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

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#41

Post by alansaber »

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…

Exactly, the potency comes from the fact that violence is the standard reaction

Re: Nonviolence

#42

Post by pixl97 »

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…

If you give people one option it is a demand, and they may rightfully reject it.

Now, give people two options with one of them seeming much better it becomes a choice.

Violence is 100% an answer, it's just very rarely the best answer that can be provided.

Re: Nonviolence

#43

Post by pixl97 »

InitialLastName wrote: post #35
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 li…

Yea, causation here depends on a whole lot.

If you're movement is going to 100% cause a reaction of violence with the opposition regardless if you're violent or not, then there is zero reason for your movement not to use violence themselves. Simply put, you'd be rounded up and exterminated simply for existing.

Re: Nonviolence

#44

Post by throw0101d »

InitialLastName wrote: post #35
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 li…

> Admittedly having not read the 400-page study […]

It is not a 400-page study: it is a 400-page book that goes over the research available at the time and summarizes it. The book leans slightly academic, but it's a fairly easy read.

A movement's success is (partly?) determined by its size and how much of the general population gets on board with the original (presumably) small group that started it.

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

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.

[Edited GP post to add some of this comment.]

Re: Nonviolence

#45

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dpc050505 wrote: post #29
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It was a bad faith argument to shut down discourse about summary executions of black men in the streets of the USA. It's been about 10 days since they executed a white soccer mom who had not committed any crime, the people who were harping on about 'All lives matter' are still no where to be found. The whole time it was empty rhetoric, people who care about human life understand that sometimes there's a group in part…

[flagged]

Re: Nonviolence

#46

Post by kaibee »

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025%E2%80%932026_Iranian_prot...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Re: Nonviolence

#47

Post by lovich »

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]

Only legitimate crazy people here would have a problem with the sentence “All lives matter.” People have a problem with the slogan “All Lives Matter”, which was made in reaction to “Black Lives Matter”.

I don’t know if you are ESL if you aren’t American but the capitalization I used matters and it’s difficult to explain the context of hearing a sentence vs a slogan. That’s also before you get into people specifically trying to conflate them so they can do a sort of motte and bailey type argument by claiming they weren’t saying “All Lives Matter” just that “All lives matter, so they can uno reverse you as the bigot

Re: Nonviolence

#48

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

CamJN wrote: post #32
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

[flagged]

Re: Nonviolence

#49

Post by pixl97 »

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…

>reates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties

Only if you have good advertising for your cause.

Violence is typically good advertising, most news is simply salivating to cover it.

Which means in any non-violent group seeking a goal, it is optimal to have a small violent 'unassociated' group cause just enough problems to get noticed in the global media.

Re: Nonviolence

#50

Post by throw0101d »

pixl97 wrote: post #43
InitialLastName wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 li…

Yea, causation here depends on a whole lot. If you're movement is going to 100% cause a reaction of violence with the opposition regardless if you're violent or not, then there is zero reason for your movement not to use violence themselves. Simply put, you'd be rounded up and exterminated simply for existing.

> If you're movement is going to 100% cause a reaction of violence with the opposition regardless if you're violent or not, then there is zero reason for your movement not to use violence themselves. Simply put, you'd be rounded up and exterminated simply for existing.

The book covers such scenarios: where you are non-violent but the Powers That Be are violent towards your movement.

Post reply on HN