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

131–140 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#131

Post by GeorgeOldfield »

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…

yup. watch "the interview" with MLK he clearly explains what he thinks about violent insurrection.

the article is whitewashing

Re: Nonviolence

#132

Post by refulgentis »

nathan_compton wrote: post #119
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you are black specifically your chance of getting killed in an interaction with police is higher. Again, not an expert. But, are we talking per police interaction, or per capita, or of all police homicides? Pretty sure when I saw, far more unarmed white people were killed than unarmed black people per year, which per capita makes sense, right? But, isn’t total police interactions more inportant?

Its very hard to get a sense for this. There are a few papers which indicate that on a per interaction basis, black and latino people are a few percent more likely to end up dead than white people, but that, again, doesn't necessarily mean that police are more disposed to escalate with these two groups. "Criminality" might be higher among some groups than others, and so the context of interactions with police might b…

If he posts back, don’t bother, he spent 2 thrilling days pretending the Grok image scandal was a couple dudes putting people in bikinis for a couple days. Swear to god. Then went full aggro political even when it was obvious I wasn’t blaming X.

Re: Nonviolence

#133

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Nonviolence

#134

Post by Atlas667 »

zahlman wrote: post #122
Atlas667 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/less…

I wasn't using super exploitation as a specific term, just as intense exploitation.

Slavery was not profitable in the industrial north, just the agrarian south. In the North they used cheap free-labor from Irish and German proles.

If the morality argument holds why did systematic racism not end with abolition?

The fact is that wage labor is cheaper than slave labor. Slavery was no longer required in the Americas, it was a "way of life" for the south, but unnecessary for the country economically. Especially after a global system of trade had established itself, AKA imperialism, and had placed the US into competition with India with cotton and the rest of the Americas with sugar.

My reasoning is that abolitionism only became a widely accepted moral stance BECAUSE it was no longer "necessary" for the Americas' capitalists, but the weapon of racism didn't go anywhere.

Re: Nonviolence

#135

Post by kcplate »

thrance wrote: post #129
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…

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.

> Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly.

Who gets to measure that though? I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.

Re: Nonviolence

#136

Post by antisol »

kcplate wrote: post #130
antisol wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ok, I happen to be looking for exactly that right now. Why don't you find me one.

Re: Nonviolence

#137

Post by thrance »

kcplate wrote: post #135
thrance wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly. Who gets to measure that though? I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.

> I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.

I think it does, actually. The more unequal the country, the more violent it is. Which is why the best way to get rid of crime is not to give unlimited funding to the police (that has been shown to be very ineffective, and ruinous), it's to make sure no one needs to commit it. That will never get rid of all crimes, of course.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-star...

Re: Nonviolence

#138

Post by judahmeek »

Gagarin1917 wrote: post #128
judahmeek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm pretty sure Dr. King & Malcolm X did.

Re: Nonviolence

#139

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

refulgentis wrote: post #132
nathan_compton wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its very hard to get a sense for this. There are a few papers which indicate that on a per interaction basis, black and latino people are a few percent more likely to end up dead than white people, but that, again, doesn't necessarily mean that police are more disposed to escalate with these two groups. "Criminality" might be higher among some groups than others, and so the context of interactions with police might b…

If he posts back, don’t bother, he spent 2 thrilling days pretending the Grok image scandal was a couple dudes putting people in bikinis for a couple days. Swear to god. Then went full aggro political even when it was obvious I wasn’t blaming X.

I like that you searched my post history because you couldn’t defend saying grok is in its “post-pedo” era. Hilarious.

You can admit anytime you were talking out your ass, have no sources, and are mad that someone called you out on irrational Muks-hate.

Re: Nonviolence

#140

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

lovich wrote: post #52
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The linked tweet > BREAKING: The ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition. That’s just CBS reporting hearsay from non first party sources in an admin that’s been caught directly lying about the events cutting local authorities out of the investigation.…

Ah… so the media is all “hearsay” say when you don’t like what it says?

She hit an agent with her car. She accelerated with him in front of the car BEFORE he drew his gun. Her wife yelled DRIVE BABY, DRIVE DRIVE, then complained why the cops had to use “real bullets”. I see no scenario other than these were two people playing a game and not know that reality wasn’t playing along.

Post reply on HN