“Choose peace rather than confrontation. Except in cases where we cannot get, where we cannot proceed, or we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence.”
—Nelson Mandela, Gaza (1999)
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
—John F. Kennedy, Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress (1962)
I also like:
“Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force.”
— Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
To add:
“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” -Assata Shakur
Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and was “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and, thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy. -Peter Gelderloos
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” -MLK
I just don’t believe that when people are being unjustly oppressed that they should let someone else set rules for them by which they can come out from under that oppression. -Malcolm X
deleted by creator
“So we’re going to take up violent action then, right?”
“Oh, God, no, we’re just going to sit here and sneer at those who are trying to change the system without violence, or without enough violence.”
The problem with violent action is that, to have a chance to succeed, you need a critical mass of support. Not like 50% or anything, but enough that you can’t be easily quelled. The only way you build that support is by suggesting violent resistance to people who scoff at you and accuse you of being unserious until the last straw finally breaks their back and you don’t sound so ridiculous anymore.
Oh, like, idk, say… 3% of the population or something?
Crazy how fast one can start sounding just like the people they oppose, isn’t it?
That being said, those sorts of people are well organized, international, willing to commit violence, dramatically outnumber any counter-groups, and have made serious and dramatic inroads into not just political discourse but into politics itself.
In terms of violent revolutionaries, there are a lot of them, they’re well armed, they’re fairly well-connected and organized, they’ve managed to recruit across all classes, especially the working classes, and they’re definitely not leftist.
Drawing a parallel between violent revolution of oppressed people and virulently racist bigots because they also use percentages to decribe a thing is asinine. Fuck.off.
Probably shouldn’t be doing the same thing that they’re doing then huh
You cannot call them evil then do the exact same thing but YOU are just because YOU think so. They’ll tell you that exact same thing.
In order to be doing the “same thing” I would have to be suggesting violence as a means to establish a white ethnostate, dipshit.
Something tells me they don’t actually see that as a negative, which is why it had to be pointed out.
No u
did u know republicans also drink water and breath air? makes u think doesnt it
Evil people also eat food, just like you do. Is that why they’re evil? Obviously not. The thing that makes them evil is their motives.
Fighting someone to help people and fighting someone to oppress someone are both fighting, but one is for good and one is for evil.
you’re fucking clueless. this isn’t about moral high grounds. this is about solutions that prevent untold amounts of suffering because the idiotic half of the population was allowed to operate unchecked.
Seems like you’re the clueless one if you think I don’t know that, but also violence is bad and wrong and you’re bad and wrong for supporting it. You’re just as bad as the rest.
😭
Violence is a top-tier solution for lower ranked cognition, where the notion of “hit thing” is a quality solution toward the final stages of attempted problem-solving. Fortunately, people in this situation tend to share the side effect of apathy, so managing to pull together enough “hit thing” people into an organised cohort rarely occurs, or fizzles shortly after take off.
Wrong.
Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
When all else fails violence is the final answer.
What do you do when someone is violently trying to knock down your door?
You call the police and they come and they ask the person to leave nicely.
He refuses and gets more aggressive, either they restraint him and drag him away or use some other method that involves violence.
I challenge you to show a real world example of ending oppression that was achieved by asking nicely when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
See that last stipulation is problematic. You are saying give an example but you are filtering out every possible example which would be when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table. Now granted im not saying you are wrong but in evaluating and thinking of an answer the problem of the logic with the when statement immediately pops up. Non violent protest leads to negotiation. bzzz. can’t use it. As I said in another post violence will happen. One side can be nonviolent but I can’t think of a case where they were nonviolent and violence was not done to them.
It’s not problematic it’s just devastating to your central thesis.
What do you do when someone is violently trying to knock down your door?
Well for starters, why have I put myself.in a situation where.this.is happening?But, secondly, I think this was a bad example you pulled anyway, as it was about defence toward immediate violence, rather than instigating it on social issues. In this case the aggressor in your example is the idiot instigating,.i.e. the very behaviour you’re attempting to excuse. And it that’s your stance, well; case in point.
I challenge you to show a real world example of ending oppression that was achieved by asking nicely when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
Asking nicely? It happens. But methods without violence? In most cases, the solution to stopping such threats is to cease empowering them, and we have many methods of how this is done in the real.world, daily. Violence creates reactive violence, creates a victim opportunity,.and instills animosity. Its solutions are temporary as nothing resolved the core issue, but it did inteoduce new ones.
So, what are you doing to cease empowerimg your “oppressors”—apart from buying into their systems, wearing their actions, and remaining seated in a place you think sucks? Mm-mm. There that apathy.
All As are Bs but not all Bs are As. Learned that in what, 1st grade? Kindergarten?
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
OTOH, here we are.
When “lower ranked cognition” people have established themselves as the rulers, you have to communicate in the only language they understand. They will not give up the power they’re abusing otherwise.
I haven’t seen a Flight of the Conchords reference in 13 years.
I know! This meme format has serious potential
Get your hand off my tail, you’ll make it dirty
Any time violence is used, one fantasizes they are on the winning side
When violence is witnessed, one fantasizes that it is always unjustified.
Not me. I’m fully willing to lose as long as I make some impact.
Launch my dead body through a billionaire’s front window. Thanks.
Trebuchet or cannon?
I think you know which of those two is superior.
The cannon.
so, you have chosen violence
The point isn’t about you and your body, it’s the belief that violence will bring about YOUR ideal change
i’m not willing to lose and i do not fight alongside people that are. you have to think, eat, sleep, and breather victory as if there is no alternative.
Its hard to act assuming one will fail so I cannot blame them.
Still survivor fantasy, and therefore not worth respect
any time there is a winner, there is a reason for it.
Huh? Does that imply a good reason?
Further, that’s not the point at all. The point is those CALLING/WISHING for violence are dreaming that their group will win, that their ideas will be forwarded.
yes, and it’s important that proper planning and strategy is implemented to actually win.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Reported
Removed by mod
Liberals: The Christo-fascists are violently taking over!
Also liberals: Give up your guns!
This liberal: Uh, no? I’ll keep my arms thank you very much.
“Liberals” aren’t saying “give up your guns.” The democratic presidential nominee and vice president are literally both gun owners, and the presidential nominee said she’d shoot a home intruder to death less than a week ago. They’re saying something more like “restrict future purchases of particularly dangerous guns and get reasonable rules, regulations, and licensing in place for them like we do for cars.”
But I understand that doesn’t make for a good dramatic post.
Exactly right. Honestly at this point I think the Dems should just drop gun control entirely as an issue.
Let me preface this next section with the fact that I’ve been largely supportive of common sense gun control laws and think they would be a net positive. But give me a minute because this is a slightly more nuance point (the danger of bringing nuance to gun issues in America is apparent to me)
Why? Let’s say they were successful and made it harder to purchase guns that we categorize as especially dangerous.
- This country is already awash in guns. Unlike other nations that have disarmed, there is no appetite for any kind of gun but back or gun seizure program, those dangerous guns will get into the hands of people that want to do dangerous things with them.
- The less dangerous guns are still quite dangerous. Humans are creative, bump stocks, self modification of less dangerous guns, having a couple loaded guns, all ways to make less dangerous guns equally dangerous.
- There are enough pro gun Americans and money in the gun industry that every change will have loopholes you could drive a semi truck through
So the cost benefit just makes no sense. As a political issue the cost is enormous and the realistic potential benefit is basically nothing. I wish we had a population that cared more about this, but from a pragmatic point of view we simply don’t.
I think it was sandy hook that really cemented this for me. If a grade school full of children gets shot up and the reaction from a significant portion of the population is apathy or to double down on gun rights, that’s not an issue you are winning.
Look, if school children need to die so I can larp in my Meal-Team 6 outfit with my Gravy Seals friends, that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to force them to make!
Yea it’s a shame that so many of our fellow countrymen say this seriously.
Didn’t even notice this before I just said the same thing. Yours is better.
And my legs too
And, you know, most of my body, if at all possible please!
I am less worried that a liberal is armed than I am at which direction the weapon is pointed.
I don’t know any liberals asking for anyone to give up their guns, but saying so sure makes you appear heroic!
Why you lyin
No… by wisdom and strategy.
Let’s hear your strategy
Certainly! First I’ll effort for years towards a cohesive (yet under-developed) strategy, then I’ll reveal it to internet strangers on a whim for them to murder (like a helpless infant in a crib) that their ego might be stoked and their blackpill bias further confirmed, then I’ll cry and give up trying altogether in frustration eventually coming to believe that there is no solution, only to later have my adversaries discover my half-baked plan/words later (being posted on the internet) giving them a chance to develop counter-measures, only to eventually succumb to their doxxing/neutralizing efforts.
That’s a lot of words for saying you haven’t ever studied historical examples of fight against oppression. I take it for granted you despise the American revolution, all revolutions for independence in Latin America and post-colonial countries, and the struggle of native americans against European colonizers?
Oof, you’re right… I wasn’t expecting an ad-hominem attack! With my plan defeated, I Now I will go cry in the corner… it’s all going according to plan!
You don’t know what ad-hominem is. I’ve criticised your lack of knowledge of revolution processes, not called you a dummie.
Yep, maybe I should just give up trying… if I can’t distinguish “an internet stranger telling me what I despise” or “lumping me into a straw-man group” from an ad-hominem attack, then it would turn out just like that last historic revolution you mentioned which employed state-actors controlling and subverting the populace with AI-powered internet robots.
You’re still not answering my claim about historical revolutions. Care to address that part?
You know, Magnus Carlsen writes entire textbooks on chess strategy and still manages to win virtually every game he plays.
So you got nothing
Here’s a hint:
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
– Buckminster Fuller
Yeah, magic.
by wisdom
The wise man once said, “Ow! My nose! Owie ow ow ow! He hit me right in the face!”
and strategy
Ever try to win a chess game without taking a single piece off the board?
Lot of delusional people out there on both sides who think that an armed uprising is actually viable and would lead to better outcomes.
As if we wouldn’t have to share the country with the other half of people who don’t want you to uprise shit and will hate you even more if you try.
No, you don’t want an uprising. You don’t even want to get off the couch, so lets stop lying to ourselves. You want better management of the system so you don’t feel so hopeless and tired that you rather just melt into the couch every day.
We got here because they made you unwilling to get involved in your community and your local politics. If everyone cared more for changing their local communities, then we would have a much better federal system with our rights being upheld. You don’t kick money out of politics on a federal level, you do it town by town, county by county, state by state. But most people are so lazy that they think they can sit inside as everyone does an armed revolt outside and then the world will be better.
Nah dog, you gotta get out and make changes with the tools we have. Stop believing in magic.
ig put me on your terrorist recruitment signup or whatever
i agree that wisdom and strategy have their place in violent movements. any violent movement without those two key ingredients is doomed to fail.
Its true violence is going to happen which is why non violence requires being ready for it to fall on you. If the majority of folks do not follow the system it will fall apart but in falling apart many of those who do not follow it will suffer and die but also those that do.
Sometimes you get what comes around.
Sometimes you are what comes around.
also that guy: “burning down an empty police station is violence btw”
Good looking girls on the street!!!
Depending on the street.
seeing how anti guns some people are,i wonder how that’s gonna happen.
pacifists are in for some hard truths and i feel like it’s coming soon.
Pacifism and militarism are both necessary in a governing organization. You need collaborative and compromise-ready bureaucrats as much as you need iron-spinned cold-blooded killers. War is, after all, always just a prelude to diplomacy.
What matters more than being pacifist or militant is that you’re standing side-by-side in pursuit of some greater goal. The militants must be ready and willing to lay down their arms. The pacifists must be willing to negotiate on behalf of their more aggressive peers. The dispute over when, where, and how to act cannot be put above the goal they are all working towards.
good statement
Bret, you got it going on.
It’s kinda sad that we’d die side by side on the battle feild but voting side by side in the voting booth is a bridge too far.
both are effective. it doesn’t have to be an either/or discussion.
for example, you can neutralize your opponent in the polls when there are less of their supporters to show to up to vote.
It’s just a stark difference in how the would be freedom fighters want to ally with the rest of us. They want us to shed our blood but when we ask them to show up to the polls they say their principles prohibit it.
agreed. we need pragmatic problem solvers, not angsty revolutionaries. this is a problem solving mission, not your edgelord graphic novel.
voting side by side in the voting booth is a bridge too far
Electoralism - on lemmy.world, at least - is only a valid strategy if you vote straight ticket Democrat. Vote Republican, you’re anti-democratic. Vote Third Party, you’re anti-democratic. Stay home, you’re anti-democratic. Spoil your ballot, you’re anti-democratic.
What good is electoralism in a system with only one “correct” answer? That’s not an election, its an exam.
What good is the election booth as a tool for making collective choice if any deviation from a single partisan sect makes you an Enemy of the People?
What good is a revolution where the cost is human life with no guarantee of victory?
No one is arguing the voting booth is the perfect. My only argument is, if you is you want to win, you have to win on all fronts. You have to have a strategy, not just a dream. Even if the US were to escalate to violent revolution, who is it you want at the helm of the US military when the fighting breaks out?
No, it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote. It is delusional of me to discuss with you if you think a revolution comes down to the villagers simply picking up pitchforks.
What good is a revolution where the cost is human life with no guarantee of victory?
What good is pacifity where the cost is human life with no guarantee of a better life?
My only argument is, if you is you want to win, you have win on all fronts.
Sure. That doesn’t preclude a certain degree of self-defense. A union that can be busted up by mob violence or a peace march that’s mowed down by the police isn’t worth much, except as a reminder of how fragile human life is.
it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote
A vote is valuable in an institution that respects its value. Elections with only one candidate don’t mean anything.
it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote
deleted by creator
Notice how “shitposting agitprop” was not listed as a secondary choice aside from “violence”? (because it only helps you feel better about ignoring the problems in society.)
Good luck gaslighting yourself into thinking you’re helping, Ozma.
