[mystraline]

"Nonviolence" only works when a group is doing that, AND there is also a contingent of violent folks with the same aims.

Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists.

We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works.

[alphazard]

> Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists.

This is definitely true to some extent, especially when non-violence has been used in the more distant past.

But in recent history, the non-violent approach creates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties, who find violence against non-combatants to be unpalatable. You can turn the world against an enemy by putting the enemy's asymmetric use of force on display. This doesn't work in a lower empathy society.

[pixl97]

>reates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties

Only if you have good advertising for your cause.

Violence is typically good advertising, most news is simply salivating to cover it.

Which means in any non-violent group seeking a goal, it is optimal to have a small violent 'unassociated' group cause just enough problems to get noticed in the global media.

[direwolf20]

Does sympathy effect change or does it merely effect emotions?

[ubertaco]

Somewhat relevant Cautionary Tales episode, wherein a slight variation on your same point is made from history and survey data: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/a-deadly-da...

[andy99]

Is anyone aware of a more thorough argument for why this must be the case? Is it a commonly held view? It sounds realistic, but not necessarily and immutable law, I’d like to know what thought has been given to this.

[lurk2]

It’s an incentive problem. If even one party defects in a society of pacifists, the pacifists have no real method of recourse besides refusing to interact with the defector, and how many people are going to do that if the defector starts killing people to enforce compliance?

Some subscribe to a soft pacifism where non-destructive violent resistance like disarming the defector or disabling the defector using less-lethal technologies like a tazer would be fine. Pure pacifists who don’t believe in any kind of physical resistance whatsoever are almost exclusively religious practitioners who don’t ascribe a high degree of value to life in this world because they believe non-resistance will bear spiritual fruit in the next world.

[hackable_sand]

Under scrutiny I'm sure your comment falls apart, but it is accurate from orbit.

I happen to hold this philosophy under different words.

[mystraline]

Its also appropriate to remember that MLK was friends with Malcolm X, and both chose their own means to support the same end goal.

MLK chose nonviolent shows of force, whereas Malcolm X chose more direct forms of violence.

Governments could save face by negotiating with MLK, as he used nonviolent means. They couldn't negotiate with Malcolm X because thats the whole "we cannot negotiate with criminals and terrorists".

[marklemay]

In Malcolms auto biography they it was explicit that they were not friends.

[peppersghost93]

It's because people in positions of power can safely ignore nonviolence. They can't ignore the other option. Nonviolence on it's own is not productive.

[mystraline]

Thats what disturbs me about yesteryears's protest marches, like MLK's March on Washington, compared to 50501 and No Kings.

MLK wanted a non-violent showing of force as to stay "legal", but a strong implicit threat of "well, you know, theres a LOT of us. We're peaceful for now". The bus boycotts almost bankrupted down in Atlanta, so money attacks also work.

But now, we have No Kings and 50501. The whole idea of mass protest as a 'nonviolent but imminent threat' is completely gone. Protests were a prelude to something to be done. Now, its more of a political action rally, with not much of anything to follow up the initial energy.

Which is also why the protests; pussy hat rebellion, 50501, No Kings - they've all failed. Theres no goals. Its just chanting and some signs.

[andy99]

Imo this is what happened once protests became a “right”. I know most people here won’t agree with the Canada trucker protest, but I remember when it happened, people were saying “ok, you’ve had your protest and exercised your rights, you’ve been heard, you can go home now” - framing it just like that, as a rally to show an opinion rather than a threat. It felt to me like “the establishment” just treats them as peformative, because as you say they usually are, and then doesn’t know what to do when it’s actually something they have to react to.

[HNisCIS]

A commonly cited example is during the Battle of Seattle the cops wanted to beat the shit out of a nonviolent sit in and the black bloc protected them through a combination of strength and diversion. The non violent people are there for the optics and the violent people are there assuring that any move made on the nonviolent protesters will be rewarded swiftly.

The important part is that the violence mostly doesn't start until someone tries to hurt those who are there peacefully. Good was there peacefully so retaliation is becoming a possibility.

[shimman]

Yeah, the thorough argument is that people in power don't want people to rise up and challenge their authority.

It's absolutely not realistic. Every right we have was fought for and people died trying to get it. This is especially true in America where a fifth of the population was enslaved at inception. Nothing has never been given to us it had to be taken from abusers of power and there have always been abusers of power in this country.

I mean Trump is no different than Washington. Washington routinely ignored laws, he tried to have his lackeys go get his "property" from free states while never willing to go to court (a provision of the fugitive slave act).

John Adam's called Shays's Resistance terrorists because they had the audacity to close down courts to stop foreclosures of farms (fun fact, that was the first time since the revolution where Americans fired artillery at other Americans (and it was a paid mercenary army by Boston merchants killing over credit)).

You can go down the list, it's always been there but luckily there were always people fighting against it trying to better society against those that simply dragged us down.

[EA-3167]

Sorry, are you suggesting that violence doesn't also require coordination of a group? I think the record of lone gunmen solving institutional problems remains kind of scarce.

Whether you want to be a guerilla group, terrorists, or take a peaceful approach the first step is always going to involvefinding confederates.

[XorNot]

The lone gunmen mythology has basically been key to getting America en masse to surrender it's rights.

So many complaints about government have the form "I'll hit my breaking point and then I'll shoot a bunch of people".

No plan to join a militia, no plan to engage in coordinated action before that. Just a plan to commit a mass shooting and then be gunned down as another statistic. And probably kill a bunch of people who have nothing to do with whatever the problem is.

[lurk2]

“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

[kgwxd]

> but we're not permitted to say that out loud.

You just said it out loud. Are you one of "them"?

[direwolf20]

He said it, but he's not permitted to say it. The comment will be dead soon.

[throw0101d]

> We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works.

[citation needed]

There are multiple studies and books that go over how the less a movement uses violence the more likely it is to be successful:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...

* https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-978...

The above book has a chapter about how if a movement is non-violent, but a contingent/faction wants to use it, various ways to handle it.

[Jensson]

Women got their rights without a large group of violent female terrorists threatening violence, so you are wrong. Feminism has been the most successful liberating movement in history and it happened basically without any bloodshed.