I think it’s important to differentiate pacifism as a strategy – the total renunciation of anything that could be considered violence, often including even mere property damage – with non-violence as one tactic among many.

Many movements have had success using non-violence as a tactic in certain situations, so long as those movements don’t take the possibility of ever using violence completely off the table (pacifism).

It’s also worth noting that Mandela founded the ANC’s guerilla branch. Western media today portrays him as a purely non-violent, MLK-like figure, but in reality he was central to the ANC’s decision to begin an armed struggle against apartheid.

It’s almost as if:

During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.

repairing harm through dialogue between victims, offenders, and community members

What if the person who committed the crime doesn’t want to engage in this process? What if the victim of the crime doesn’t want to? What if a person accused of a crime maintains their innocence? There are plenty of cases where restorative justice can work, but many others where it won’t.

addressing root causes like poverty, mental health issues, and substance abuse

the goal is to create a society where crime is less likely to occur

I think this is a much better framework to work with than prison abolition. Picking up the pieces after a crime has been committed is expensive and usually leaves you choosing from a range of bad options.

It’s even worse than that – there hasn’t been a genuinely open Democratic Primary since 2008.

• 2012: Obama is a popular incumbent, that’s the only one they get a pass for
• 2016: The obvious plan was for Hillary to be coronated, the only serious challenger wasn’t even from the Democratic Party, there was the ratfucking with the superdelegates, Dems argued in court that they had no obligation to run a fair primary, etc.
• 2020: Ratfuck Pt. II with the coordinated dropout/endorsement of Biden
• 2024: No one challenges an obviously senile and unpopular president, then the party forces him out and subs in someone who didn’t even get any primary votes in 2020

Just go through and count the usage of kkkanadians.

The horror!

What is it you think vapes emit?

The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.

This is a post about conscription, where people who do not want to fight are forced to

It doesn’t matter who did what before

this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014

History starts and stops exactly when it best suits my argument

“All my takes are so perfect no one but a troll could disagree with me”

Go “do your own research” then lmao

You reject the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is caused by humans, then you want to pull debatelord shit about the history of climate science forecasts. Fuck off.

claims climate change isn’t caused by humans

links to article about climate change being caused by humans

I’m owned

You’re talking nonsense. Yes, living people are currently causing climate change. Those most responsible have names and addresses.

The world should have burned down to the groun… to nothingness 10 times over according to all the specialists/scientists.

This is just embarrassingly ignorant. The climate is deteriorating faster than scientists predicted, not slower.

Your answer to OP’s question is denial and a refusal to actually investigate the situation.

It’s an illusion your mind produced.

Lmao climate change isn’t an illusion, what are you talking about

Changes to climate are going to happen naturally

We’re not talking about natural climate changes, we’re talking about climate change caused by human actions.

“You can’t yet see the train you know is barreling down the tracks towards you… I think you have better things to think ans worry about”

Paraphrasing Parenti, they compare it to the People’s Republic of Heaven.

It’s plenty of this, but also plenty of getting sold big changes by liberal politicians and then actually given shit. If that’s your experience, then you hear Xi talk about communism while China has low-wage workers and billionaires, it’s extremely easy to cynically write off the whole project from the jump (especially given the wall-to-wall anticommunist propaganda in the imperial core).

You really have to dig into the details (and frankly look at AES states in a more generous light than western “leftist” projects, which is to a degree warranted) to have a solid “critical support” position.

The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

One issue I see is that the language of progress – and I mean real progress, not tiny, crumb concessions – has been so abused by liberals that even a good leftist movement doing good work gets a ton of shit from leftist critics for not immediately smashing the full communism button.

Do they? Pretty sure lots of people would reject an idea like “maybe we should just kill disabled people” whatever you call it.

99% of the time “you’re a bot” is backed by zero evidence besides someone disagreeing with you; it’s redditor derailment bullshit

The 1% of the time there’s any evidence at all, it’s never removed