I think a civil war might be helpful.
The last one ended slavery (according to the victorious side)
Maybe the next one can end the madness we're currently in.
The last one ended slavery (according to the victorious side)
Maybe the next one can end the madness we're currently in.
If it's the first, the militias get crushed until they go full on terrorism. If it's the later, it's catastrophic. And then there's always the chance that someone uses nukes, say against the other side's capitol or military bases.
Every man who ever owned a slave should've hung.
It's like saying Germany would be better if every Nazi had been shot. Whatever harm those Nazi's have caused Germany was less then the results of killing people on that measure.
chilling stuff! interesting future we're headed into with messages like yours being the norm.
Let's say I owned slaves, legally, through inheritance.
You want me hanged? Based upon some righteousness you've adopted a hundred years after the events about a topic you've only read about?
Do you ever wonder if you're the monster you want to destroy?
The civil war happened because everyone involved knew it was wrong, but one side valued the money higher and invented these less than human ideas to justify it to themselves.
Everyone who owned slaves should have had all their wealth generated from slaves confiscated and redistributed to the people who did the work. They should have been tried for their crimes, some slave owners were way worse than others, and if that resulted in you being hanged because you were an awful human that was particularly murdery and rapey, then we would have all been better off.
Free speech exists only in echo chambers, every election is between a shit sandwich and a douche, and a sitting federal judge openly confirmed that our courts of law have little to do with truth or justice.
I would rather face the terrifying anarchy of a revolution than continue to suffer the indignity of the current tyranny.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty?wprov=sf...
The Jan 6th trials (most of which were based on that charge) set a precedent that will haunt us for a long time.
You can't cosplay as a revolutionary. If you want to do insurrection you have to expect the government will surpress you and bring a force that can actually perform revolution.
Were either of those real possibilities on Jan 6th? Did the people charged even think they were?
It was quite clear, even to them I imagine, that they didn't have "a force that can actually perform revolution".
I know about my own country. And what happened here is this: they saw what Trump did and were seriously alarmed. In order to stop our Trump equivalent from winning, the supreme court basically staged its own silent revolution.
They gave themselves the power to do whatever they wanted. Then they implemented censorship, unheard of in Brazil since the military dictatorship of the 20th century. Blatantly unconstitutional censorship. Then they went to public events to brag about all of it. How would you feel if an unelected judge censored Trump and then publicly bragged about how he defeated Trumpism?
Smash a democratic institution? This is not a democracy. Unelected judges are running this country. They tried to pass "anti-fake news" censorship laws, Google even campaigned against it and got arbitrarily fined by these judges. The law was rejected. Then about a week ago they rammed the law through anyway via "electoral court resolutions". They determine what's fake, of course. Literal ministry of truth. They regulated AI too.
What do you do when your supreme court seizes power like this? What do you do when the guys who are supposed to enforce the constitution start shitting on it? The police obeys their "court orders". Do you see the point I'm making? They're arresting and persecuting everyone. People who protested this got worse sentences than murderers, rapists, drug traffickers.
Seriously doubt there will be any kind of civil war. Unlike the US, nobody here is willing to die over this cursed, corrupted land. The only solution for Brazil is the airport, as they say. Who knows though, maybe our current "president" will anger the israelis so much with his palestinian support they will nuke Brasília off the map. I mean, this guy is a communist so out of touch he publicly accused the jewish nation of holocausting the palestinians.
And the "corruptly" term was effectively eliminated by UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON (2023)[2], when the appeals court ruled that it means simply “acting ‘with consciousness of wrongdoing.’” (mens rea) and with “independently unlawful means or purpose”.
Almost all disruptive protests involve some minor "independently unlawful means" (such as jaywalking, trespassing, disorderly conduct, or failure to comply with a police officer), so they fit that definition.
The court's example to illustrate the meaning of the term was: "a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly".
The court actually said that taking the fifth is obstructing an official proceeding (but not corruptly).
Imagine how little it takes to commit a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison now. Have you seen the movie "The Trial of the Chicago 7"? If that happened today, not only could they be convicted of "corruptly" disrupting an official proceeding for the protests, they could be convicted for their behavior during the trial. (In the latter case, the independently unlawful means would be behavior that was in contempt of court)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States
2: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/115332314.ht...
PS: I should add that the 20 years comes from a different law with the same phrasing, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, section (c)(2). The existence of two laws with the same phrasing, both for specific crimes (evidence tampering and witness tampering), makes it clear that the legislature didn't intend for these laws to apply broadly.
very handwavy in general but that's the idea.
With direct action, perhaps you make it too costly to oppose your cause. Restaurants can only handle so many sit-ins where they refuse to serve and there's no room for paying customers. Sabotage might make it too costly to insure a project and its contractors could pull out. Blockading important shipping routes might mean that you get invited to the table to avoid an actual battle. But this must be balanced against the risk that you will be arrested, injured or killed with popular support. The same people who blocked the bridge for Gaza probably found the trucker action illegitimate.
I've participated in all aspects of politics and one thing I know now is how important communications are and how difficult to do right. The right wing in the US has been working very hard at that for 50 years, through heavy persuasion and agenda setting. If you start to show interest in their POV, they will reach out to you constantly with direct mail, push polling, focus groups, rallies, clubs, and of course Fox News and talk radio. Other causes, like climate, peace, environment, and equality, are less coordinated, although at times they are able to set the agenda. They rarely stay in front for very long, and attempts to unite their work often break down to fighting over which one is more important.
Sorry for the rant, but this has been very front-of-mind recently for me.
Sometimes there's no diplomacy and only violence gets your enemy to stop.
These are things that quickly disappear in civil wars.