the next guy
Superstar
That too!Or they're just simpleton Coli militant try-hands
Standing Rock DAPL: Protesters Disperse; Santa Monica divests from Wells Fargo
- Thread starter ineedsleep212
- Start date
The government in this country is not getting brought down with peaceful protests and neither are its police. Show me one example where that has worked in this country in recent times.
What kind of ignorance is that dumb claim based on?
Half-hearted, poorly planned protests, armed or unarmed, don't work in ANY era.
But there is a long history of committed, organized nonviolent protests working much better than violent protests for people out of power, both within this country and outside of it. Even in the last five years, nonviolent protests have brought down entire governments, but you think they can't stop a pipeline?
The most important thing in the success any protest is not whether it uses violence or not, but how many people it can get committed to the cause and how committed those people are. Using violence is a prime way to thin your ranks of committed members and embolden the opposition.
The government isn't getting brought down by a bunch of lames with guns either.
Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Birmingham Campaign, the Selma March - the entire Civil Rights Movement was a series of effective nonviolent protests. Nonviolent protest was part of the reason that public sentiment turned against the Vietnam War too (though it took too long).
On the other hand, when was the last time violent protest worked on a serious scale here? 1776?
Not to mention that nonviolent protest has played a huge role in bringing down the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union, and governments from the Philippines to Egypt in the last 30 years.
And besides the fact that violence works less often, what are the results? Sure, India and Vietnam both got free from their colonial oppressors, but India only lost 7,000 lives in the process, while Vietnam lost over a million. Sure, Poland and Afghanistan both got out from under the Soviet Union, but Poland stayed peaceful after just like they were peacefully opposing the Russians to get out, while Afghanistan's violent opposition only led to continued violence afterwards. The KKK, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, ISIS - all of the most evil groups emerged from violent periods, sometimes from the winners and sometimes from the losers, sometimes brought on by themselve and somtimes from the outside, but always in the aftermath of violence. Even when violent revolution works, 2/3 of the time the "winners" just become violent dictators themselves, because it's what they learned "works".
Hell, where did our own violent government come from in the first place?
The more violence, the less revolution - Waging Nonviolence
Last edited:
These all happened 40+ years ago. Like I said, nothing recent in this country has changed from peaceful protests.The government isn't getting brought down by a bunch of lames with guns either.
Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Birmingham Campaign, the Selma March - the entire Civil Rights Movement was a series of effective nonviolent protests. Nonviolent protest was part of the reason that public sentiment turned against the Vietnam War too (though it took too long).
On the other hand, when was the last time violent protest worked on a serious scale here? 1776?
Not to mention that nonviolent protest has played a huge role in bringing down the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union, and governments from the Philippines to Egypt in the last 30 years.
And besides the fact that violence works less often, what are the results? Sure, India and Vietnam both got free from their colonial oppressors, but India only lost 7,000 lives in the process, while Vietnam lost over a million. Sure, Poland and Afghanistan both got out from under the Soviet Union, but Poland stayed peaceful after just like they were peacefully opposing the Russians to get out, while Afghanistan's violent opposition only led to continued violence afterwards. The KKK, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, ISIS - all of the most evil groups emerged from violent periods, sometimes from the winners and sometimes from the losers, sometimes brought on by themselve and somtimes from the outside, but always in the aftermath of violence. Even when violent revolution works, 2/3 of the time the "winners" just become violent dictators themselves, because it's what they learned "works".
Hell, where did our own violent government come from in the first place?
The more violence, the less revolution - Waging Nonviolence
And what has changed recent in this country from violent protests?
You're talking about something that hasn't led to major change in 40+ years, when your solution hasn't worked in that same limited area in 200+ years.
Do you not see that whole list of things that HAVE changed in the last 30 years from nonviolent protests? Oh, no, we have to ignored South Africa and the Philippines and Poland and India and every other place where it works because it doesn't fit your narrative. Whereas your example of violence working out well is.....?
I'm waiting.
You're logic is stupid - you're saying to ignore a technique because it hasn't been used effectively in one small area in one small period of time, when the thing you're advocating has been failing for a much longer period of time.
I'm referring to modern times in THIS country, not elsewhere.And what has changed recent in this country from violent protests?
You're talking about something that hasn't led to major change in 40+ years, when your solution hasn't worked in that same limited area in 200+ years.
Do you not see that whole list of things that HAVE changed in the last 30 years from nonviolent protests? Oh, no, we have to ignored South Africa and the Philippines and Poland and India and every other place where it works because it doesn't fit your narrative. Whereas your example of violence working out well is.....?
I'm waiting.
You're logic is stupid - you're saying to ignore a technique because it hasn't been used effectively in one small area in one small period of time, when the thing you're advocating has been failing for a much longer period of time.
Ah, so you can't answer the question then.
Find every reason possible to disqualify every example I give, then completely fail to give a single example for your own plan.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
The point is that it is silly to promote and to adhere to axiomatic pacifism.
If it is a question of tactics, that's a very valid discussion to have, and there are legitimate questions to be raised about how and when violence is appropriate. But to start from the premise that "violence is wrong" and to draw a moral equivalence between oppressive violence and defensive/revolutionary violence is bullshyt.
If it is a question of tactics, that's a very valid discussion to have, and there are legitimate questions to be raised about how and when violence is appropriate. But to start from the premise that "violence is wrong" and to draw a moral equivalence between oppressive violence and defensive/revolutionary violence is bullshyt.
No one in this conversation has done anything like that.
In fact, the very opposite happened - he came in claiming "nonviolence never works here anymore, violence is the only way" as an axiom without the slightest evidence or reasoning behind why nonviolence supposedly "doesn't work" or why violence would be better.
My point is that peaceful protesting hasn't accomplished anything in this country in a long time. Things have been getting progressively worse in the last 10-15 years, there have been plenty of protests and nothing has changed as a result.
No one in this conversation has done anything like that.
In fact, the very opposite happened - he came in claiming "nonviolence never works here anymore, violence is the only way" as an axiom without the slightest evidence or reasoning behind why nonviolence supposedly "doesn't work" or why violence would be better.
Nothing is changing with the Dakota Pipeline. Barely anybody is covering it and the company is flat out ignoring government requests, while almost all politicians have ignored it.
Aaaaaannnnndddd......let's go full circle back to the original thing I said as my very first reply:
"Half-hearted, poorly planned protests, armed or unarmed, don't work in ANY era.
But there is a long history of committed, organized nonviolent protests working much better than violent protests for people out of power, both within this country and outside of it. Even in the last five years, nonviolent protests have brought down entire governments, but you think they can't stop a pipeline?
The most important thing in the success any protest is not whether it uses violence or not, but how many people it can get committed to the cause and how committed those people are. Using violence is a prime way to thin your ranks of committed members and embolden the opposition."
Don't go into this ignorant. Study the tactics of the Civil Rights Movement. Study the tactics of those who ended South Africa's apartheid. Study the tactics of the People Power Movement in the Philippines. Study the tactics of Solidarity in Poland. Study the tactics of Gandhi's "Quit India" movement in India. Find out what worked, and why it worked, and start planning.
If you understood why movements like those worked, then you would understand why piddling little feel-good protests don't have a chance, whether they're packing heat or not. If you stay ignorant to what has worked and what hasn't worked, and why, then you will fail too.
My guess is, you haven't studied nonviolent OR violent resistance in depth. Which violent actions are you going to model your violent protests after? What kind of strategy are you going to use? Who are your guides here? Why are they going to work when every other violent attempt to resist the American government has been failing?
Look, the most successful armed protests in recent memory....and they ended up losing a man without even getting a single shot fired off themselves.
Last edited:
Red Shield
Global Domination
And what has changed recent in this country from violent protests?
You're talking about something that hasn't led to major change in 40+ years, when your solution hasn't worked in that same limited area in 200+ years.
Do you not see that whole list of things that HAVE changed in the last 30 years from nonviolent protests? Oh, no, we have to ignored South Africa and the Philippines and Poland and India and every other place where it works because it doesn't fit your narrative. Whereas your example of violence working out well is.....?
I'm waiting.
You're logic is stupid - you're saying to ignore a technique because it hasn't been used effectively in one small area in one small period of time, when the thing you're advocating has been failing for a much longer period of time.
I dunno man.. in a bunch of those places there was always that looming implied threat of mass violence
Not sure which places you're referring to.
In the American Civil Rights Movement, the threats of mass violence were virtually always from the oppressor's side.
In the South African anti-Apartheid movement, they started out with violence, saw little success, then switched to almost pure non-violence. If there was a "looming implied threat of mass violence", then why hadn't it brought down apartheid in the previous 100 years?
In India, Gandhi would literally shut down his protests every time the slightest bit of violence occurred, and the leader of the (minor) violent movement against the British died and saw his movement fizzle out years before India gained independence.
In the People Power Movement in the Philippines, once again all the threats of violence were on the oppressing side.
In Solidarity in Poland, I'm not aware of any violent underpinnings - once again, it was the Soviets who were threatening the violence.
Of all the examples I gave, South Africa is the only one where I've seen any evidence of the government being the least bit shook by the potential for violent uprising, and even then it was the nonviolent tactics, not the decades-present threat of potential violence, that pushed the movement over the top.
Red Shield
Global Domination
Not talking about the usa civil rights movement. there were multiple reasons that worked.
Apartheid ending was a face/time saving measure
India would have exploded and the Brit's were in no shape after WW2 to deal with it violently. So why not "let em go" and keep em in orbit.
I don't know shyt about the PPP in the Philippines or Poland so I'll defer to you
But of course violent protesting won't work in the usa at this point, but neither will non-violence.
Nah, Britain was done for in India. The independence movement had already led to a large degree of autonomy being granted to Indians in 1935-1937 - by 1937, the Congress party that Gandhi led actually came to power in most of India. WW2 delayed independence because for 6 years a lot of the focus had to be on the potential Japanese invasion and the world wanting to stop Hitler.
Britain was in no position to deal with India violently because Gandhi had positioned them too well. Even America was urging Britain to give India independence. If Britain had come down on nonviolent Indian protesters with violence like they had in the Amritsar Massacre, the rest of the world would have seen them as no better than the Nazis.