6 ms·

> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power A non-violent protestor is a person who does not fear anything, and the person who doesn't fear is

> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power A non-violent protestor is a person who does not fear anything, and the person who doesn't fear is the most powerful one. Violence is a result of fear, that's the reason need to use weapons and aids to fight back to increase the chances of survival. A true warrior is a fearless person who respond to violence with non-violence and make violent person ashamed of themselves. It's very easy to fight violently, every animal do it including us. We are at least evolved to tame our violent urges and that's what makes us a human. > All political power emanates from barrel of gun This is the famous quote of Mao Zedong (毛泽东). "Power flows from the barrel of gun" You might believe in it like every violent protestor. I don't. I believe power flows from the depth of heart and mind based on our connection with universe, nature and our endeavor to keep it balanced without resorting to violence. > Second amendment It's not a sacred thing, there are many places in this world way more safe and peaceful without the second amendment.

yostrovs 7y ago
Tianamen square and the surroundings are safe and peaceful, for decades now indeed.
420codebro 7y ago
Nice and lofty platitudes. But they will shoot you and or imprison you the same.
tekkk 7y ago
Well, you know. You expect the violent person to be ashamed of themselves. That's a very bold assumption. A psychopath or sociopath won't feel a thing when they order their army to mow down peaceful protestors. It's a beautiful idea really. But when you are given no option other than to fight, do you think it's wrong for them to do so? Jewish, Armenians, Chinese under Japanese occupation? Might have not mattered, might have. I guess it depends on the person. An exaggeration of course compared to the issue at hand, but it seems wishful idealism. In some cases, yes, it works. But when your adversary doesn't care, it's quite ineffective. Game-theory wise I think equal repercussion works quite well, where violence is met with violence in order to prevent it from happening. Sure not always, but if there is no punishment it's simply much too advantageous to use violence if it solves the problem. I mean school bullies probably won't stop unless you hit them or they get some sort of punishment. Sure you'll feel probably mighty wise if you don't resort to violence or any kind of resistance, but it's unhelpful if it doesn't stop it. And in the meantime you'll be suffering tremendously.
- dragonsh 7y ago
  It's not just a claim many studies do prove non violent struggle are more successful in bringing change than violent once. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven-superiority-of-nonviolent-resistance/#3d6f679c68f0 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven...
  - tekkk 7y ago
    I'm not disagreeing that in this case non-violent approach isn't the best. But depending on the setting, the parameters if you will, that approach might be inefficient. Another example would be the people living under the Stalin's rule in Soviet Union. Even if you resisted peacefully, I'm sure you would have been taken to the gulag either way. The circumstance where non-violent behavior works is very specific and is best when there's: A) much stronger opponent (British Empire, Chinese government) B) level of civilization where both parties do not want to engage in violence (the majority of modern civilizations) C) good chance for massive unrest if violence were to happen (no ruler wants to deal with domestic terrorism and internal squabbles, unless of course your regime is breaking up already and that's the only way to keep control) The more primal the opponent, the worse are your chances. Aztecs would have welcomed non-violent behavior with open hands, they would have cheerfully enslaved people who didn't put up a fight. The reason why they stopped was basically the destruction of their civilization by the Spaniards. But maybe I'm mixing here war with protesting, which is a more of problem after you have lost and are under the oppressive regime. Then your options are limited: it's either violent insurgency or non-violent protesting. In modern world luckily we have electronic mass-media that helps immensely with the non-violence.
rayiner 7y ago
Safe and peaceful is not the same thing as free.
poukofiru 7y ago
Mao also said this, “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
PavlovsCat 7y ago
> Violence is a result of fear That's the part you got right: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cxz64b/300_uncut_footage_of_the_hk_police_terrorist/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cxz64b/300_uncut_... But to just speak of violent protestors, while ignoring the triads and people with odd markings doing odd things, the police brutality, and things like this, is also not even close to a complete picture: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cv9y4c/protesters_cheered_by_citizens_after_safely/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cv9y4c/protesters... > A true warrior is a fearless person who respond to violence with non-violence and make violent person ashamed of themselves. You cannot make a person have empathy, you can appeal to it, where it exists. Otherwise, you have to defeat them. Not "crush" them, but disarm them and establish boundaries. Without military defeat of Nazi Germany, anything like reflection or reconciliation wasn't even thinkable. As a matter of fact, without their military defeat, we wouldn't know most of what we know about their atrocities today, they were set to purge all evidence as thoroughly as they had exterminated people. Factual reality, which is at stake, is something even more important than peace -- in the same way atoms are more important than water or orange juice, without atoms, you can't have either. Peace can always erupt again, but destroyed facts remain destroyed, and that being done well enough, can make genuine peace impossbile. A static state of submission is not peace, peace without truthfulness is not peace, and low-intensity people getting disappeared, not asking what happened to your neighbour, is not peace. ignorance doesn't hurt anybody with the exception of those who can be hurt because nobody knows about it -- Erich Fried, "Vorteile der Unwissenheit (in allen Ländern der Hochsicherheit)", or "Benefits of ignorance (in all high security nations)"
SkyBelow 7y ago
>Violence is a result of fea Violence is a means to enforce ones will on another. It is only one of such means. It is the mean by which the entire legal system falls back on. It is the mean by which Americans won their independence. It is the mean by which bad people do evil things. >This is the famous quote of Mao Zedong (毛泽东). "Power flows from the barrel of gun" And it is the truth, especially if we see take this to be an analogy for strength (before guns, it was swords, before swords it was sticks, before sticks it was fists, these days it might not be guns at the national level, and one day it may be something else entirely). >It's not a sacred thing, there are many places in this world way more safe and peaceful without the second amendment. Generally with the backing (perhaps unwillingly) of the nation that has the second amendment, and even those places still use guns to enforce their will on those who do not play along. The smarter areas use it as a last resort and not the first response, but they still use it.
- meowface 7y ago
  I understand and agree with what you're saying, but your points about the American Revolution and the Second Amendment could potentially be interpreted as permitting violence from protestors. The US Revolution truly began forming after British soldiers started gunning down colonial civilians. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre >"John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on [the date of the massacre], and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence. The colonists didn't just shoot the evil British tyrants telling them to go away because of their oppressive policies. They probably would have lost the war if that's how it started. That's not how you start a revolution. It started because the British fired the first unfair shots (or at least that was the perception). Some protestors have been quoted saying they want a protestor, or a police officer, to die and become a martyr for either side so that a true revolution can begin. While the citizens of Hong Kong absolutely deserve democracy and civil rights, wishing death is not the way to do it. If the government does start the violence towards civilians of their own accord, with cruelty and brutality, perhaps reciprocal violence in self-defense may at some point become justifiable, but this is a very fine line and only a hypothetical scenario to be considered in response to grave danger, not something anyone should ever wish for.
sjapkee 7y ago
>A non-violent protestor Just an ordinary citizen, whose opinion can be disregarded.
dannyw 7y ago
This sounds like a naive dream. Connection with the universe does not change political structures.
pteredactyl 7y ago
I get what you're saying and share your idealism. But you've been the beneficiary of many, many guns. And much violence. So while you may sound good, it's not based in reality. Regardless, violence is relatively at a historically all-time low[1]. [1] https://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-about-better-angels-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined https://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-ab...

yostrovs 7y ago

Tianamen square and the surroundings are safe and peaceful, for decades now indeed.

420codebro 7y ago

Nice and lofty platitudes. But they will shoot you and or imprison you the same.

tekkk 7y ago

Well, you know. You expect the violent person to be ashamed of themselves. That's a very bold assumption. A psychopath or sociopath won't feel a thing when they order their army to mow down peaceful protestors. It's a beautiful idea really. But when you are given no option other than to fight, do you think it's wrong for them to do so? Jewish, Armenians, Chinese under Japanese occupation? Might have not mattered, might have. I guess it depends on the person. An exaggeration of course compared to the issue at hand, but it seems wishful idealism. In some cases, yes, it works. But when your adversary doesn't care, it's quite ineffective. Game-theory wise I think equal repercussion works quite well, where violence is met with violence in order to prevent it from happening. Sure not always, but if there is no punishment it's simply much too advantageous to use violence if it solves the problem. I mean school bullies probably won't stop unless you hit them or they get some sort of punishment. Sure you'll feel probably mighty wise if you don't resort to violence or any kind of resistance, but it's unhelpful if it doesn't stop it. And in the meantime you'll be suffering tremendously.

dragonsh 7y ago
It's not just a claim many studies do prove non violent struggle are more successful in bringing change than violent once. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven-superiority-of-nonviolent-resistance/#3d6f679c68f0 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven...
- tekkk 7y ago
  I'm not disagreeing that in this case non-violent approach isn't the best. But depending on the setting, the parameters if you will, that approach might be inefficient. Another example would be the people living under the Stalin's rule in Soviet Union. Even if you resisted peacefully, I'm sure you would have been taken to the gulag either way. The circumstance where non-violent behavior works is very specific and is best when there's: A) much stronger opponent (British Empire, Chinese government) B) level of civilization where both parties do not want to engage in violence (the majority of modern civilizations) C) good chance for massive unrest if violence were to happen (no ruler wants to deal with domestic terrorism and internal squabbles, unless of course your regime is breaking up already and that's the only way to keep control) The more primal the opponent, the worse are your chances. Aztecs would have welcomed non-violent behavior with open hands, they would have cheerfully enslaved people who didn't put up a fight. The reason why they stopped was basically the destruction of their civilization by the Spaniards. But maybe I'm mixing here war with protesting, which is a more of problem after you have lost and are under the oppressive regime. Then your options are limited: it's either violent insurgency or non-violent protesting. In modern world luckily we have electronic mass-media that helps immensely with the non-violence.

rayiner 7y ago

Safe and peaceful is not the same thing as free.

poukofiru 7y ago

Mao also said this, “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> Violence is a result of fear That's the part you got right: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cxz64b/300_uncut_footage_of_the_hk_police_terrorist/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cxz64b/300_uncut_... But to just speak of violent protestors, while ignoring the triads and people with odd markings doing odd things, the police brutality, and things like this, is also not even close to a complete picture: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cv9y4c/protesters_cheered_by_citizens_after_safely/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cv9y4c/protesters... > A true warrior is a fearless person who respond to violence with non-violence and make violent person ashamed of themselves. You cannot make a person have empathy, you can appeal to it, where it exists. Otherwise, you have to defeat them. Not "crush" them, but disarm them and establish boundaries. Without military defeat of Nazi Germany, anything like reflection or reconciliation wasn't even thinkable. As a matter of fact, without their military defeat, we wouldn't know most of what we know about their atrocities today, they were set to purge all evidence as thoroughly as they had exterminated people. Factual reality, which is at stake, is something even more important than peace -- in the same way atoms are more important than water or orange juice, without atoms, you can't have either. Peace can always erupt again, but destroyed facts remain destroyed, and that being done well enough, can make genuine peace impossbile. A static state of submission is not peace, peace without truthfulness is not peace, and low-intensity people getting disappeared, not asking what happened to your neighbour, is not peace. ignorance doesn't hurt anybody with the exception of those who can be hurt because nobody knows about it -- Erich Fried, "Vorteile der Unwissenheit (in allen Ländern der Hochsicherheit)", or "Benefits of ignorance (in all high security nations)"

SkyBelow 7y ago

>Violence is a result of fea Violence is a means to enforce ones will on another. It is only one of such means. It is the mean by which the entire legal system falls back on. It is the mean by which Americans won their independence. It is the mean by which bad people do evil things. >This is the famous quote of Mao Zedong (毛泽东). "Power flows from the barrel of gun" And it is the truth, especially if we see take this to be an analogy for strength (before guns, it was swords, before swords it was sticks, before sticks it was fists, these days it might not be guns at the national level, and one day it may be something else entirely). >It's not a sacred thing, there are many places in this world way more safe and peaceful without the second amendment. Generally with the backing (perhaps unwillingly) of the nation that has the second amendment, and even those places still use guns to enforce their will on those who do not play along. The smarter areas use it as a last resort and not the first response, but they still use it.

meowface 7y ago
I understand and agree with what you're saying, but your points about the American Revolution and the Second Amendment could potentially be interpreted as permitting violence from protestors. The US Revolution truly began forming after British soldiers started gunning down colonial civilians. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre >"John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on [the date of the massacre], and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence. The colonists didn't just shoot the evil British tyrants telling them to go away because of their oppressive policies. They probably would have lost the war if that's how it started. That's not how you start a revolution. It started because the British fired the first unfair shots (or at least that was the perception). Some protestors have been quoted saying they want a protestor, or a police officer, to die and become a martyr for either side so that a true revolution can begin. While the citizens of Hong Kong absolutely deserve democracy and civil rights, wishing death is not the way to do it. If the government does start the violence towards civilians of their own accord, with cruelty and brutality, perhaps reciprocal violence in self-defense may at some point become justifiable, but this is a very fine line and only a hypothetical scenario to be considered in response to grave danger, not something anyone should ever wish for.

sjapkee 7y ago

>A non-violent protestor Just an ordinary citizen, whose opinion can be disregarded.

dannyw 7y ago

This sounds like a naive dream. Connection with the universe does not change political structures.

pteredactyl 7y ago

I get what you're saying and share your idealism. But you've been the beneficiary of many, many guns. And much violence. So while you may sound good, it's not based in reality. Regardless, violence is relatively at a historically all-time low[1]. [1] https://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-about-better-angels-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined https://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-ab...