• Meltrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    it’s a little weird to me that people aren’t on the street in the US protesting

    You literally say it in the sentence above: we can’t afford to. Best case you lose wages. Worst case you get fired, then you have literally no wages and also no health insurance.

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

      And it would bear no fruit. Only a true nationwide general strike would do anything, and that’s not happening, ever.

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s just propaganda to dissuade local action. There are plenty of unions everywhere getting things done for their members on much smaller scales through local industrial action.

        • FerolisD@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          bullshit. most workers cannot unionize, and unions only do so much. The owner class has us and always will.

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s why I only said it was a little weird. But there have been many populations in the world who have still protested despite the risk to their lives, immediate or otherwise, which is why I can’t quite grasp how a slow death is what people are choosing for this specific issue.

      It’s not a US only problem either, most of the world is willingly going down the same slow death route with roughly equivalent problems, despite better laws around healthcare. This is why I wonder about the psychological aspect of protest and immediacy and what public political pressure needs to look like in today’s world.

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

        Because all of these people are not facing true suffering. They know where their next meal is coming from, they got a roof and bombs aren’t incoming. We’ll put up with anything as long it doesn’t involve facing a missed meal, no shelter or no enemy to fight to get the other two.

        Ask yourself; If I threw your ass out in the woods, butt naked, what would your priority be? Shelter probably, depending on your environment. Next, food. Starve the staunchest vegan for 72-hours and they’ll be scheming on how to trap, kill and eat raw squirrel. LOL, bet a bunch of us would quickly reinvent the bow-and-sting fire starter!

        I got 2.5 acres of mostly swamp in NW FL. Rarely freezes too hard, fair bit of forage and game, still, very thin on both counts. I have plenty of small caliber guns, shotguns and camping gear, all on site right now. I’m no Navy SEAL, but I could maybe get by out there? For a minute? (And that’s with a load of simple infrastructure and tools in place!)

        How about the rest of you? How long until you riot in the streets for lack of food security? Even given my extremely favorable circumstances, I ain’t got a 2-weeks until I go full-on nuts. 6-weeks and you’re looking like steak.

        tl;dr We’re collectively fine with being slowly boiled alive, as long as we have a roof and a chicken in the pot.