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

31–40 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#31

Post by throw0101d »

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 violent movements are more likely to end up more democratic / less authoritarian.

The/A thesis of the author is that people are turned off by the use of violence/force and are less likely to agree with, and/or get involved in, movements that use violence. So if a movement wants to grow the 'coalition' of people that will help and/or join them, that growth is best achieved by eschewing violence as much as possible.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule

The book is 'minorly academic', but it's an easy read and probably more geared toward the general public.

(The studies/book recognize that "violence" exists on a spectrum. The book also talks about generally non-violent movement(s) that have factions that attach to them that want to use violence, and various other scenarios.)

Re: Nonviolence

#32

Post by CamJN »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #26
dpc050505 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

Because it was created as a reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement and was designed to imply that the existing status quo, where the USA acts like black lives don’t matter, isn’t a real problem.

Re: Nonviolence

#33

Post by atoav »

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…

Essentially "good-cop-bad-cop" on a political level?

Re: Nonviolence

#34

Post by throw0101d »

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.

> We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works.

[citation needed]

There are multiple studies and books that go over how the less a movement uses violence the more likely it is to be successful:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...

* https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-978...

The above book has a chapter about how if a movement is non-violent, but a contingent/faction wants to use it, various ways to handle it.

Re: Nonviolence

#35

Post by InitialLastName »

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…

> You also almost double your odds of success by not using violence.

Admittedly having not read the 400-page study, I don't think that's a causation that is necessarily supported by the correlation. It would be extremely surprising if the prior of "how likely is this movement to succeed" were not a determining factor in whether a movement tends to use violence, with the a priori less-promising movements being more likely to take violent action.

C.F. the difference between me demanding you give me an apple or your car.

Re: Nonviolence

#36

Post by mikepurvis »

nathan_compton wrote: post #11
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.

Facebook's utter failure to moderate itself (as documented many places but especially Careless People) is bigger than just a few weirdos advocating violence. The much more important piece is the fake news that says over and over again "group X did Y", "group X did Y", "group X, they're out there doing Y again". It's the echo chamber that magnifies and amplifies and reinforces untrue and half-true narratives, chasing engagement and fury and ad impressions with zero sense of civic responsibility.

It may be that no individual report is damaging enough to be censor-worthy, but the total effect is massively radicalizing, so that a huge group of people are primed to eventually interpret even true news stories in the maximally negative light and may even see their own eventual jump to violence as being justifiable self-defense given what they believe has preceded it.

Re: Nonviolence

#37

Post by specproc »

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 whilst Ghandi himself preached non-violence he did so against a background of riots in which thousands of British officers were killed and wounded.

The social reforms Western Europe and America saw in the post-war period were an capitulation to the implicit thread of violent communist revolution.

Non-violence is effective as an alternative to violence.

Re: Nonviolence

#39

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Nonviolence

#40

Post by nathan_compton »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #26
dpc050505 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

"All Lives Matter" redirects attention away from the specific thing "Black Lives Matter" was meant to draw attention to, which is that, if you are black specifically your chance of getting killed in an interaction with police is higher. There are other racial issues surfaced by black lives matter, as a slogan, eg, having to do with health care, real estate, etc.

No one things that all lives don't matter, but the statement "black lives matter" is used to highlight specific social problems in the US. It would be like if you cut your finger and asked for a bandaid for your finger, and someone kept saying, "But ALL your fingers are important."

Post reply on HN