That just isn’t true. People use liberal to mean in support of a liberal party, in this case, democrats.
If someone uses liberal to mean socialist, then they are just incorrect. The ideas are incompatible.
That just isn’t true. People use liberal to mean in support of a liberal party, in this case, democrats.
If someone uses liberal to mean socialist, then they are just incorrect. The ideas are incompatible.
I don’t know why you’re talking about “sitting and hoping”. That doesn’t sound like what i was talking about.
Also, you have it backwards. Yes, violent protest and peaceful demonstrations work together. But it’s the violent part that gets shit done. Without the real people’s revolt, you have hippies in a circle getting pepper sprayed, because the movement has no force behind it.
The nonviolent protesters are there to spread ideas. The revolters are there to show that we mean business.
Also keep in mind that many “non violent demonstrations” have been subject to massive whitewashing. We remember MLK as a peaceful protester, but certainly wasn’t seen as one at the time. Another thing to note is that the strongest advocates of peaceful protest (such as conservatives who have turned around to use MLK to admonish BLM) are coincidentally those with privilege and, thus, most to lose from revolution.
You only hear about them because that’s when change actually happens. Incrementalism is optimistic at best.
This is naive and optimistic. No political change has actually come from voting. The civil rights act was not voted, but fought and died for. Same with worker’s rights.
Liberals are right wing.
How do you plan to self correct? What have people said?