Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
I couldn't disagree more with his take. Being civil with fascists is what got us into this mess.
Debating with them about 3rd (or infinite) terms, snatching people off the street and disappearing them, whether trans athletes are destroying civilization when there's more rape charges in the White House than there are trans athletes, starting a trade war with the whole world unprepared and using 4th grade maths, etc. - all this does is legitimize their ideas. It gives 3rd parties/weathervanes that aren't into politics and don't pay much attention to the details the impression that these are debatable issues, that the two engaged in such a debate are having a valid philosophical disagreement and either could be correct and they might decide who is correct based on some trivial bullshit like who is more confident or which "idea" appears to have more support on social media.
But it's not a legitimate debate, none of this is normal, all their actions break the social contract and we're failing to enforce it. And failing to enforce the social contract has disastrous consequences. The only way to deal with fascists is to punch them and call them out. "Owning" them in arguments doesn't do anything, they're immune to reason, shame, guilt or hypocrisy, they bounce back like nothing. Being kind to them does nothing, it doesn't change them or stop them from pushing towards the cliff.
It’s interesting in the sense that if Maher is to be believed, Trump is capable of behaving well, like a normal human in private settings.
Which, if anything is that not worse? At least ‘Trump gonna Trump’ is consistent, that’s who he is and he behaves accordingly. If that’s not the case and it’s part persona for his own benefit, that’s… better? :S
I broadly agree with your post aye. I think there’s a case to be made for more civility amongst the wider populace for those who are obviously not Fascists, it can alienate folks in the wrong direction. I remember some person accusing me of being a Nazi because I said I liked some black metal band (one of my least favourite metal-subgenres anyway). For the uninitiated, black metal vocals are basically incomprehensible, I’m sure some veterans learn the skill to decode the lyrics, I don’t have it. Anyway, the person was correct, but equally refused to believe ‘dude I didn’t know that, now I am aware I’m scrubbing this band from my library’. Anyway just a silly anecdote but you get the point.
And perhaps, at least some issues, don’t neglect them entirely or sidestep of course.
However, don’t do the ‘civil debate’ thing, because it’s often not reciprocal, you’re just platforming somebody else’s framing.
I don’t consume much of said content anymore, I did listen to the first (I think) Gavin Newsom podcast Blackjack linked where he’s making a point to extend the olive branch to non-liberals. Anyway the guest was Charlie Kirk.
All very civil and friendly, Newsom gave him a lot of rope and room for Kirk to say his pieces and crit the Dems at large. The second he got proper pushback, that conviviality turned very quickly to defensiveness and deflection and other such disingenuous methods of debate.
This isn’t atypical, hence why my ‘I don’t consume much of said content anymore’. You don’t just legitimise your opposition, you also make your side look weak, especially to the uninitiated.
Look, I’m sure the average USPol poster has enough knowledge to hand to go ‘hm, wait a minute’ in such chats, but that’s not everyone. Some will just judge based on what they’re watching, just because they don’t have a ton of background to couch it in.
The pattern is usually ‘yeah you guys have some legit points, we’ve neglected x issue and we’ve made some mistakes’, which would be fine for a dialogue if the other participant also did this. They usually don’t. So you end up with the left leaning person effectively handing the floor to the right-leaning one, with all that entails
Newsom and Maher actually talked about this exact thing
I don't think it's a winning strategy to retreat to your own echo chambers and refuse to engage with the other side. It's not like the left rolled over for Trump. They at least tried to ban him from the ballot, imprison him, headshot him. They tried everything besides being appealing enough to win more votes. They didn't try "punching" as Dan HH recommends but I'm not sure if 65kg Bill Maher throwing a punch at Trump would have much success either.
By election time the damage was already done. Some relevant decision makers (whether it was Garland or Biden or others I don't know) thought best not to hold Trump accountable and not to enforce the rules of our society on him. In a more serious country, he would have been in prison after Jan 6 and pressuring state officials to manufacture him votes, among a million other things.
But they didn't want to make a fuss, maybe they thought his base would riot, maybe they thought that would set a precedent and Republicans will in the future look to prosecute opponents on flimsier grounds. For whatever reason, they decided it's best to get over the Trump episode quietly, hoping he'd just go around playing golf and groping women at pageants the rest of his life.
What that does is signal to everybody not paying attention that none of it is a big deal. Surely, if he were that bad it would be reflected in the actions of the system? So he must be a valid option.
If you go around telling your coworkers that you have a crazy neighbour that kicked your dog and drew with feces on your walls and then a coworker runs into both you having a beer and watching football in a pub what could they think? That you were telling some tall tales about him, he must not be that bad, that's not how we treat people that break the social contract in insane ways, we ostracize them.
It's not about echo chambers, it's about having your actions match your words. I refuse to play games with them, I can't have a genuine discussion about the merits of snatching people of the streets and sending them to an extra-judicial hellhole prison without proof of wrongdoing or even of illegal residence. That's not a valid philosophical position, it's raving madness that needs to be called out and treated as such. Having 'civil debates' with them over nonsense like that instead of enforcing the social contract is the worst possible move.
With even some of the online liberals that are typically supporting anyone else but Bernie/AOC getting excited about the fighting oligarchy tour, it's a shame they aren't moving these large crowds to action beyond telling them to eventually keep voting for the same Democrats that got them here.
Bernie and AOC are undeniably the best thing Democrats have going right now, and I think we all know Democrats are not going to follow their leadership.
On April 14 2025 06:42 Doublemint wrote: or maybe you want to argue Tesla drivers actually are more stupid than your average driver. be my guest, who am I to judge.
you trying to deflect and defend Elon's/Tesla's honor is cute and all, but in this regard pretty futile.
Did you even read your own article? "the study attributes the problems to the drivers not the cars." You're prepared to preemptively mock him for making the argument that it's the drivers and not the cars but ironically you're the one making that argument, albeit unwittingly. Maybe you can carry on the argument with yourself by refuting the evidence you're offering.
who is to say blue origin is not doing it more efficiently?
Like 5 seconds of google says. SpaceX launches more payload into orbit than the rest of the world combined and Blue Origin has launched *checks google...* zero satellites into orbit. That's the same amount of satellites that my neighbor Bubba has launched into orbit. Who is to say Bubba is not more efficient than SpaceX?
Interestingly, the study attributes the problems to the drivers not the cars. While DUIs and speeding can clearly be attributed to driver behaviors, and these behaviors cause accidents, accidents can also be attributed to the performance of the cars themselves.
maybe SpaceX launches more because they have the safety of having the US govenment backing them? come hell or high water?
there I thought Americans were about competition and lower costs, not having SpaceX have their cake and Elon eating it too. and then ordering as many as he likes as he is best buddy with the current POTUS. and running DOGE.
and having the blessing of ordinary people too in here which is the most interesting part really.
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
The US has the right to elect the people it wants and break with old alliances to further their interests at the expense of the safety of its allies, sure.
Earth is a pretty big place though. They will remember it.
Maybe in a few decades the rest of the world will learn Mandarin and Russian at schools instead of English for this reason and stop caring about what the US does on their territory even when it hurts their own citizens.
It‘s a bit like the US is Rome atm while the EU is a struggling Constantinople that has to service their whims.
It‘s good to see that US citizens in great part realize this too and show effort to protest the state of affairs.
Interestingly, the study attributes the problems to the drivers not the cars. While DUIs and speeding can clearly be attributed to driver behaviors, and these behaviors cause accidents, accidents can also be attributed to the performance of the cars themselves.
maybe SpaceX launches more because they have the safety of having the US govenment backing them? come hell or high water?
there I thought Americans were about competition and lower costs, not having SpaceX have their cake and Elon eating it too. and then ordering as many as he likes as he is best buddy with the current POTUS. and running DOGE.
and having the blessing of ordinary people too in here which is the most interesting part really.
my mistake then.
Before SpaceX was launching rockets for the US government, ULA had a government-backed monopoly as the only company certified to launch payload for the U.S. government. SpaceX sued in 2014 to end the monopoly so they could be allowed to compete for government contracts to launch payload.
"there I thought Americans were about competition and lower costs..."
Yes, SpaceX quite literally helped end a monopoly, increase competition, and lower costs. The fact that you think SpaceX got preferential treatment from the US government to get to where they are when they had to fight just to compete with the actual monopoly that Boeing/Lockheed Martin had with the government is quite puzzling indeed.
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
I appreciate your engagement with the summary.
I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike.
It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid.
The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against.
A general strike bringing America to its knees would be revolutionary. It would be a dramatic seizure of power by the people and would likely not be repeatable. I’d be disappointed if it ended with anything short of a new Republic with a rewritten constitution that addressed the flaws and loopholes within the current one. If the people at large are going to wake up, collectively mobilize, and act to seize political power then I want more than just Musk being evicted from the White House.
On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote: Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy
Thanks!
On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 14 2025 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 14 2025 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 13 2025 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
On April 12 2025 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
I appreciate your engagement with the summary.
I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike.
It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid.
The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against.
To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom.
On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote: Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy
Thanks!
On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 14 2025 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 14 2025 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 13 2025 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
On April 12 2025 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
I appreciate your engagement with the summary.
I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike.
It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid.
The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against.
To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom.
That's part of the point acro, myself, others like DanHH, and the Niemöller quote are trying to make. More than just a general strike is already warranted, and arguably necessary.
Whether it's the slew of resignations in response to Musk's criminal invasion of various government agencies, the blatant disregard of the constitution on multiple fronts, the rapid and irreversible implosion of the US's credibility on the foreign stage, the erasure of trans people as people, the systemic (but also haphazard) elimination of historic contributions by "DEI" people, the crackdown on immigrants, and the list goes on and on, it's WAYYYYY past the time of a general strike being warranted.
You may not be aware, but part of what is driving the push for the general strike you were ostensibly curious about the demands of, is specifically to unite people and form those ripples. Part of the way that is done, is by organizing some of the various other protests, marches, rallies, etc that you're more open to.
On April 14 2025 08:06 KwarK wrote: A general strike bringing America to its knees would be revolutionary. It would be a dramatic seizure of power by the people and would likely not be repeatable. I’d be disappointed if it ended with anything short of a new Republic with a rewritten constitution that addressed the flaws and loopholes within the current one. If the people at large are going to wake up, collectively mobilize, and act to seize political power then I want more than just Musk being evicted from the White House.
I basically agree with this, though I think people in the US trying a general strike and getting some significant (but insufficient) demands could be a step in waking up even more people to an effective alternative way to get the results they are after.
While you may feel far apart from the people that would join for the Musk demands, I think it's worth trying to put your preferred demands in the going format to see if we can work with them.
Must Haves: A dramatic seizure of power by the people
Wants: a new Republic with a rewritten constitution that addressed the flaws and loopholes within the current one
Deal Breaker No/Can't Demand: Preserving some of the constitutional flaws (Kwark could specify).
Those arn't demands, those are just the description of what the demands would be. You would have to force states to give up political representation to align more with population representation. You would need state governments to surrender power to technocratic cabals of local organizations with taxing authority to guide and organize economic development in the Metropolitian statistical areas.
You would need to make goals for your violent revolution that justify the revolution in the first place. You can't ignore that going down the path of violent revolution in America would see millions of people dieing for various issues before things stabilize, even before going into the very real risk of following what has happened with most other worker-led revolutions through history of things just getting worse.
What you as a Californian would have to recognize is that the only way things get better in the country is if things get much worse for the richer parts of the country like California and yes Minnesota in order to turn the red states into something more than subsidized third world nations.
People are very simple creatures that in mass respond in very predictable ways. You're not going to address the rampant desire for cruelty and punishment with poor rural Americans by starting with "lets make the economy crash to great depression levels in the short term" as persuation. It would be a lot easier to help stop the rise of facism in the country if you would stop helping it go along to get to this fantasy of a workers revolution that just solves all the problems with solutions that everyone agrees with.
On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote: Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy
Thanks!
On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 14 2025 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 14 2025 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 13 2025 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
On April 12 2025 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
I appreciate your engagement with the summary.
I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike.
It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid.
The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against.
To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom.
That's part of the point acro, myself, others like DanHH, and the Niemöller quote are trying to make. More than just a general strike is already warranted, and arguably necessary.
Whether it's the slew of resignations in response to Musk's criminal invasion of various government agencies, the blatant disregard of the constitution on multiple fronts, the rapid and irreversible implosion of the US's credibility on the foreign stage, the erasure of trans people as people, the systemic (but also haphazard) elimination of historic contributions by "DEI" people, the crackdown on immigrants, and the list goes on and on, it's WAYYYYY past the time of a general strike being warranted.
You may not be aware, but part of what is driving the push for the general strike you were ostensibly curious about the demands of, is specifically to unite people and form those ripples. Part of the way that is done, is by organizing some of the various other protests, marches, rallies, etc that you're more open to.
As I've said before, the jump from local and directly impactful to universal and several-stages-removed is one that I'm not currently comfortable making at all, let alone joining in the first wave of general strikes against the Trump administration. I respect your energy and your desire to recruit more people for what is undoubtedly a noble cause, but for me personally, I'm going to currently speak out in the other ways that I listed, because those are ways that I can handle (emotionally, financially, temporally, etc.).
On April 14 2025 09:14 Sermokala wrote: Those arn't demands, those are just the description of what the demands would be. + Show Spoiler +
You would have to force states to give up political representation to align more with population representation. You would need state governments to surrender power to technocratic cabals of local organizations with taxing authority to guide and organize economic development in the Metropolitian statistical areas.
You would need to make goals for your violent revolution that justify the revolution in the first place. You can't ignore that going down the path of violent revolution in America would see millions of people dieing for various issues before things stabilize, even before going into the very real risk of following what has happened with most other worker-led revolutions through history of things just getting worse.
What you as a Californian would have to recognize is that the only way things get better in the country is if things get much worse for the richer parts of the country like California and yes Minnesota in order to turn the red states into something more than subsidized third world nations.
People are very simple creatures that in mass respond in very predictable ways. You're not going to address the rampant desire for cruelty and punishment with poor rural Americans by starting with "lets make the economy crash to great depression levels in the short term" as persuation. It would be a lot easier to help stop the rise of facism in the country if you would stop helping it go along to get to this fantasy of a workers revolution that just solves all the problems with solutions that everyone agrees with.
Perhaps, but I'm not going to try to parse Kwark's potential demands any further for him.
On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote: Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy
Thanks!
On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 14 2025 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 14 2025 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 13 2025 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote: [quote] Is it? Here is you: [quote]
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
I appreciate your engagement with the summary.
I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike.
It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid.
The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against.
To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom.
That's part of the point acro, myself, others like DanHH, and the Niemöller quote are trying to make. More than just a general strike is already warranted, and arguably necessary.
Whether it's the slew of resignations in response to Musk's criminal invasion of various government agencies, the blatant disregard of the constitution on multiple fronts, the rapid and irreversible implosion of the US's credibility on the foreign stage, the erasure of trans people as people, the systemic (but also haphazard) elimination of historic contributions by "DEI" people, the crackdown on immigrants, and the list goes on and on, it's WAYYYYY past the time of a general strike being warranted.
You may not be aware, but part of what is driving the push for the general strike you were ostensibly curious about the demands of, is specifically to unite people and form those ripples. Part of the way that is done, is by organizing some of the various other protests, marches, rallies, etc that you're more open to.
As I've said before, the jump from local and directly impactful to universal and several-stages-removed is one that I'm not currently comfortable making at all, let alone joining in the first wave of general strikes against the Trump administration. I respect your energy and your desire to recruit more people for what is undoubtedly a noble cause, but for me personally, I'm going to currently speak out in the other ways that I listed, because those are ways that I can handle (emotionally, financially, temporally, etc.).
As in you're not prepared to engage with/accept the historic examples that contradict your skepticism or that you just don't want to be one of the people doing it?
I respect you doing what you can, but I can assure you we'll all have to go well beyond what we're comfortable with doing to stop what Trump/project 2025 are doing. Everything anyone is considering now is a helluva lot better/easier than waiting until the only option is storming a beach full of machine guns though.
While I'm obviously partial to a general strike, you could also describe the demands the marches, protests, etc, you have said you would support/join would include and we can go from there.
On April 14 2025 09:14 Sermokala wrote: Those arn't demands, those are just the description of what the demands would be. + Show Spoiler +
You would have to force states to give up political representation to align more with population representation. You would need state governments to surrender power to technocratic cabals of local organizations with taxing authority to guide and organize economic development in the Metropolitian statistical areas.
You would need to make goals for your violent revolution that justify the revolution in the first place. You can't ignore that going down the path of violent revolution in America would see millions of people dieing for various issues before things stabilize, even before going into the very real risk of following what has happened with most other worker-led revolutions through history of things just getting worse.
What you as a Californian would have to recognize is that the only way things get better in the country is if things get much worse for the richer parts of the country like California and yes Minnesota in order to turn the red states into something more than subsidized third world nations.
People are very simple creatures that in mass respond in very predictable ways. You're not going to address the rampant desire for cruelty and punishment with poor rural Americans by starting with "lets make the economy crash to great depression levels in the short term" as persuation. It would be a lot easier to help stop the rise of facism in the country if you would stop helping it go along to get to this fantasy of a workers revolution that just solves all the problems with solutions that everyone agrees with.
Perhaps, but I'm not going to try to parse Kwark's potential demands any further for him.
On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote: Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy
Thanks!
On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 14 2025 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 14 2025 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 13 2025 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote] + Show Spoiler +
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
I appreciate your engagement with the summary.
I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike.
It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid.
The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against.
To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom.
That's part of the point acro, myself, others like DanHH, and the Niemöller quote are trying to make. More than just a general strike is already warranted, and arguably necessary.
Whether it's the slew of resignations in response to Musk's criminal invasion of various government agencies, the blatant disregard of the constitution on multiple fronts, the rapid and irreversible implosion of the US's credibility on the foreign stage, the erasure of trans people as people, the systemic (but also haphazard) elimination of historic contributions by "DEI" people, the crackdown on immigrants, and the list goes on and on, it's WAYYYYY past the time of a general strike being warranted.
You may not be aware, but part of what is driving the push for the general strike you were ostensibly curious about the demands of, is specifically to unite people and form those ripples. Part of the way that is done, is by organizing some of the various other protests, marches, rallies, etc that you're more open to.
As I've said before, the jump from local and directly impactful to universal and several-stages-removed is one that I'm not currently comfortable making at all, let alone joining in the first wave of general strikes against the Trump administration. I respect your energy and your desire to recruit more people for what is undoubtedly a noble cause, but for me personally, I'm going to currently speak out in the other ways that I listed, because those are ways that I can handle (emotionally, financially, temporally, etc.).
As in you're not prepared to engage with/accept the historic examples that contradict your skepticism or that you just don't want to be one of the people doing it?
I respect you doing what you can, but I can assure you we'll all have to go well beyond what we're comfortable with doing to stop what Trump/project 2025 are doing. Everything anyone is considering now is a helluva lot better/easier than waiting until the only option is storming a beach full of machine guns though.
While I'm obviously partial to a general strike, you could also describe the demands the marches, protests, etc, you have said you would support/join would include and we can go from there.
I would engage with them if they existed. The fact that you don't attempt to even give a throwaway tells a lot. The fact that you weren't willing to be uncomfortable enough to vote for kamala yet want to lecture others on how committed they are to making things better is even more telling. Are you willing to do the bare minimum and be civil to others to build support for the changes you want to see in the world?
I'm not going to commit to means when the ends are have less development behind them than Trumps plans. My preferred form of revolution is to create an insurgent political party to operate within the national democratic party until it has the level of popular political support to win the kind of compromises and concessions that makes peoples lives materially better.
The nation has more than 330 million people. Even if you get ten million in a general strike how do you think any of the changes are going to happen? The day after the general strike you fantasize about so much you are still going to have to convince enough of the rest of the population that you have the solutions to make their lives materially better. How are you going to address all the people you need to strip of their political power and their ability to control their economic future? How do you think you are doing to convince people you can build the support to address the levels of hate and cruelty tens of millions of your fellow citizens advocate for on a daily basis? You've already abandoned any path of reform that people are going to consent to willingly so explain what your plan is for when the majority of the nation that is willing to vote disagrees with you? You can't even bring yourself to support what AOC bernie and walz are doing with their rallies when it materially advances your position. What uncomfortable act are you willing to make when you won't vote and you won't support leftist political rallies?
As an aside it wasn't lost to me that BJ was able to slide in that he thinks the left tried to assassinate Trump. That kind of infosphere isn't just going to go away once you hold the nation hostage by shutting down the economy. BJ is going to live a long healthy life hopefully, and you are going to have to fight for his life and his childrens lives to be better as well.
On April 14 2025 09:14 Sermokala wrote: Those arn't demands, those are just the description of what the demands would be. + Show Spoiler +
You would have to force states to give up political representation to align more with population representation. You would need state governments to surrender power to technocratic cabals of local organizations with taxing authority to guide and organize economic development in the Metropolitian statistical areas.
You would need to make goals for your violent revolution that justify the revolution in the first place. You can't ignore that going down the path of violent revolution in America would see millions of people dieing for various issues before things stabilize, even before going into the very real risk of following what has happened with most other worker-led revolutions through history of things just getting worse.
What you as a Californian would have to recognize is that the only way things get better in the country is if things get much worse for the richer parts of the country like California and yes Minnesota in order to turn the red states into something more than subsidized third world nations.
People are very simple creatures that in mass respond in very predictable ways. You're not going to address the rampant desire for cruelty and punishment with poor rural Americans by starting with "lets make the economy crash to great depression levels in the short term" as persuation. It would be a lot easier to help stop the rise of facism in the country if you would stop helping it go along to get to this fantasy of a workers revolution that just solves all the problems with solutions that everyone agrees with.
Perhaps, but I'm not going to try to parse Kwark's potential demands any further for him.
On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote: Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy
Thanks!
On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 14 2025 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 14 2025 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 13 2025 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote] + Show Spoiler +
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
Thank you for the happy cake day!
I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one.
I appreciate your engagement with the summary.
I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike.
It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid.
The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against.
To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom.
That's part of the point acro, myself, others like DanHH, and the Niemöller quote are trying to make. More than just a general strike is already warranted, and arguably necessary.
Whether it's the slew of resignations in response to Musk's criminal invasion of various government agencies, the blatant disregard of the constitution on multiple fronts, the rapid and irreversible implosion of the US's credibility on the foreign stage, the erasure of trans people as people, the systemic (but also haphazard) elimination of historic contributions by "DEI" people, the crackdown on immigrants, and the list goes on and on, it's WAYYYYY past the time of a general strike being warranted.
You may not be aware, but part of what is driving the push for the general strike you were ostensibly curious about the demands of, is specifically to unite people and form those ripples. Part of the way that is done, is by organizing some of the various other protests, marches, rallies, etc that you're more open to.
As I've said before, the jump from local and directly impactful to universal and several-stages-removed is one that I'm not currently comfortable making at all, let alone joining in the first wave of general strikes against the Trump administration. I respect your energy and your desire to recruit more people for what is undoubtedly a noble cause, but for me personally, I'm going to currently speak out in the other ways that I listed, because those are ways that I can handle (emotionally, financially, temporally, etc.).
As in you're not prepared to engage with/accept the historic examples that contradict your skepticism or that you just don't want to be one of the people doing it?
I respect you doing what you can, but I can assure you we'll all have to go well beyond what we're comfortable with doing to stop what Trump/project 2025 are doing. Everything anyone is considering now is a helluva lot better/easier than waiting until the only option is storming a beach full of machine guns though.
While I'm obviously partial to a general strike, you could also describe the demands the marches, protests, etc, you have said you would support/join would include and we can go from there.
I'm not sure if I have much to add there, given that we've already talked about some hypothetical local issues that I'd be okay with protesting. Here's an example though, to give you an idea of my mindset for something like this:
Let's suppose that my school was told (by whoever... principal, superintendent, state DoE, governor, federal DoE, Congress, Trump, Musk, etc.) that starting May 1st, teachers must call all students by whatever name and pronouns their parents prefer - which wouldn't be a problem for most students (as most students use names, nicknames, and pronouns that their parents are probably okay with), but would clearly disproportionately affect trans students (especially if the students aren't out yet to their parents, or if their parents are extremely conservative and want to perpetuate deadnames and sex assigned at birth, etc.).
For the two weeks leading up to May 1st, I'd absolutely be voicing my disdain for that new rule, and I'd be talking to other teachers / affected parties about how best to reverse that call ahead of time, and also how best to resist that rule if it ends up being enforced. My colleagues and I would be attending board meetings and calling up whoever we could (local level, state level, etc.), we'd be reaching out to families, and we'd be having conversations with students. We'd be preemptively working to do everything we could before May 1st. On/After May 1st, assuming the new rule is still implemented and expected to be followed by teachers, I would strike in protest and I think a lot of my colleagues would too. Our single, hypothetical demand would be very specific and clear: We'll go back to teaching as long as we can use the preferred names and pronouns of all our students, the way it used to be, as that's one of many ways to build a respectful and constructive rapport with students - which is extremely important for effective teaching and learning.
On April 14 2025 08:06 KwarK wrote: A general strike bringing America to its knees would be revolutionary. It would be a dramatic seizure of power by the people and would likely not be repeatable. I’d be disappointed if it ended with anything short of a new Republic with a rewritten constitution that addressed the flaws and loopholes within the current one. If the people at large are going to wake up, collectively mobilize, and act to seize political power then I want more than just Musk being evicted from the White House.
I basically agree with this, though I think people in the US trying a general strike and getting some significant (but insufficient) demands could be a step in waking up even more people to an effective alternative way to get the results they are after.
While you may feel far apart from the people that would join for the Musk demands, I think it's worth trying to put your preferred demands in the going format to see if we can work with them.
Must Haves: A dramatic seizure of power by the people
Wants: a new Republic with a rewritten constitution that addressed the flaws and loopholes within the current one
Deal Breaker No/Can't Demand: Preserving some of the constitutional flaws (Kwark could specify).
That close enough?
Okay so I was being slightly facetious with the whole 'end of global capitalism' comment earlier, but I'll play the game.
A general strike is way more rare than a once in a lifetime opportunity. Its an opportunity you get once every couple hundred years to do something real.
It would have to result in a series of policies that redistributes wealth significantly. A massive, unavoidable redistribution that reverses the last 30 years of rising inequality, and prevents runaway inequality from starting up again.
EPT
