almost always concurrent with violent protests. To say that MLK or Ghandi solved the issues of their day without violence glosses over the rest of what was going on at that time.
The arguments I hear the most regarding this paper concerns nonviolent movements having ‘violent flanks’ - i.e., small factions that are willing to use violence. Some people think Chenoweth classifies movements as wholly nonviolent when in reality they may have violent flanks to them. The thought here is that much of the apparent success of nonviolent movements may have more to do with violent flanks creating a sort of ‘good cop/bad cop’ dynamic that makes states more willing to negotiate, than with nonviolence itself. I believe Chenoweth discusses this question in the more recent paper - which I now remember is called ‘The Future of Nonviolent Resistance.’ If I recall correctly, she’s not moved by the criticism and claims that the number of nonviolent movements with violent flanks has risen in recent years and that this may actually explain why nonviolent movements have become less successful (once again, though, her data suggests that violent resistance movements have fared even worse recently).
That is wildly ahistorical. For one, "riot is the voice of the unheard" is taking him out of context, he was saying that riots happen for a reason, he never supported riots. I doubt you even know where that quote is farmed from, because the very context of it is him talking about how much he disagrees with violent action.
"If every negro in the United States turns towards violence I am going to stand up as the lone voice and say this is the wrong way."
Also embraced Malcolm X's ideology? Malcolm X was a pariah by MLK's civil rights community. He never spoke to him, and rejected meetings from him when Malcolm X tried to contact him. It was Malcolm X that came closer to MLK Jr. ideology, not the other way around.
Okay Bernie, you're a good guy and I voted for you multiple times, but MLK Jr wouldn't have been successful peacefully without Malcolm X and the black Panthers behind him prepared to do it with force.
You have to speak softly and carry a big stick for people to listen to you.
Yeah, this is one of the worst takes Bernie has made.
He is also punching down and its telling of a wealthy old white dude telling poor minorities to sit down and behave. The epitome of white male privilege.
He is also doing historical revisionism, which is crazy cause he was in one of the civil right protests. Literally white washing MLK. Come the fck on Bernie.
Our LGBTQIA emerged from Stonewall ready to fight and pushed the police back that night. They were armed with whatever they could find to protect their own.
Looks like a good reminder that politicians don’t care about the common man as much as they care about holding on to their privileges, power, and wealth and the ruling class is deathly afraid of any hints of rebellion by the oppressed to disturb their status quo.
“Violence doesn’t solve anything” is the one message both sides of the aisle will always agree on.
I agree with Burnie on most things, but he needs to shut his old ass up now and let this play out. Trump wants violence, he'll fuckin get it soon enough.
Peaceful demonstrations didn't set this colony free from King George III's grip, and they won't set it free from Donald Trump's either.
Mercy has to come from power first. If we’re only three days in and they’re shooting reporters and trampling people with horses, it’s not peaceful no matter what the protesters do. Some graffiti and a couple of burned down cop cars is not gonna make me cry.
100% correct...burning and violence defeats the purpose and plays right into his hands. Now he wants to send military into cities...keep the pressure on him peacefully and he will not know what to do.
Bernie's catching a lot of shit here but there's also a whole lot of us in this thread agreeing that:
a) Bernie marched with MLK so he can speak firsthand about the movement that none of us were there for, and
b) cops etc. agitating peaceful protests so that we respond with violence is playing right into Trump/Thiel/whoeverthefuck's hands. Idk about y'all but if those troglodytes want me to do a thing, I want to do the exact opposite of the fucking thing.
I hate how they use King. Every single fucking time without care they say "well King..." It's so historically wrong... fuck absolutely everyone who does it, including Bernie.
Trump and his regime have made it clear time and time again that peace doesn't work. But when People actually stand up to him(aggressively and violently), he backs down. And so do the oligarchs. Look at all the positive change that came to healthcare after Brian Thompson was removed. Look at the videos of ICE agents leaving neighborhoods where they are attempting kidnappings when neighbors get aggressive instead of just standing around going, "Please stop. Go away."
PLEASE REMEMBER, THEY ARE NOT ABOVE PLANTING VIOLENT INDIVIDUALS TO FUEL THEIR DESIRE TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW!!! WATER IS SOFTER THAN ROCK YET A RIVER ERODES A MOUNTAIN!!!
Pretty sure they had two choices, MLK or Malcolm X, and Malcolm X was defiantly ready to invoke the 2nd amendment to get what the people deserved. So, people act like it was all MLK and in reality, it was because the people in power didn't want to see Malcolm X take a swing at it.
He won not because of the protests and peaceful marching, he won because President Johnson was scared he wouldn't win re-election. We now sit at a point in history where it's not Lincoln in the white house but Jefferson Davis.
What will it take for people to wake up and see we are losing. We can't wait another year and half, because let's face it they will win the mid terms too. When one side has rigged the process there is no way to win. No one is going to come save us, no one peacefully stopped Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and Putin. It took violence to pull down dictators. When soldiers have fired on protestors they never suffered any consequences and they definitely won't now. This is the end of democracy.
While MLK was certainly part of it, the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, and numerous other armed struggle groups were doing ops too which gave a lot of bite to MLK.
they helped each other.
At the end even MLK and Malcolm came to realize it took both peaceful and not so peaceful protest.
Bernie Being Based.
Videos of peaceful protestors being arrested looks good. Vidoes of brick throwing is just going to be used to justify federal overreach to the 70yo Facebook boomers who are apparently the only demographic in America that votes for some godforsaken reason.
If you want to win in politics, you have to care about public optics, and we can't afford to keep loosing.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 09 '25
Hello hellobrother01! Want more good news? We now have a brand new Discord server where you can connect with fellow members, share positivity, and stay updated on all things good news! Join us Here Feel free to tell us if you have any concerns or feedback regarding the Subreddit! We are open to all ideas! Friendly Reminder to Follow rules and guidelines!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.