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

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ok, but that’s an aspiration, not an action plan. What are you asking people to do? Who should they vote for? Where should they make political donations? Imagine you have convinced someone you’re right. What’s their next step?

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      What are you asking people to do?

      • stop pushing this issue to the side and make it a priority

      • join in pushing your representatives to change their policy

      The second point requires you do the bare minimum of raising the issue. The more you raise the issue the less your representative can ignore it.

      Who should they vote for?

      People should vote for the least bad option according to their own priorities. But if all you’re doing is voting than you haven’t done anything to address the issue being raised, and you are still a part of the problem. If, in response to this issue being raised, is simply ‘but the other guy is worse’, you’ve done nothing but obstructed progress and you’ll be called out on it by the few of us who are doing the work of agitation.

      Where should they make political donations?

      In my opinion: to any organization that supports the end to the genocide. I recommend any of these progressives currently under threat by the AIPAC

      Imagine you have convinced someone you’re right. What’s their next step?

      Use whatever platform they have available to spread the message that democrats must end their support to Israel’s war crimes. Make it clear that they risk losing their re-election if they continue dodging the issue.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Make it clear that they risk losing their re-election if they continue dodging the issue.

        “If I don’t get the policy change I want, fascism is an acceptable alternative” - People Who Are DEFINITELY Not Fascists™

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          It would be better if everyone who agreed with the policy change being pushed would also raise the issue, so that representatives would have a better idea of how many within their base actually supported it.