Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nonviolence

kinginstitute.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#11

Post by nathan_compton »

bflesch wrote: post #6

[flagged]

I wouldn't use this as a metric. With social media almost any opinion whatever will surface some weirdo advocating violence even before you factor in trolls.

Not saying things are ideal in the US by any stretch of the imagination, but the mere presence of people making threats online is not itself deeply indicative of a population ready to get into it.

Re: Nonviolence

#12

Post by peppersghost93 »

andy99 wrote: post #4
mystraline wrote: post #2

"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.

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.

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.

Re: Nonviolence

#14

Post by dpc050505 »

nathan_compton wrote: post #9
kstenerud wrote: post #5

[flagged]

King was definitely not protesting in a rules based order, at least not one which applied to black people. Nor was Gandi.

He also died from a bullet to the head and 60 years later a statement as simple as 'black lives matter' was controversial.

Re: Nonviolence

#16

Post by 9x39 »

bflesch wrote: post #6

[flagged]

Or it's a distraction from the message. If your argument is strong, I can try to change the conversation to you by finding some artifact and magnifying it through some creative interpretations - imply negative associations to X, suggest your references aren't allowed because of Y, or try get the group to attack ad hominem until it chokes out everything else.

We've collectively gotten pretty good at this in the last decade.

Re: Nonviolence

#17

Post by ubertaco »

mystraline wrote: post #2

"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.

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...

Re: Nonviolence

#18

Post by lurk2 »

andy99 wrote: post #4
mystraline wrote: post #2

"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.

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.

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.

Re: Nonviolence

#20

Post by 1123581321 »

Agape could be discussed as a philosophy between disagreeing figures like King and Carmichael. Today, fewer people have encountered the idea so they can’t choose it as a philosophy.

Without agape, political activism is more zero-sum and utilitarian. Non-violence becomes a gambit that is only appealing as long as it is making obvious gains against the current winners, and there is little motivation to remain nonviolent after becoming winners.

Post reply on HN