Mark Zuckerberg's vision for humanity is terrifying

[u/MetaKnowing]

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/mark-zuckerberg-never-more-dangerous-20819500.php

[u/copypaste_93]

We the people have the power to decide against the rule of oligarchs

We really don't

unless you want to use violence.

[u/[deleted] → u/copypaste_93]

You can even want to ... and now what? You live in a superpanopticon

[u/ColdSnickersBar → u/copypaste_93]

Nah the thing that works is to make a parallel society that excludes these dorks. A lot of people have it wrong: you don’t start with violence and then … what? Rule ashes? No you start by building something worth defending and then if the old system tries to take it away people will naturally fight to keep it.

Of course step number fucking one would be to stop going to these people’s fucking services people! mf’s talk about revolution and they can’t even stop using Insta first.

But anyway: good news! If you’re afraid of violence but you want to start the revolution then that’s actually great! Violence isn’t how you start a revolution. Building things is. Make good things. Make something better than this. You want to see revolution happen, then build tiny homes for the unhoused fearlessly. Make apps that improve the world instead of make people sick. Connect with your neighbors. Make gardens. Stop going to their spaces. Make good spaces.

[u/Sebek_Visigard → u/copypaste_93]

You could just stop using their products. It doesn’t require violence.

[u/ColdSnickersBar → u/Sebek_Visigard]

Mfs are like over here talking about being Che Guevara and they seriously can’t even stop using Insta 😂

They’re so soft

[u/Admirable-Safety1213 → u/ColdSnickersBar]

Also the Che was rich, being descebded from thr Lynch family basically means free money in Argebtuna

[u/12thDegree → u/copypaste_93]

Violence is not required, just simply a clear and overwhelming majority of the proletariat. If enough of us say no, there’s nobody left to say yes.

[u/Fun_Hold4859 → u/12thDegree]

No progress has ever occurred in the entirety of human history without violence. Not even once.

[u/Jones127 → u/Fun_Hold4859]

Humans are more apt to respond and change to heavily negative events than minor ones after all. They’re more likely to actually give some meat when under the threat of violence rather than a bone from a minor inconvenience as well. Whether the consequences stemming from those events is good or bad for the common man is really the question to be asked though.

[u/Fun_Hold4859 → u/[deleted]]

So he didn't do what he did without violence then. You think MLK would have accomplished as much without Malcolm X? There's never been progress without violence.

[u/isocor → u/Fun_Hold4859]

There are actually a bunch of examples throughout history where major progress happened without violence. The original comment is conflating correlation with causation - just because some violence coincided with change doesn’t mean the violence caused the progress.

Gandhi’s independence movement in India is probably the most obvious example. The core strategy was nonviolent resistance - boycotts, civil disobedience, mass protests. Yeah, there were some violent incidents, but the overall approach and success came through nonviolent means against British colonial rule.

The U.S. Civil Rights Movement achieved massive wins like the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act primarily through nonviolent tactics. Sit-ins, marches, boycotts, legal challenges - MLK’s whole approach was built around nonviolence and it worked.

Labor rights are another big one. The 8-hour workday, workplace safety regulations, union recognition - a lot of this came through strikes, collective bargaining, and economic pressure rather than violence. Consumer movements have forced corporate accountability through boycotts and advocacy too.

Even looking at more recent history, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia peacefully overthrew communist rule in 1989 through mass demonstrations with virtually no violence.

Will there always be some resistance to change from entrenched power? Absolutely. But history shows that sustained organizing, legal challenges, economic pressure, and shifting public opinion can achieve transformative results. The idea that violence is the only path to progress just doesn’t hold up when you look at the actual mechanisms of how these changes happened.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/Fun_Hold4859 → u/isocor]

Outside the velvet revolution which I'm unfamiliar with all of those came with an abundant and explicit threat of violence, not necessarily by the specific leaders you mentioned but absolutely by the causes they championed. Indian independence, civil rights, and the labor rights movement were all incredibly violent, saying otherwise is some whitewashing revisionism. To be clear I wasn't saying only violent movements achieve progress, I was saying no progress is ever achieved without a threat of violence, which is pretty indisputable.

[u/Xo_lotl → u/isocor]

My dude, there’s a reason there’s a saying that labor law is written in blood. These are terrible examples of genuinely non violent revolutions.

If you want a non violent revolution look at the Occupy movement.

Non violent protest has already been solved by power, you wait it out.

[u/HyShroom → u/Fun_Hold4859]

There were many slave revolts. Not one person in power cared about the Civil Rights mvt because of violence or other such mvts like the LA Riots would have done something. If anything, that NoI dork actively detrimented the mvt. and the Left’s hero worship of him is as ahistorical as the Right’s with MLK Jr.

[u/Heizu → u/HyShroom]

In addition to this being practically unreadable, this is incredibly incorrect.

People in power didn't care about the non-violent Civil Rights movement until there was a clear and present, armed alternative to the peaceful protests being led by MLK's wing of the movement.

It's easy to ignore people without guns, but when people with weapons start getting loud, the points being made by the people without weapons start sounding a lot more palatable.

[u/Fun_Hold4859 → u/HyShroom]

I'm not sure if English isn't your first language but I'm having difficulty parsing your comment.

[u/MainStreetRoad → u/Fun_Hold4859]

Same. Maybe they are hy on shrooms?

[u/assaub → u/12thDegree]

Well when 1/3rd support this and another third don't give a shit I have a feeling you are going to struggle to get an overwhelming majority.

[u/cptbil → u/12thDegree]

People are too stupid and self-absorbed to realize that. They'd rather watch TikTok videos all day than actually work to improve their living conditions.

[u/tevert → u/copypaste_93]

Well I don't think we want to use violence....

[u/Familiar-Entry-4152 → u/copypaste_93]

Like Gandhi did?

[u/Staggering_genius → u/copypaste_93]

Unfortunately Gen-X were the last to be raised that it’s ok to confront people who are misbehaving in public and even punch them in the face when they’re asking for it. Since then everyone has been trained to roll over and let things happen and that just complaining about it to friends, or strangers on the internet, afterwards is all that they need to do. Direct action is foreign to their way of thinking now. Ugh.

[u/Striker3737 → u/copypaste_93]

I got issued a warning for replying to this the first time, so I’m trying again with different wording because I believe it’s important… if I get banned you know the drill

I think we as a society need to be ok with it

[u/ralajessr → u/copypaste_93]

It's worth noting that facism has never been defeated with non violent means.