• Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Lol, which wars fought by a democracy are you thinking have been ended by non democratic means?

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The failed invasions and colonizations of Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. were ended through brutal defeat despite decades of “democratic” support.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The post to which I was responding was:

        Alternatively, one could disengage from the electoral system and instead focus on actions history has proven effective.

        So, going by you Mr answer, are you suggesting the appropriate non electoral response is to go fight in Gaza?

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, Women’s Lib, cessation of hostility in Vietnam, the Clean Water Act, the ADA, Lol.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Ummm, all of those came about via democracy?

        Edit: Also, most of those weren’t wars…

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Are you maybe meaning to comment on another thread or something? Right now it looks like you’re trying to claim that “The New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, Women’s Lib, cessation of hostility in Vietnam, the Clean Water Act, the ADA” all of which (except maybe arguably Vietnam) were things passed by popular demand by a democratically elected government…

              • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                There were mass movements that translated to electoral victory… In other words, democracy function led exactly as it should.

                • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Oh no. They were mass movements that performed illegal actions and threatened more. We the People didn’t cast votes. We demanded what we deserved with a threat of violence.

                  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    And then those mass movements resulted in… Yup, democratic change! And frankly, the illegal actions were mostly to stir sympathy because, yes, the key making policy changes was having enough people support your side because, you guessed it, that’s how democracy works!

                    I don’t recall the book’s name but there’s a great account of why the civil rights movement targeted Birmingham in particular and one of the big reasons was they knew the sherrif, Bull Connor, would over-react and over-react violently in a way that would garner sympathy for the movement. (That’s how they got the iconic photo of the Black kid getting bitten by the cop dog.) King might have talked about it in Letters from Birmingham jail?