this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
275 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
87575 readers
3769 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ya know.....everyone always tries to say violence isn't the answer. It's things like this that tells me those people are stupid. Violence is absolutely the answer.
I think they mean violence isn't the first thing you reach for. There's a real problem in the world, and especially in the US, where the moment someone is even moderately upset about something they immediately start pulling weapons.
You should always attempt to negotiate and de-escalate the situation. Violence is something you should reach for only after it becomes abundantly evident that they are not prepared to meet you halfway or are just obviously corrupt, like is the case here.
But you never know, some of the officials may just be really stupid and have not thought about the project beyond the immediate benefits, and haven't thought about/don't know about the downside.
There are better answers. But the last 18 months have taught me that there is no way in hell the billionaire class will ever give up any of their wealth. Even when it in everyone's best interest.
If they won't play nice, don't expect the response to be nice either. Violence still isn't necessary, but they should be afraid!
I disagree. Show me a time in history where a population is being oppressed, and then that stopped without violence.
Disruption and obstruction can force concessions without explicit violence.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott achieved its goal without it by demonstrating the economic significance of black passengers. The Nashville Sit-ins won through the resilience of its participants without fighting back. The message in each case was "We're going to continue being a problem until we get what we want." The Civil Rights Movement in general achieved a lot of victories simply by being a persistent, well-coordinated nuisance.
Their discipline in staying non-violent even in the face or cruel injustice was a psychological weapon, which can win battles without firing bullets. It drew attention to that injustice, dominated news cycles until people could no longer look away. If media thrive on outrage, police violence is more effective than police suppressing terrorists.
The mistake that people make is to conflate peaceful, "polite", lawful protest with non-violence: Protests need to be a problem. I can ignore people chanting whatever in the streets, but I can't ignore them disrupting businesses and obstructing public places. I can try suppressing them with violence, but what if that doesn't work, if they keep coming?
There's a book on the topic, "Waging a good war" by Thomas E. Ricks that I found quite enlightening. The important takeaway is that there are multiple ways to win a war, and defeating the opposition's will can work without actual violence, but the key part is still a military level of discipline and planning.
The people that tell you violence doesn't work. Hold a monopoly on violence.
Violence is the last resort, but that's where the billionaire dickheads are taking us.
Remember that the j6 rioters got everything they thought they wanted, and they got a pardon.
If violence doesn't solve your problem, it's because you aren't using enough of it.
the difference between violence as an act of aggression/dominance/establishing hierarchy, versus an equalizing force to regain autonomy/dismantle said hierarchy
I always see it like a game of tug of way. With 2 sides. there needs to be tension. If there is no pull at one of the sides then the other side just pull all the rope. These situations need a level of tension.
There's two sides but three teams; don't forget the centrists forever pulling for the right.
Centrists trying to cut the steel rope with plastic scissors