It’s educate, AGITATE, organize

edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

Letter from Birmingham, MLK

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m saying i’ll vote in november for whoever best serves my interests, just like everyone else here.

      But i’ll make sure my voice is heard all the way up until november what I think of Biden’s shit Israel policy.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s dogshit, too.

          But Trump has no illusions about my likelihood of voting for him (or anyone in this demographic) no matter what he does. If I thought agitating him from where I am had any possibility of ending our support for genocide, i’d be doing that too. But I think it’s much more likely that Biden would change his position if there was a loud enough group in his base screaming at him to end support

          • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            All they hear is agitate, none of them see anything else to what you say.

            I feel you, you’re getting dogpiled, but I fucking feel you

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Single-issue voters aren’t capable of rational political conversation, or thought processing. They will be attracted to whichever charlatan offers to scratch their particular itch.

        If you can’t grasp nuance, you really aren’t qualified to have political opinions.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Single-issue voters aren’t capable of rational political conversation, or thought processing. They will be attracted to whichever charlatan offers to scratch their particular itch.

          And despite that, they continue to exist and continue to be a factor with which Biden must contend.

          If you can’t grasp nuance, you really aren’t qualified to have political opinions.

          And yet, single issue voters are voters. No matter how much you want to disenfranchise them for disagreeing with you.

          Note that nowhere during this conversation have I said that I am a single-issue voter. I’m voting for Biden despite his support for genocide. If you don’t understand the difference between acknowledging the existence of single issue voters and actually being one, don’t talk to others about nuance.

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Sure, they exist, but they aren’t worth wasting any time or campaign effort on - unless you’re suggesting that the campaign should simply promise these people what they want to hear without any intent to actually deliver.

            Pandering is really the only way to bring such people into your camp - and it’s the tactic that the GOP uses to pull in fringe groups and religious nuts. I don’t think the Democratic party should start operating that way, even if it means losing elections.

            My opinion is not that single-issue voters should be disenfranchised. Everyone should vote.

            My opinion is that no reasonable person should waste their time listening to the opinions of single-issue voters or trying to have any kind of political discussion with them, and that no serious political campaign should waste time trying to pander to them.


            Side note, this “you”:

            If you can’t grasp nuance, you really aren’t qualified to have political opinions.

            wasn’t directed at you personally, but broadly/generally. I thought that was obvious in context, but I was wrong. My apologies for the confusion.