3 ms·

You've drastically altered the reality of US history. Violence and guns were a huge part of it. Labor unions had actual shoot outs with union busting officers,

You've drastically altered the reality of US history. Violence and guns were a huge part of it. Labor unions had actual shoot outs with union busting officers, Malcolm X was absolutely using guns (King also had them), some draft protests were intentionally violent. If you really look, almost every "peaceful" movement had violent parts or another similar movement that was violent. Perhaps the greatest example is the race riots, specifically LA where the police completely abandoned areas and local shop keepers used their own weapons to protect their livelihood. Furthermore, the right to bear arms is heavily limited, automatic weapons have been banned for around 50 years at this point, getting any gun is subject to background checks in basically every case, age limits are also in place, "dangerous" things like suppressors require additional fees and paperwork in order to own.

camgunz 3y ago
None of this stuff looks like the Taliban's resistance or the Bolshevik Revolution. Besides a magnitude difference, the victory won was a moral one. No policymaker was afraid that they'd meet the guillotine unless they went along with the Wagner act. They were convinced, not coerced.
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  That's an oversimplified way to understand nonviolent resistance movements that's insufficient to explain their success. In every case where they have been successful, a radical movement with the will to violence at their flank is what brings the other party to the negotiation table. The plausible threat of a mutually destructive protest movement with unconditional demands makes the measured compromise of the peaceful group seem acceptable by comparison. Look at the environmental movement for what happens without this. Decades of nonviolent protest and resistance, but without a plausibly violent fringe there is no reason for anyone to capitulate to its demands, and so no one has.

camgunz 3y ago

None of this stuff looks like the Taliban's resistance or the Bolshevik Revolution. Besides a magnitude difference, the victory won was a moral one. No policymaker was afraid that they'd meet the guillotine unless they went along with the Wagner act. They were convinced, not coerced.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

[flagged]

giraffe_lady 3y ago
That's an oversimplified way to understand nonviolent resistance movements that's insufficient to explain their success. In every case where they have been successful, a radical movement with the will to violence at their flank is what brings the other party to the negotiation table. The plausible threat of a mutually destructive protest movement with unconditional demands makes the measured compromise of the peaceful group seem acceptable by comparison. Look at the environmental movement for what happens without this. Decades of nonviolent protest and resistance, but without a plausibly violent fringe there is no reason for anyone to capitulate to its demands, and so no one has.