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

91–100 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#91

Post by bnlxbnlx »

1123581321 wrote: post #20

Agape could be discussed as a philosophy between disagreeing figures like King and Carmichael. Today, fewer people have encountered the idea so they can’t choose it as a philosophy. Without agape, political activism is more zero-sum and utilitarian. Non-violence becomes a gambit that is only appealing as long as it is making obvious gains against the current winners, and there is little motivation to remain nonviolen…

I've spent a lot of time with people who seem themselves operating within ML Kings lineage and have their lives committed to this kind of nonviolence work, and they defintely operate from within the an "agape mindset", even though they wouldn't frame it like that.

in my understanding some people use 'non-violence' to describe the more utilitarian version, and 'noniovlence' for that which exits the entire 'domination paradigm'

Re: Nonviolence

#92

Post by bnlxbnlx »

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…

intrigued by this. i've spent a lot of timer over the last years with very committed nonviolence folks, and i keep wondering about the conditions for this to work.

can you recommend any sources that discuss this idea?

Re: Nonviolence

#93

Post by Lord-Jobo »

Rperry2174 wrote: post #81
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…

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 fo…

And those mechanisms, the military, the police, and the legal system, rely on violence as the ultimate fallback when other options fail. So you may not be relying on violence to solve your problems, or the threat of violence, or the insinuation of it, but instead relying on the threat of someone ELSE’S violence. That is the social contract pretty fundamentally. And when people can no longer rely on those figures who are supposed to use violence on their behalf, we shouldn’t be surprised that they attempt to reclaim the ability to use force. The social contract has been voided, in their eyes. The premise and promise broken.

Re: Nonviolence

#94

Post by wrs »

XorNot wrote: post #90
zahlman wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You're missing the point -- I don't refuse to pay a parking ticket after the court orders me to do so. I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying. I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.

Re: Nonviolence

#95

Post by XorNot »

EA-3167 wrote: post #10
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.

Sorry, are you suggesting that violence doesn't also require coordination of a group? I think the record of lone gunmen solving institutional problems remains kind of scarce. Whether you want to be a guerilla group, terrorists, or take a peaceful approach the first step is always going to involvefinding confederates.

The lone gunmen mythology has basically been key to getting America en masse to surrender it's rights.

So many complaints about government have the form "I'll hit my breaking point and then I'll shoot a bunch of people".

No plan to join a militia, no plan to engage in coordinated action before that. Just a plan to commit a mass shooting and then be gunned down as another statistic. And probably kill a bunch of people who have nothing to do with whatever the problem is.

Re: Nonviolence

#96

Post by shimman »

throw0101d wrote: post #78
shimman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This video is a good rebuttal of the 3.5% rule: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUmDwB69cQ

From the video: > [Chenoweth and Stephan] have gone out of their way to correct people who treat it like a cheat code, and to caution against overreading any success of non-violent oppostion. The rebuttal is against those arguing that 3.5% is a "magic number", that treat(ed) it like an 'absolute', when we're actually dealing with probabilities and likelihoods and odds. The formulators of the "3.5% rule" do not treat…

Nice, so you didn't watch the video completely. Hopefully others don't make your mistake, both that and believing that garbage.

Resistance has always been violence/sabotage towards oppressors, if nonviolence actions were effective you'd see more armed forces bashing skulls at no kings protests.

Re: Nonviolence

#97

Post by XorNot »

wrs wrote: post #94
XorNot wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're missing the point -- I don't refuse to pay a parking ticket after the court orders me to do so. I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying. I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement wo…

> I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment.

What do you think happens to people who do that though?

You keep telling me what you don't do and how it proves you're implicitly non violent 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.

Implying violence is never necessary while repeatedly describing not doing violence even if the state's violence distributing apparatus isn't currently present rather undermines the case.

Re: Nonviolence

#98

Post by mystraline »

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.

Its also appropriate to remember that MLK was friends with Malcolm X, and both chose their own means to support the same end goal.

MLK chose nonviolent shows of force, whereas Malcolm X chose more direct forms of violence.

Governments could save face by negotiating with MLK, as he used nonviolent means. They couldn't negotiate with Malcolm X because thats the whole "we cannot negotiate with criminals and terrorists".

Re: Nonviolence

#99

Post by kgwxd »

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"?

Re: Nonviolence

#100

Post by RickJWagner »

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…

Today, history remembers MLK as a great man. There are parades in his honor, workers are given a day off. Rosa Parks is another peaceful pioneer credited with bringing strides forward.

Malcolm X and others are already fading from memory.

Post reply on HN