3 ms·

1. Jesus' ideology was not only about reward in the "next world." NIV Matthew 10:34-36 says: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I

by sounds 9y ago

1. Jesus' ideology was not only about reward in the "next world." NIV Matthew 10:34-36 says: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. 2. Martin Luther King, though flawed, made a difference. He was not just a public, peaceful voice. He put his life on the line and eventually gave his life. This resonated with many, many more people than any violence. (Note that this is the same thing Jesus did.) 3. What's your source that Gandhi was only presented publicly? Who was his puppet-master?

coliveira 9y ago
I am not saying that Dr. King or Gandhi were puppets in any way, on the contrary they were very important to galvanize support for their movements. But they were not the full movement. The power of the movement was in the subversion of the existing order, and these figures were the peaceful face of the whole movement. Without a fierce underlying movement they would be just swept aside like any other peaceful protestor has ever been.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Can non-violence not also be fierce in it's execution?
- sounds 9y ago
  You forgot to include sources.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  There's a lot to what you say, but your "Only violence does anything" position seems quite vague and shifting, unarguable-against (unfalsifiable), and fortunately not borne out by the facts. I get a feeling of blood-lust masquerading as wisdom, but I think the world's not quite as bad or hopeless as you say. A "fierce underlying movement"...you mean, without violent people in the same movement? No-one's saying "Gandhi was the full movement", whatever that would mean exactly. And sure, peaceful protests, civil disobedience and hunger strikes wouldn't have worked against the Nazis, but it worked against the British. (Although it doesn't sound like you would think that's right) You seem to be sweeping all situations into one basket. And in that basket, only violence works, peace never achieves anything. I don't think that's reality. And I can prove it, I think: Watch the documentary on Gene Sharp, "How To Start A Revolution". I hadn't heard of him, which is pretty damning comment on the modern media (considering some of the people who are mega-famous). It seems he and his methods and writings were (in part) responsible for most of these peaceful revolutions sweeping the world in the last few decades, dozens of them. I'd be surprised if you can watch that (and read the associated literature) and not change your view. I found it super-inspiring. And without it, I might have been more convinced by your arguments. Although I think you in no way recognize Gandhi's actual importance in existing-order-subversion.
  - coliveira 9y ago
    I think you are trying to mix several unrelated things. The amount of violence necessary to change something always depends on the amount of repression imposed. If the repression is light/inexistent, there is no need for any violence. If the enemy is an army that is coming for combat with no opportunity for negotiations, only full scale war will work. In between these extremes, several mixes of diplomacy and violence are necessary. It is just wishful thinking to believe that peaceful protests will always work, in fact in many cases this belief serves only to demonize people who are protesting for their rights.
    - sounds 9y ago
      What's your source on that?

by sounds 9y ago

coliveira 9y ago

I am not saying that Dr. King or Gandhi were puppets in any way, on the contrary they were very important to galvanize support for their movements. But they were not the full movement. The power of the movement was in the subversion of the existing order, and these figures were the peaceful face of the whole movement. Without a fierce underlying movement they would be just swept aside like any other peaceful protestor has ever been.

24gttghh 9y ago
Can non-violence not also be fierce in it's execution?
sounds 9y ago
You forgot to include sources.
yesenadam 9y ago
There's a lot to what you say, but your "Only violence does anything" position seems quite vague and shifting, unarguable-against (unfalsifiable), and fortunately not borne out by the facts. I get a feeling of blood-lust masquerading as wisdom, but I think the world's not quite as bad or hopeless as you say. A "fierce underlying movement"...you mean, without violent people in the same movement? No-one's saying "Gandhi was the full movement", whatever that would mean exactly. And sure, peaceful protests, civil disobedience and hunger strikes wouldn't have worked against the Nazis, but it worked against the British. (Although it doesn't sound like you would think that's right) You seem to be sweeping all situations into one basket. And in that basket, only violence works, peace never achieves anything. I don't think that's reality. And I can prove it, I think: Watch the documentary on Gene Sharp, "How To Start A Revolution". I hadn't heard of him, which is pretty damning comment on the modern media (considering some of the people who are mega-famous). It seems he and his methods and writings were (in part) responsible for most of these peaceful revolutions sweeping the world in the last few decades, dozens of them. I'd be surprised if you can watch that (and read the associated literature) and not change your view. I found it super-inspiring. And without it, I might have been more convinced by your arguments. Although I think you in no way recognize Gandhi's actual importance in existing-order-subversion.
- coliveira 9y ago
  I think you are trying to mix several unrelated things. The amount of violence necessary to change something always depends on the amount of repression imposed. If the repression is light/inexistent, there is no need for any violence. If the enemy is an army that is coming for combat with no opportunity for negotiations, only full scale war will work. In between these extremes, several mixes of diplomacy and violence are necessary. It is just wishful thinking to believe that peaceful protests will always work, in fact in many cases this belief serves only to demonize people who are protesting for their rights.
  - sounds 9y ago
    What's your source on that?