The 87-year-old whose eviction sparked a domestic crisis and triggered nationwide anti-government protests has died in hospital late on Wednesday. Protesters say they will continue to demonstrate to uphold her legacy.
The landlord should be held liable, in court or outside of it if the courts refuse to honour their goddamned duty to the citizens. This is not ok.
Died of homelessness
Should be considered murder, she died because of the stress caused by the eviction.
Capitalism does not value human lives enough to allow justice to be served :(
Now she’s an unwilling martyr to boot. Not a good sign for the parties that denied cooperation in enacting protective legislation, good for society at large because the blame goes to the far right and the conservatives.
Yep lets make statutes of this lady when this is done. They should burn down the leaders houses and cause them as much stress as humanity possible. Because they murder that poor woman. What about the landlord who just wanted to push her out so he can charge more rent? He should be dragged into the street over this.
Ok, i would rather prefer some swift legislation to prevent this from ever happening again and legal proceedings against those responsible (which would be hard to get a sentence for - i don’t think they actually broke any laws, and making new laws and sentencing people after the fact is something we all don’t want, i assure you of that).
But if that doesn’t happen, i’m down with your solution too.
Every successful movement has had two wings. A reasonable, non-violent, and thoughtful wing that offers peaceful solutions, and a militant wing that’s prepared to use less gentle means to demand change. Sin Fein would not have accomplished much without the IRA. Martin Luther King Jr. would have struggled to get concessions if Malcolm X and the Black Panthers didn’t exist. Mandela, Gandhi, all of them exist in juxtaposition with a less restrained movement that we tend to minimize in the history books, because the powers that be don’t approve of people knowing how the real sausage of political change works.
You want a peaceful resolution? Good! You are welcome and needed. But don’t disparage the radical wing. Understand they too want justice. They are a necessary part of the movement as well. They are the implicit “Or Else” at the end of every call for justice.
This is why nonviolence is violence too. Nonviolent movements require their violent counterparts to put pressure on states.
And also, if a movement manages to get a reform passed, it is dependent on the state’s monopoly on violence to get it enforced. Don’t forget that the National Guard had to be deployed to actually desegregate schools in the South.
There is no such thing as a successful non-violent movement, and anyone who demands non-violence is carrying water for the oppressors.
I agree on that! But i refuse the way of thinking that the threat of violence has to be the first line of defense or offense.
Yeah sure, violence should not be the first thing you try. But it’s more effective if you are perceived as being capable of violence when you are standing up to oppressors who are doing violence to you.
It’s also effective if i am capable of unleashing a biological agent on my adversaries. Should that be the standard? Because that is very easily achieved these days with everything you can buy from a supermarket, see bacillus cereus as an easy example - cook some rice, let it stand at 27°C for a few days and distribute it to your enemies. That’s one of the nice examples that (probably) wont kill your enemies.
The threat of violence - which is fucking easy even for single individuals nowadays if they want to - should NOT be the primary reason to engage in diplomacy.
As i said, i am down with @[email protected] 's solution if a peaceful way is not found. Don’t paint me as disparaging because i prefer talking before shooting. Any movement that prefers shooting over talking has to be shunned from the start, because it will only beget more violence even when the opposition might be ok with talks to come to a solution. All of your examples were on the side of “talking first”.
Edit: Anyone downvoting this is advocating for hurting people before discussing things. I am astounded that we have people thinking like this here.
Any movement that prefers shooting over talking has to be shunned from the start, because it will only beget more violence…
No, it doesn’t. Without them, your talk is just noise, easily dismissed. It’s absolutely necessary for some to follow their conscience and keep their hands clean, but if no one is getting their hands dirty then it doesn’t achieve anything.
All of your examples were on the side of “talking first”.
They were. But they always made sure to qualify their denouncements of violence with an understanding of the righteous rage of the more aggressive activities of the less restrained wing. Centre the motivations, not the actions.
“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?" ~Martin Luther King Jr.
You represent one part of a bigger whole. Both parts are necessary. Neither by itself is sufficient.
Anyone starting to shoot before talking is just a fucking terrorist and not someone you can negotiate with. Another Edit: this is true regardless of which side we are talking about.
You are sullying the sacrifices of the people who were deeply committed to put talks before violence with your utterances. There are many things you can achieve before killing your opposition, even when you do not have to means to do that at all.
I agree that resisting violently is needed in some cases. But preferring the violent case over the diplomatic one is the way you get long-term guerilla warfare and countless civilian victims that do not deserve to be wound up in your “righteous crusade”.
Diplomatic measures should ALWAYS be the first line of defense and offense. If everything else fails, go ahead and set the barricades on fire. But if you advocate towards violence before the civil way of doing things is exhausted, you are no better than any of those bastards people are fighting against.
Edit: I also want to emphasize that getting ready for a violent confrontation is not something i want to discourage. But the important discriminating factor is which of your cards you keep playing the most, and when you play them. Just playing the “violence” card is not better than anything the nazis have done.
2nd Edit: Really? The violent cowards downvoting me better give me some good reason why shooting first is the way to go.
In general, almost no one starts shooting without trying to talk first. The difference between you and the guy who is “rushing” to more extreme measures, is usually that their experience has left them far more cynical about the chances of talk achieving anything without actions to back it up. Every cynic is ultimately a disillusioned idealist who has seen too many failures of discourse to produce results. There’s a difference between a psychopath who engages in violence for the thrill of it, and someone who has reached the end of their patience while people die around them. There is no matter in which you are either the first or the last word on, and you are disrespecting everyone who has been in the fight for these causes before you could string two coherent words together. Today’s battles are just the latest front of a war that is older than living memory.
Throwing the “T” word around is just a rhetorical, thought terminating cliche at this point. When states are charging people with “Terrorism” for possessing reading material, that word has lost all meaning. Using the phrase “Department of War” is a terrorist act. The existence of a military and the implicit threat of force is a terrorist act. My breakfast preferences are almost certainly terrorism for some people. When everyone is a terrorist, no one is.
you think the talking hasn’t been started yet? you think we don’t see all this talk and know it changed nothing? there has not been a “starting to shoot before talking”. time is running out, and now it’s time to make listening much more appealing then it obviously is now.
In Madrid btw.
Really? You couldn’t fit the country into the post?
Do you have any idea how large Spain is?*
You couldn’t fit the names of the inhabitants of a moderately sized Spanish TOWN into the post, let alone the entire country.
*roughly 1.24 times larger than California
God forbid you read the article instead of forming your opinion as quickly as possible and continuing scrolling
Yes, I have limited time on my hands. Also don’t feel like wasting it arguing with blockheads like you anymore…
for me your comment seems unnecessary rude
Welcome to Lemmy. First time here?
Lol? It’s news, and someone misses the most important bit about the news (where) and puts in oddly specific info (name of a person), and you get offended on their behalf because I complain that vital information is missing from the post?
It’s not OP’s fault if you were living under a rock lately.
Hard downvote, man.
It would be good to make an effort not to be a jerk. It’s not what you said. It’s how you communicate.
Lol you complain about my tone and call me a jerk. What a muppet.
the most important bit about the news
That’s a bad take when someone died.
Wanting to understand where someone died is a bad take? Not the smartest answer…
It is when you explicitly say you don’t care about the who.
Except I don’t say that.
If her name isn’t as important as where it happened, to the point that you’re annoyed that the who was in the headline but not the where, then you are, in fact, saying that you don’t care about the who.
If you do care about the victim, you sure aren’t acting like it. Seems like your top priority here is your pride. Maybe take a deep breath and consider if this is really the hill you want to die on.
