3 ms·

"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 wit

"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.

alphazard 9mo ago
> Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists. This is definitely true to some extent, especially when non-violence has been used in the more distant past. But in recent history, the non-violent approach creates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties, who find violence against non-combatants to be unpalatable. You can turn the world against an enemy by putting the enemy's asymmetric use of force on display. This doesn't work in a lower empathy society.
- pixl97 9mo ago
  >reates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties Only if you have good advertising for your cause. Violence is typically good advertising, most news is simply salivating to cover it. Which means in any non-violent group seeking a goal, it is optimal to have a small violent 'unassociated' group cause just enough problems to get noticed in the global media.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Does sympathy effect change or does it merely effect emotions?
andy99 9mo ago
Is anyone aware of a more thorough argument for why this must be the case? Is it a commonly held view? It sounds realistic, but not necessarily and immutable law, I’d like to know what thought has been given to this.
- peppersghost93 9mo ago
  It's because people in positions of power can safely ignore nonviolence. They can't ignore the other option. Nonviolence on it's own is not productive.
  - mystraline 9mo ago
    Thats what disturbs me about yesteryears's protest marches, like MLK's March on Washington, compared to 50501 and No Kings. MLK wanted a non-violent showing of force as to stay "legal", but a strong implicit threat of "well, you know, theres a LOT of us. We're peaceful for now". The bus boycotts almost bankrupted down in Atlanta, so money attacks also work. But now, we have No Kings and 50501. The whole idea of mass protest as a 'nonviolent but imminent threat' is completely gone. Protests were a prelude to something to be done. Now, its more of a political action rally, with not much of anything to follow up the initial energy. Which is also why the protests; pussy hat rebellion, 50501, No Kings - they've all failed. Theres no goals. Its just chanting and some signs.
    - andy99 9mo ago
      Imo this is what happened once protests became a “right”. I know most people here won’t agree with the Canada trucker protest, but I remember when it happened, people were saying “ok, you’ve had your protest and exercised your rights, you’ve been heard, you can go home now” - framing it just like that, as a rally to show an opinion rather than a threat. It felt to me like “the establishment” just treats them as peformative, because as you say they usually are, and then doesn’t know what to do when it’s actually something they have to react to.
- lurk2 9mo ago
  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-lethal technologies like a tazer would be fine. Pure pacifists who don’t believe in any kind of physical resistance whatsoever are almost exclusively religious practitioners who don’t ascribe a high degree of value to life in this world because they believe non-resistance will bear spiritual fruit in the next world.
lurk2 9mo ago
“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
EA-3167 9mo ago
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.
- XorNot 9mo ago
  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.
ubertaco 9mo ago
Somewhat relevant Cautionary Tales episode, wherein a slight variation on your same point is made from history and survey data: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/a-deadly-day-at-the-races-what-radical-protest-can-and-cannot-do https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/a-deadly-da...
throw0101d 9mo ago
> We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works. [citation needed] There are multiple studies and books that go over how the less a movement uses violence the more likely it is to be successful: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc... * https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-9780190244408 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-978... The above book has a chapter about how if a movement is non-violent, but a contingent/faction wants to use it, various ways to handle it.
kgwxd 9mo ago
> but we're not permitted to say that out loud. You just said it out loud. Are you one of "them"?
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  He said it, but he's not permitted to say it. The comment will be dead soon.
Jensson 9mo ago
Women got their rights without a large group of violent female terrorists threatening violence, so you are wrong. Feminism has been the most successful liberating movement in history and it happened basically without any bloodshed.

alphazard 9mo ago

> Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists. This is definitely true to some extent, especially when non-violence has been used in the more distant past. But in recent history, the non-violent approach creates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties, who find violence against non-combatants to be unpalatable. You can turn the world against an enemy by putting the enemy's asymmetric use of force on display. This doesn't work in a lower empathy society.

pixl97 9mo ago
>reates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties Only if you have good advertising for your cause. Violence is typically good advertising, most news is simply salivating to cover it. Which means in any non-violent group seeking a goal, it is optimal to have a small violent 'unassociated' group cause just enough problems to get noticed in the global media.
direwolf20 9mo ago
Does sympathy effect change or does it merely effect emotions?

andy99 9mo ago

Is anyone aware of a more thorough argument for why this must be the case? Is it a commonly held view? It sounds realistic, but not necessarily and immutable law, I’d like to know what thought has been given to this.

peppersghost93 9mo ago
It's because people in positions of power can safely ignore nonviolence. They can't ignore the other option. Nonviolence on it's own is not productive.
- mystraline 9mo ago
  Thats what disturbs me about yesteryears's protest marches, like MLK's March on Washington, compared to 50501 and No Kings. MLK wanted a non-violent showing of force as to stay "legal", but a strong implicit threat of "well, you know, theres a LOT of us. We're peaceful for now". The bus boycotts almost bankrupted down in Atlanta, so money attacks also work. But now, we have No Kings and 50501. The whole idea of mass protest as a 'nonviolent but imminent threat' is completely gone. Protests were a prelude to something to be done. Now, its more of a political action rally, with not much of anything to follow up the initial energy. Which is also why the protests; pussy hat rebellion, 50501, No Kings - they've all failed. Theres no goals. Its just chanting and some signs.
  - andy99 9mo ago
    Imo this is what happened once protests became a “right”. I know most people here won’t agree with the Canada trucker protest, but I remember when it happened, people were saying “ok, you’ve had your protest and exercised your rights, you’ve been heard, you can go home now” - framing it just like that, as a rally to show an opinion rather than a threat. It felt to me like “the establishment” just treats them as peformative, because as you say they usually are, and then doesn’t know what to do when it’s actually something they have to react to.
lurk2 9mo ago
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-lethal technologies like a tazer would be fine. Pure pacifists who don’t believe in any kind of physical resistance whatsoever are almost exclusively religious practitioners who don’t ascribe a high degree of value to life in this world because they believe non-resistance will bear spiritual fruit in the next world.

lurk2 9mo ago

“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

EA-3167 9mo ago

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.

XorNot 9mo ago
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.

ubertaco 9mo ago

Somewhat relevant Cautionary Tales episode, wherein a slight variation on your same point is made from history and survey data: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/a-deadly-day-at-the-races-what-radical-protest-can-and-cannot-do https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/a-deadly-da...

throw0101d 9mo ago

> We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works. [citation needed] There are multiple studies and books that go over how the less a movement uses violence the more likely it is to be successful: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc... * https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-9780190244408 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-978... The above book has a chapter about how if a movement is non-violent, but a contingent/faction wants to use it, various ways to handle it.

kgwxd 9mo ago

> but we're not permitted to say that out loud. You just said it out loud. Are you one of "them"?

direwolf20 9mo ago
He said it, but he's not permitted to say it. The comment will be dead soon.

Jensson 9mo ago

Women got their rights without a large group of violent female terrorists threatening violence, so you are wrong. Feminism has been the most successful liberating movement in history and it happened basically without any bloodshed.