There are increasing numbers of protests in cities across the United States, triggered by the Trump Administration’s deportation pronouncement, policies,
I don’t think its a matter of violence vs non-violence. Even in the samples provided by the article, its a matter of willingness to commit what would otherwise be criminal acts. Ghandi was successful not because of the Salt March but because they created the Declaration of Sovereignty and Self-rule and refused to pay taxes until negotiations were made.
I remember Penn and Teller did an episode that touched on this on a show they had. The big take away was there is a difference between doing good and doing something that makes you feel good. What’s accomplished by a sit-in on a courthouse lawn on the weekend that you filed and received a permit to do from the city? People like to compare stuff like that to the 1960s civil rights movement, but here’s the thing: Rosa Parks not giving up her seat wasn’t a social faux pas, it was a criminal act in Alabama.
Obstruction and resisting authoritarian rules are key, but when looking at the sum of violent and nonviolent movements, the nonviolent movement had a higher percentage of wins.
And when researched looked into that finding, they learned that nonviolent actions were more successful at attracting allies, and violent resistance played into authoritarians hands. Authoritarians want to use “protection” as a way to stop resistance.
That article is probably not the best way to support that idea though. It mentions “when 3.5% of its population actively mobilized against it” but doesn’t explain what “actively mobilized” even means. It talks about how effective non-violence has been in other countries but then caveats that to being when an independent judiciary was present. It even uses Kilmar Abrego Garcia to support that idea, but fails to mention that a lower court’s decision was ignored and the only reason the SC was involved was because the administration said it didn’t have to listen to them.
Obstruction is good, but ultimately if you are not at risk of losing anything by that obstruction, it likely isn’t an effective way to accomplish anything. That’s even if you could consider it obstruction. If you are permitted to have a rally then you are not obstructing anything. You’re just having a good time. Municipalities don’t approve permits that obstruct, its the whole reason for permits.
I agree that probably someone’s blood is getting spilled in the process of gaining rights but it could be, and often is, the blood of the nonviolent protestors, and I think acknowledging that is core to minimizing the bloodshed. Call me a fool for thinking the fascists are still human I guess.
What it doesn’t say is it still takes orginized violence to achieve the goals.
There’s a breaking point of civil disobedience when they are no longer able to control the sheer number of people.
Actually, her research says the complete opposite. Violence significantly lowered the odds of being successful.
i thought you were a boot licker for making this post. this comment just confirms it.
I don’t think its a matter of violence vs non-violence. Even in the samples provided by the article, its a matter of willingness to commit what would otherwise be criminal acts. Ghandi was successful not because of the Salt March but because they created the Declaration of Sovereignty and Self-rule and refused to pay taxes until negotiations were made.
I remember Penn and Teller did an episode that touched on this on a show they had. The big take away was there is a difference between doing good and doing something that makes you feel good. What’s accomplished by a sit-in on a courthouse lawn on the weekend that you filed and received a permit to do from the city? People like to compare stuff like that to the 1960s civil rights movement, but here’s the thing: Rosa Parks not giving up her seat wasn’t a social faux pas, it was a criminal act in Alabama.
Obstruction and resisting authoritarian rules are key, but when looking at the sum of violent and nonviolent movements, the nonviolent movement had a higher percentage of wins.
And when researched looked into that finding, they learned that nonviolent actions were more successful at attracting allies, and violent resistance played into authoritarians hands. Authoritarians want to use “protection” as a way to stop resistance.
that is 100% bullshit. if you look at all of human history, violence has by far been more effective.
That article is probably not the best way to support that idea though. It mentions “when 3.5% of its population actively mobilized against it” but doesn’t explain what “actively mobilized” even means. It talks about how effective non-violence has been in other countries but then caveats that to being when an independent judiciary was present. It even uses Kilmar Abrego Garcia to support that idea, but fails to mention that a lower court’s decision was ignored and the only reason the SC was involved was because the administration said it didn’t have to listen to them.
Obstruction is good, but ultimately if you are not at risk of losing anything by that obstruction, it likely isn’t an effective way to accomplish anything. That’s even if you could consider it obstruction. If you are permitted to have a rally then you are not obstructing anything. You’re just having a good time. Municipalities don’t approve permits that obstruct, its the whole reason for permits.
So if we get 3.5% of the population to stand in a field the fascist have to just give up? Swiper no swiping?
Grow up dude, use your brain to figure out what happens in between aggregating people and fascists being removed from power.
Can we dial it down? This is Lemmy, not X. We don’t need to treat each other poorly in order to have a conversation.
He wants other people to fight his battle, when he couldn’t even be bothered to vote.
You see it around this site all over.
I’m completely willing to fight my and YOUR battles for us.
Every right you have was taken from those in power with the violence and blood of workers
You need to stop preaching propaganda meant to keep us domesticated
I agree that probably someone’s blood is getting spilled in the process of gaining rights but it could be, and often is, the blood of the nonviolent protestors, and I think acknowledging that is core to minimizing the bloodshed. Call me a fool for thinking the fascists are still human I guess.
MLK, Susan B. Anthony, and Cézar Chávez would disagree with that statement.
MLK certainly gave his blood for the cause.
“Riots are the voice of the unheard” -MLK
So you were right with 2/3 of your cherry picked examples.
Clearly you think fascists will just give up randomly once we stand around holding signs long enough. I don’t think they’ll do that.
I’m done engaging with you.
Clearly you aren’t since you couldn’t even be coerced to vote.
I voted, fuck off and take your pussy gotcha with you
Oh man, quivering in my boots over here tough guy.