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

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#101

Post by mystraline »

peppersghost93 wrote: post #12
andy99 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Nonviolence

#102

Post by zahlman »

specproc wrote: post #37

I have an undergraduate degree in Peace Studies, and have spent extensive time in and around conflict or post-conflict zones. Violence, particularly civil war, is utterly destructive to a society, completely tears apart the social fabric and creates wounds that never really heal. That said, when you look at America, India, both movements required the threat of violence to succeed. MLK had the Black Panthers, and whil…

> both movements required the threat of violence to succeed.

How can you know that they wouldn't have succeeded otherwise, or even been successful faster?

Re: Nonviolence

#103

Post by zahlman »

Atlas667 wrote: post #73

There is a quote by Gandhi where he is talking about the Holocaust and he says: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs..." This is very idealist of him. And that, I find, is the fundamental problem of nonviolence. It depends on a notion of "good" existing, or that, at the very least, the people in power will care about the appearanc…

> Try stopping racism, that has economic roots (profits), by appealing to "goodness". It won't take you very far.

When the British outlawed slavery and made their moral arguments against it, it seems to me that that worked pretty well everywhere except the US. I mean, sure, they might have had to invoke military force against other Europeans, but the idea spread within Britain easily enough, and they didn't lack sympathetic ears elsewhere (e.g. in Canada; the Underground Railroad was possible for a reason).

Re: Nonviolence

#104

Post by andy99 »

mystraline wrote: post #101
peppersghost93 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Nonviolence

#105

Post by zahlman »

XorNot wrote: post #90
zahlman wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price. ... I genuinely can't fathom what it's like to live in a developed country and yet have such little social trust. You really imagine that when others are in line at a checkout, they have the intrusive thought "I could just bolt and not pay, but I see a security guard so I better stay in line"? You really have that thought y…

If you break the law, what happens to you? What does the state do to you? Like say you persistently just refuse to pay a parking ticket after court orders to do so?

I understand that. It is not relevant, and does not establish your original point.

Re: Nonviolence

#106

Post by zahlman »

bnlxbnlx wrote: post #87
zahlman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His strategy worked because it existed alongside MANY other voices, IMO the most underrated of which is Malcolm X, that rejected this "gradualism" outright and refused endless delay. I have read very many people claim this and exactly zero reasons provided by them why I should believe it is true. It seems to me like basic common nature that if you see proponents of a cause behaving in a manner you find objectionabl…

> I have read very many people claim this and exactly zero reasons provided by them why I should believe it is true. could you share some sources where people have discussed this? i'd like to understand their reasoning better

No, because I am referring to a general memory of a general history of political discussions on the Internet across a period of ~15 years. It's hopefully understandable that at the time I did not have the foresight that I would be posting this today.

Re: Nonviolence

#107

Post by foogazi »

specproc wrote: post #74
derektank wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing the BPP with some other organization. All of King’s substantive achievements were accomplished before the formation of the Black Panther’s and he died before they came to national prominence.

Heh, did I mention that peace degree was a loooooong time ago. Totally appreciate the correction. I remember reading an argument along those lines at the time that resonated. Perhaps not the Black Panthers? Or am I just totally wrong here and there wasn't a shred of political violence in the background?

You tell us - you started this thread

Do you still want to sustain your argument or retract ?

Otherwise your comment above still stands with false information + made worse by a flimsy appeal to authority (peace “degree”)

Re: Nonviolence

#108

Post by zahlman »

XorNot wrote: post #97
wrs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point -- I don't refuse to pay a parking ticket after the court orders me to do so. I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying. I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement wo…

> I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. What do you think happens to people who do that though? You keep telling me what you don't do and how it proves you're implicitly non violent but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach. I…

> but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach.

This is not an accurate representation of GP:

> I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying.... I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.

Re: Nonviolence

#109

Post by hackable_sand »

RickJWagner wrote: post #100
Rperry2174 wrote: post #28

This is a good articulation of mlkjr's theology and dicipline around nonviolence, but I think its incomplete if you read it in isolation. His strategy worked because it existed alongside MANY other voices, IMO the most underrated of which is Malcolm X, that rejected this "gradualism" outright and refused endless delay. They weren't organizing violence but they were instead making it credible that there is a world whe…

Today, history remembers MLK as a great man. There are parades in his honor, workers are given a day off. Rosa Parks is another peaceful pioneer credited with bringing strides forward. Malcolm X and others are already fading from memory.

You should get that checked out.

Re: Nonviolence

#110

Post by XorNot »

zahlman wrote: post #108
XorNot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. What do you think happens to people who do that though? You keep telling me what you don't do and how it proves you're implicitly non violent but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach. I…

> but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach. This is not an accurate representation of GP: > I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying.... I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.

The OP is presenting a stupidly simplistic model of the problem, as though their regular middle class life ably answers the question of the role or threat of violence when demanding political change.

In a world they note of police, military and security guards, they're acting like whether this might have a reason is determined solely by whether people are planning to steal from a supermarket or not...while they're not poverty stricken or hungry, to boot.

Arguing "I simply obey all the laws" is real easy to do from a position of privilege.

Violence is never the answer is easy to say when it's not happening to you. Its also easy to say while you stand by as violence is done to others.

Post reply on HN