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

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#151

Post by direwolf20 »

atoav wrote: post #64
throw0101d wrote: post #31

In a survey of ~600 movements since 1900, it was found that those that tended to use violence more succeeded about 25% in achieving their goals, while those that used less violence succeeded over 40%: * https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-978... * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc... You also almost double your odds of success by not using violence. Further, less violen…

Many people, especially in the US today, dont understand that non-violence doesn't mean passivity or even a willingness to compromise. It just means you do anything you can without actually punching and killing people. And it turns out killing and punching people is sometimes the worst option of to play the long game. This is why nation states often twist themselves in bretzels to manufacture consent so they can go e…

Today, smashing soup against a painting, or spraying paint on trucks entering and leaving an oil facility, is considered violent domestic terrorism.

Re: Nonviolence

#152

Post by direwolf20 »

alphazard wrote: post #3
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.

> 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…

Does sympathy effect change or does it merely effect emotions?

Re: Nonviolence

#153

Post by direwolf20 »

kgwxd wrote: post #99
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.

> but we're not permitted to say that out loud. You just said it out loud. Are you one of "them"?

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

Re: Nonviolence

#154

Post by direwolf20 »

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…

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

Rationalization, not cause and effect.

Re: Nonviolence

#155

Post by kcplate »

antisol wrote: post #146
kcplate wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if that day comes I still won’t resort to violence…or even consider it. Good luck.

When exactly did I say that I would resort to violence, or considered violence, or advocate for it, or suggest it?

You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.

Re: Nonviolence

#156

Post by antisol »

kcplate wrote: post #155
antisol wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When exactly did I say that I would resort to violence, or considered violence, or advocate for it, or suggest it?

You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.

Well I mean that's nice for you but I'm not sure how it responds to the question asked - when did I say anything about violence being justified? I merely responded to your ignorant and empirically incorrect fantasy-world assumption that the legal system is always right.

Re: Nonviolence

#157

Post by kcplate »

antisol wrote: post #156
kcplate wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.

Well I mean that's nice for you but I'm not sure how it responds to the question asked - when did I say anything about violence being justified? I merely responded to your ignorant and empirically incorrect fantasy-world assumption that the legal system is always right.

At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate response. Frankly, some people are guilty and some people are legally responsible.

I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that. I stand by that. You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.

Re: Nonviolence

#158

Post by antisol »

kcplate wrote: post #157
antisol wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I mean that's nice for you but I'm not sure how it responds to the question asked - when did I say anything about violence being justified? I merely responded to your ignorant and empirically incorrect fantasy-world assumption that the legal system is always right.

At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate response. Frankly, some people are guilty and some people are legally responsible. I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency,…

  > At no point did I say the legal system is always right
First you made the incorrect assumption that we live in a disney-style fantasy world with "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'."

Then you made the totally unwarranted assumption that "If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal"

  > I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that
No, you made an assumption based on zero information and chose to incorrectly insinuate that the case is not just.

  > You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.
But "evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds" doesn't actually have anything to do with the case being just, does it? There's a million possible explanations why someone might choose not to donate their time for free. Like for example "I'm aware of just how corrupt this system is based on my previous experiences and so I choose not to waste my time and energy on this".

Re: Nonviolence

#159

Post by kcplate »

antisol wrote: post #158
kcplate wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate response. Frankly, some people are guilty and some people are legally responsible. I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency,…

> At no point did I say the legal system is always right First you made the incorrect assumption that we live in a disney-style fantasy world with "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'." Then you made the totally unwarranted assumption that "If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or conting…

It’s remarkable how much you have personalized what started as a conceptual conversation.

Good luck resolving whatever it is you are dealing with either legally or by finding a way to cope with the outcome, just or not.

Re: Nonviolence

#160

Post by antisol »

kcplate wrote: post #159
antisol wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At no point did I say the legal system is always right First you made the incorrect assumption that we live in a disney-style fantasy world with "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'." Then you made the totally unwarranted assumption that "If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or conting…

It’s remarkable how much you have personalized what started as a conceptual conversation. Good luck resolving whatever it is you are dealing with either legally or by finding a way to cope with the outcome, just or not.

And it's almost impressive, in a sad way, how indifferent you are to everyone else on the planet, and how prima-facie ridiculous your fantasy world assumptions are when given more than two seconds thought. But I'm not here for that sort of "discussion".

Unfortunately however since you have no response to any of the points I actually made, I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.

Post reply on HN