HeavenlyPossumSo if someone wanted to vote for “a society in which snipers are not deployed against student protests,” which candidate should they vote for?
Rui Malheiro@HeavenlyPossum in the next election, just make sure the openly fascist party is defeated. If it goes according to history, they will eat each other and break into two or three parties. Then, you *might* have their support to reform electoral law into proportional representation. With some luck and good grassroots movements, you can then tackle on the not openly fascist party and work your way into a democracy.
The democrats hold office now, while snipers are being deployed against students
@HeavenlyPossum I know and it's sad, but not different from when your youth was protesting for the end of white previleges, the end of Vietnam war or the end of sexual discrimination. The best hope you have is to end the two party dictatorship. The endgame is the goal and it's akin to sacrificing the queen to enable the checkmate.
So we should vote for the party that’s overseeing violent repression of protests, because that party will (sometime in the future) be better or be replaced by something better?
@HeavenlyPossum no. You should vote to *make sure* you will have a chance to vote again in four years.
This advice come from experience. I live in a country where we could not (freely) vote for 50 years.
But that’s not what I asked at all. It’s ok if the answer to the question “who should you vote for to end the violent suppression of protests” is “no one.”
@HeavenlyPossum voting in "no one" is voting for the _status quo_ in a proportional democracy. In a "winner takes all" *dictatorship* like you have, a vote for "no one" is a vote for whoever wins.
No, not voting is not voting.
@HeavenlyPossum you may *want* it to be like that, but in your actual political system, it's not how it works. If 60% don't vote and the winning party gets 51% of the votes, it means something like 21% of the population won the vote.
And that's even ignoring the fact that with your bonkers system you don't even need a majority of the *total votes* to win.
No, not voting is not voting. There is no moral universe in which declining to participate in a process makes you responsible for that process.
@HeavenlyPossum by that reasoning, if you chose *not to oppose* racism, segregation, sexual discrimination or fascism you are not *allowing* it to go on?
This begs the question that opposing a system requires participating in that system, which is untrue, and presumes that we’re limited in our opposition to participation, which is also untrue.
@HeavenlyPossum ah, yes, I totally agree with you there. And as you say, we are not *limited*. That means we can, and I argue we should, *also* fight the system from inside, steering it from killing us until we can replace it for something better.
WovenTales@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic I just mutually closed out a conversation with someone else who was utterly unable to see that continuing to feed one party on the basis of "at least they're not the other" gives them absolutely no reason to do anything different. It's amazing how strong the system's brainwashing can be when it makes otherwise reasonable radicals support genocidal dictators. The answer's to tear them both down to their foundations, people!
@HeavenlyPossum allow me to recomend this essay from Abigail Thorn, she's much more eloquent and entertaining than I could ever hope to be.
Woozle HypertwinIt's a choice between {the party that might not prevent positive change on this issue, as well as countless others} vs. {the party that will happily shoot you and anyone else who disagrees with them}.
Sorry, which one is which?
Dems: the party which at least tries to not be horrible all the time, even though they are still horrible a lot and are way too beholden to capitalist interests
GOP: open fascists who enjoy watching/making other people suffer
Any questions? I can give examples. Think of LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, the right of non-rich people to speak and have opinions...
Oh, but the protests are being violently suppressed right now
By agents of a state run by a democratic president
Which state?
The United States (and many of its subsidiary political units, such as New York, which also have democrats in senior elected office)
I think it's very early to say that Democrats authorized or even support this. Here's what I could find quickly:
There is no clear evidence in the given search results indicating who specifically ordered the police suppression of student protests in California, New York, and Boston. The results discuss several incidents of police using force to break up protests at universities in those states, but do not name the authorities who directed the police response. The search results mention:
- In Georgia, police tased pro-Palestinian protesters and targeted them with rubber bullets at Emory University in Atlanta[1][4].
- In Boston, a violent clash between police and Emerson College students resulted in blood being visible on campus, with police pulling protesters away and dragging them on the ground[1][2].
- At the University of Texas in Austin, dozens of state troopers, some armed with automatic weapons, used batons to disperse protesters[2].
- Police in riot gear violently broke up peaceful protests at the University of Southern California, employing rubber bullets[2].
- At New York University and Yale, police were called in to break up pro-Palestinian demonstrations[5].
However, the search results do not specify which government officials or university administrators directed the police to intervene and suppress the student protests in those instances. More information would be needed to determine the specific decision-makers responsible in each case.
If you have any additional information, or anything which contradicts this, please let me know.
[edit: adding sources]
- [1] https://works.bepress.com/gerald_lebovits/354/download/
- [2] https://www.newyorkappellatelawyer.com/blog/new-exception-to-the-exclusionary-rule-and-fourth-amendment-suppression-issues/
- [4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/search-seizure/
- [5] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/22/us/campus-protests-columbia-yale
So either democrats ordered it, or are helpless to stop it?
...or haven't stopped it yet. It's not clear what the timing is on all of this. Maybe Wikipedia has an article...
This looks useful: Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States
So maybe Joe Biden is just waiting for the right moment to publicly denounce the violent suppression of peaceful protests and exercise his authority as president to stop them?
What authority does he have? IANAL... (and unlike the GOP, Dems do feel some compunction to stay within the law...)
In his authority over the justice department, in his control over the national guard, and in his bully pulpit.
Or maybe he’s helpless?
Which specific authority does he have, when it comes to actions of municipal police?
This isn't a binary choice between "can fix it now" and "can't do anything ever". Given the things Biden has done while in office, I can hardly think he's okay with all of this. ...but I haven't yet heard what his take is.
Adrian Riskin 