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

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#121

Post by marklemay »

mystraline wrote: post #98
hackable_sand wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under scrutiny I'm sure your comment falls apart, but it is accurate from orbit. I happen to hold this philosophy under different words.

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".

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

Re: Nonviolence

#122

Post by zahlman »

Atlas667 wrote: post #118
zahlman wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how it's possible to read contemporary thinkers and come to those conclusions about their mindset.

What?

Englishmen who wrote about liberalism during the abolition of slavery made it very clear that it was explicitly about morality.

And industrialization enabled slavery in the US rather than killing it, thanks to the Jevons paradox; the cotton gin allowed for land previously seen as unsuitable for cotton production to be bought up by slaveowners, increasing the demand for slaves (https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent ; see section "Effects of the Cotton Gin").

I don't recognize your concept of "superexploitation" in the first place.

Re: Nonviolence

#123

Post by zahlman »

XorNot wrote: post #110
zahlman wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 no…

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

Poor Americans simply do not live in the Les Miserables world.

> 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.

What violence are you even referring to?

Re: Nonviolence

#124

Post by 1123581321 »

bnlxbnlx wrote: post #91
1123581321 wrote: post #20

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 nonviolen…

I've spent a lot of time with people who seem themselves operating within ML Kings lineage and have their lives committed to this kind of nonviolence work, and they defintely operate from within the an "agape mindset", even though they wouldn't frame it like that. in my understanding some people use 'non-violence' to describe the more utilitarian version, and 'noniovlence' for that which exits the entire 'domination…

Interesting; you observe a drawn distinction between the hyphenated and non-hyphenated spelling?

Re: Nonviolence

#125

Post by kcplate »

Rperry2174 wrote: post #81
Gagarin1917 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure that logically tracks. You (likely) act in a non-violent way every day. If you want some kind of change in your life, you achieve it non-violently. Does that imply you are are actually a violent person that is choosing not to be violent? Are you implying “something violent” every day you act like a good person? MLK didn’t have support because people were afraid of the alternative. They supported him beca…

Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were fo…

> Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say it’s not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to.

If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”. If the reason that your property was seized is because you chose to not pay your rent, then I am not sure understanding, sympathy, or joining in violence would be an appropriate response.

Re: Nonviolence

#126

Post by antisol »

kcplate wrote: post #125
Rperry2174 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were fo…

> Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say it’s not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”. If the reason that your property was seiz…

  If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”
Yeah, like maybe you didn't have $50,000 to appeal a bad decision made because a magistrate couldn't be bothered actually reading the evidence in front of them.

Re: Nonviolence

#127

Post by Jensson »

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.

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.

Re: Nonviolence

#128

Post by Gagarin1917 »

judahmeek wrote: post #120
Gagarin1917 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure that logically tracks. You (likely) act in a non-violent way every day. If you want some kind of change in your life, you achieve it non-violently. Does that imply you are are actually a violent person that is choosing not to be violent? Are you implying “something violent” every day you act like a good person? MLK didn’t have support because people were afraid of the alternative. They supported him beca…

> MLK didn’t have support because people were afraid of the alternative. They supported him because they agreed with him message. You sound like you've never heard of political triangulation before.

You sound like you think everyone in the world is a political science major… they’re not. They don’t think like this.

Re: Nonviolence

#129

Post by thrance »

kcplate wrote: post #125
Rperry2174 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were fo…

> Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say it’s not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”. If the reason that your property was seiz…

Fraudsters usually don't resort to violence once they get caught. In your contrived example, the guy would probably end up paying what he owed and that would be that. Violence mostly emerges from people who feel that they are treated unfairly, and can't use civil channels to solve their issues. Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly.

Re: Nonviolence

#130

Post by kcplate »

antisol wrote: post #126
kcplate wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say it’s not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”. If the reason that your property was seiz…

If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why” Yeah, like maybe you didn't have $50,000 to appeal a bad decision made because a magistrate couldn't be bothered actually reading the evidence in front of them.

If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal much easier than people sympathetic to the violence.
Post reply on HN