4 ms·

The bit about peaceful protest being more successful than violent ones is misleading. People go for violence after the peaceful discussions have failed or aren

The bit about peaceful protest being more successful than violent ones is misleading. People go for violence after the peaceful discussions have failed or aren't possible (I see terrorist orgs in that same boat, there's no middle ground to discuss in the first place). And if these people didn't have the power to move the needle through standard negociation, they'll rarely have more power in a violent fight so they're usually bound to fail from the beginning. It's all the more true in regimes where the target of the protest has the mean to physically crush the whole population.

jimkleiber 2y ago
> The bit about peaceful protest being more successful than violent ones is misleading. I haven't read the full article but my impression halfway thru was that it wasn't just a bit about _nonviolent_ protest (which I wouldn't say is the same as _peaceful_ protest), but rather that is the whole premise of the article. Some people, e.g., Gandhi and MLK Jr, did not go for violence after peaceful negotiations failed, while others at the same time _believed_ such negotiations had failed. But just because someone feels hopeless and believes such negotiations have failed doesn't mean they actually have.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  For MLK I see it as a more complex situation, where his movement's peaceful promise shines that bright _because_ the other active movements don't shy away from embracing violence and are a credible threat in case MLK's supporters moved away in mass from his ideology. People kept supporting him because hope was still there, and his death gave way to riots that just couldn't be ignored, giving the smallest glimpse of what would keep going if rapid change wasn't enacted. I'm not versed enough in India's history to comment.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    Fair, at least from what I learned in the movie Gandhi, which may or may not be accurate, it seemed that both MLK and Gandhi led the force for nonviolence and once they were no longer alive, the nonviolent coalitions seemed to dissipate somewhat or significantly. I hypothesize because they were talking about nonviolence and people assumed by that they wanted peace and I think these leaders wanted love. I recently have been thinking a lot that there's almost a war between love and peace, where people who want love want to work together to resolve conflict and people who want peace want to get rid of conflict, often by working against each other.

jimkleiber 2y ago

> The bit about peaceful protest being more successful than violent ones is misleading. I haven't read the full article but my impression halfway thru was that it wasn't just a bit about _nonviolent_ protest (which I wouldn't say is the same as _peaceful_ protest), but rather that is the whole premise of the article. Some people, e.g., Gandhi and MLK Jr, did not go for violence after peaceful negotiations failed, while others at the same time _believed_ such negotiations had failed. But just because someone feels hopeless and believes such negotiations have failed doesn't mean they actually have.

makeitdouble 2y ago
For MLK I see it as a more complex situation, where his movement's peaceful promise shines that bright _because_ the other active movements don't shy away from embracing violence and are a credible threat in case MLK's supporters moved away in mass from his ideology. People kept supporting him because hope was still there, and his death gave way to riots that just couldn't be ignored, giving the smallest glimpse of what would keep going if rapid change wasn't enacted. I'm not versed enough in India's history to comment.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  Fair, at least from what I learned in the movie Gandhi, which may or may not be accurate, it seemed that both MLK and Gandhi led the force for nonviolence and once they were no longer alive, the nonviolent coalitions seemed to dissipate somewhat or significantly. I hypothesize because they were talking about nonviolence and people assumed by that they wanted peace and I think these leaders wanted love. I recently have been thinking a lot that there's almost a war between love and peace, where people who want love want to work together to resolve conflict and people who want peace want to get rid of conflict, often by working against each other.