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

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#81

Post by Rperry2174 »

Gagarin1917 wrote: post #69
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…

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 for those fighting for civil rights.

You may still personally choose non-violence in this case, but I'd bet you would understand/sympathize/maybe-even-join those who decided to break into their apartments by force and grab the things that are rightfully theirs.

nobody is secretly violent ... just normal peaceful channels stoped working.

Recognizing that distinction isn't justifying violence its just explaining why nonviolence provides leverage in the first place

Re: Nonviolence

#82

Post by zahlman »

XorNot wrote: post #76
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…

Everyday you're not trying to achieve political change. And a lot of those interactions are backed by implied violence: people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

... I genuinely can't fathom what it's like to live in a developed country and yet have such little social trust.

You really imagine that when others are in line at a checkout, they have the intrusive thought "I could just bolt and not pay, but I see a security guard so I better stay in line"? You really have that thought yourself?

Of course people have agreed on the price. That's why you don't see anyone trying to negotiate the price, even though they would be perfectly within their rights to try. And it's why you do see people comparison-shop.

Re: Nonviolence

#83

Post by zahlman »

timschmidt wrote: post #63
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…

"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have suffi…

My former experience has been that this quote is justification for one's political ingroup to be violent, but evidence that one's political outgroup (when they cite it) is morally unconscionable.

Re: Nonviolence

#84

Post by zahlman »

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…

> 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.

It's strange to me that this isn't obviously true to everyone.

Re: Nonviolence

#85

Post by [deleted] »

hackable_sand wrote: post #79
lurk2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an incentive problem. If even one party defects in a society of pacifists, the pacifists have no real method of recourse besides refusing to interact with the defector, and how many people are going to do that if the defector starts killing people to enforce compliance? Some subscribe to a soft pacifism where non-destructive violent resistance like disarming the defector or disabling the defector using less-leth…

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

[deleted]

Re: Nonviolence

#86

Post by 9JollyOtter »

XorNot wrote: post #76
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…

Everyday you're not trying to achieve political change. And a lot of those interactions are backed by implied violence: people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

Yes it is. If a normal commodity item such as bottle of milk was outrageous overpriced in a particular store. I would just go to another store.

As for whether I would pay for something without the threat of violence. I do so everyday. I've walked out of stores by mistake with an item I haven't paid for and gone back into the store and paid for it. I don't like my things being stolen, and thus I don't steal other people's things.

I pay for my eggs from a farm and it is a honour system.

Re: Nonviolence

#87

Post by bnlxbnlx »

zahlman wrote: post #77
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…

> 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. I have read very many people claim this and exactly zero reasons provided by them why I should believe it is true. It seems to me like basic common nature that if you see proponents of a cause behaving in a manner you find objectionabl…

> I have read very many people claim this and exactly zero reasons provided by them why I should believe it is true.

could you share some sources where people have discussed this? i'd like to understand their reasoning better

Re: Nonviolence

#88

Post by timschmidt »

zahlman wrote: post #83
timschmidt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have suffi…

My former experience has been that this quote is justification for one's political ingroup to be violent, but evidence that one's political outgroup (when they cite it) is morally unconscionable.

I purposefully refrained from judgement or commentary either way when posting it. My intention was merely to show that this line of thinking about the duality of violence and non-violence is something the nation's founders themselves were thinking about. It is the reason I posted the quote in full, instead of the abbreviated form most commonly referenced. I hope that the added context lends nuance and perspective which might otherwise be overlooked.

Re: Nonviolence

#89

Post by 9JollyOtter »

Gagarin1917 wrote: post #69
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…

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…

I've listened to a lot of Malcolm X. He was a better speaker IMO, his rhetoric was better. I believe he had a more accurate understanding of the reality of how power really works. It has nothing to do with wanting to justifying violence, Malcolm X made a number of matter of fact observations.

Re: Nonviolence

#90

Post by XorNot »

zahlman wrote: post #82
XorNot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyday you're not trying to achieve political change. And a lot of those interactions are backed by implied violence: people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price. ... I genuinely can't fathom what it's like to live in a developed country and yet have such little social trust. You really imagine that when others are in line at a checkout, they have the intrusive thought "I could just bolt and not pay, but I see a security guard so I better stay in line"? You really have that thought y…

If you break the law, what happens to you? What does the state do to you?

Like say you persistently just refuse to pay a parking ticket after court orders to do so?

Post reply on HN