Dr. King’s policy was, 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
“Nonviolence is fine, as long as it works.” — Malcolm X
“In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.” — Stokely Carmichael
“A riot is the language of the unheard.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
–John F. Kennedy
What does “the United States” refer to here? The government? The populace?
Both perhaps, at the time of his assassination MLK Jr. had about 80% of the country hating him.
You have any evidence?
Buried the lede.
[and to be pedantic, it is spelled both ways]
Sadly, this is true even for workforces, even though the cost of treating your labor pool well (giving them breaks, letting them chat with loved ones and surf the internet) is surpassed by the profit gained by increased productivity. (There are studies.)
Game developing companies still crunch, even though crunching decreases the likelihood that a deadline will be met.
A recent How Money Works video (this one on YouTube) came to the conclusion that the ownership class is just plain cruel and vindictive and is disgusted if their workforce gets even a modicum of class consciousness.
Every concession for labor, from the weekend to lunch breaks to bodily autonomy to living wages had to be attained by leveraging power against the ownership class.
So long as we have ownership class, we will be oppressed by them.
I agree with your points and don’t agree with crunch practices, and this is a bit of a nitpick, but what’s your source for crunching decreasing the liklihood of meeting a deadline?
I can easily imagine those things having correlation, as if you’re already on track for a deadline, why would you need to crunch?
I can’t really think of a complete reason for causation to go the other way though.
I remember news coming out about it in the early 2010s that a study showed that crunching reduces productivity drastically, to the point that even (only) two weeks of crunching will negate the additional work time. Curiously, some game companies at the time were crunching for a year or longer. I believe the statistic reported was that productivity commonly was reduced to 10% normal when crunching.
James Stephanie Sterling did a video about it, which is how the news came to me.
ETA: Typically, the problem is that game publishers will sometimes set impossible deadlines, or, if a game is on schedule to come out on time, the publisher will push the release date forward to an earlier release season. This was before the trend towards live service games, which was its own nightmare since the game would be released incomplete, but with a roadmap of expected features. Hence the development teams were perpetually behind and often were perpetually crunched. (/ETA)
Studies from the aughts (not necessarily related to game development) regarding the effect of micromanagement tools used on the workforce (e.g. mouse movement monitoring and keylogging) came earlier, noting that the time wasted by workers (under the label of time theft ) doing activities such as going to the bathroom, checking social media, talking to loved ones on the phone, getting coffee, etc. were more than offset by the increase in productivity when workers were allowed to do these things. (Slacking workers do exist, but they are starkly the exception. And large companies typically have a significantly greater number of bullshit jobs – workers tasked with busywork that doesn’t actually serve administration or the profit motive – than they have shirkers.)
Maybe not “the people” who are doing the oppressing, but it worked when appealing to the individual.
Society is a bit of a bitch… individuals hold their own beliefs, but when paired with other people, their beliefs get washed down and a singular belief takes hold.Ultimately, the difference between getting freedom from an individual and a group is exactly that it’s a group you need your freedom from.
With a group, you cannot make a personal appeal. And with a group, it will always consist of some nice people but also some right bastards. The nice ones might concede to your freedom, but the bastards will not. And since it’s in their direct interest to oppress you, which side will work harder, you think?
As someone with a strong autistic sense of justice and hyper empathy, usually the fight is between the psychopaths and whatever idiots they’ve manipulated to their cause against the rest of us. They’re psychopaths and narcissists, they have no morals. That’s why they’re evil. You can’t appeal to morality that isn’t there. There’s only one way to deal with them and they’ll pick us off one by one, like they always do, while we hem and haw with delusion about how everything will be ok.
There’s tons of ways to deal with them. I’ve heard vegans suggest compost, and people concerned about prions suggest autoclave.
Pikachu the wise. Loving it.
How many data centers could a Pikachu power?
Wrong question. How many could he fry?
lmao. You have just now been hired to run as a republican. We’re going to put billions of dark money behind you.
~ Theil, Ellison and Texas probably
That was literally what MLK and Gandhi did.
I’m pretty sure MLK only worked because the Black Panthers were doing a good/bad cop thing.
Yeah, basically. Between MLK and Malcolm X, no matter how you wanted to resist, they had you covered. That’s why the government killed them both.
And the changes MLK sought only came following the race riots after his death. I don’t want to discredit him because he was essential to the civil rights movement, but ultimately his martyrdom is what brought the change he fought for
1964= Civil Rights Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
1968=MLK assassination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
There was an additional one passed on ‘68, a week after his assassination.
I’m pretty sure the Black Panthers only worked because MLK was doing a good/bad cop thing.
Gandhi’s method wasn’t the only method for India’s fight for independence.
No, just the one that worked.
The reality is there were violent and nonviolent factions in both scenarios. The oppressive state is not going to platform those that commit violence against it so history is written to suppress that form of dissent and uplift nonviolence.
Not to take away from the brilliance MLK or Gandhi but part of their credibility or legitimacy is derived from the contrast to their violent counterparts.
That’s crazy. What happened to them anyway?
They contributed to winning the fight and made history.
A bunch of European monarchies also voluntarily granted power to democratic institutions.
Ghandi wasn’t actually a pacifist, though, it was just a tactic that happened to be expedient at the time
“Walk softly and carry a big gun” Gabriel Angelos, Chapter Master, Blood Ravens Space Marines.
I knew Teddy Bear Roosevelt was a 40k nerd
Space Marines give da best advice!
This lettering is a form of oppression.
Nope, it’s usually guillotines
Damn right Pikachu! Now get back the fuck back in your ball and fight others of your species for my entertainment!
So, Pikachu, what methods work and need to be used?
Or are we not allowed to discuss that anywhere because they violate the ToS of every platform people could use to discuss and possibly plan the use of such methods since those platforms are owned and controlled by the folks in control or afraid of legal action by said folks?
I’d suggest counter-economics, unions, mutual aid, generally just a bunch of direct action.
I’m all for eating the rich too, but we won’t get there just by wishing really hard. We have to show people how a better world can be built. You’re doing it because you want things to change, most people who cooperate will just want to improve their financial situation.
Are we even particularly censored here? Luigi Mangione
Sort of but not really. You typically get away with things like saying you think we should all get together with torches and pitchforks and purify the global .1% with fire and then utilize all of their assets for public good on Lemmy, but the ToS says:
“We do not tolerate serious threats or calls for violence.”
Since most of the time things like that get said they’re said in a way that could be called hyperbole or a joke they generally get ignored, but if I started trying to get us organized and collecting wood and pitchforks and planning dates and locations and listing names of the folks we should definitely make sure we don’t miss burning to death then someone will start stomping on it.
Rhetoric and grandstanding is fine, but actually doing anything about all the fraud and child rape and fascism is highly frowned upon.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we’d need some sort of coordination mechanism to do the pitchforks in unison. Even if you weren’t censored, it’d probably end up like the storming of Area 51. Whatever mechanism can survive the capitalist assault will probably end up handling a lot of peacetime functions afterwards.
Federation slightly reduces censorship, but it’s still there. And even if the server wasn’t compromised, half of the participants would be feds. We don’t have a systemic solution yet, just a place where we can talk about one.
Cool maymay, can’t find the OG image. Anyone care to help?
I wonder whether we have actual numbers to support this. And not just anectodal, or single individual events. But on a larger global scale, also investigating whether alternative measures have been taken and whether they suceeded. And then putting them into relation to each other, carefully considering potential limitations in the interpretability as well as implications, before forming conclusions regarding any recommendations of optimal action.
Or, put simply, is violence really the best way to deal with oppression?
This is also sharing some overlap with protesting methods. And I am not quite sure whether we have a definitive answer to that.
This isn’t really true. Most successful revolutions in the last hundred years have been largely non-violent. I mean look at the dissolution of the USSR, for instance. Or Hungary recently, although how much of a revolution that is is sort of up in the air. Or Spain. I think the numbers are something like once 3% of the population is in the streets you’re donezo.
I mean, also, like, India was directly and very much this.
That isn’t to cast aspersions on violent revolution, but it’s more of a narrative than reality, at least now.
Shelling your parliament with a tank isn’t violent?
I mean there was violence but who is calling that a “violent revolution?” Come on. I doubt there has ever been a revolution without a single instance of violence, but you are well aware that that’s not what we’re talking about, comma fucker.
Goal posts.
