3 ms·
If you want to ignore the violent revolutionaries in history because they make your narrative not work, then go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that both the
by lovich 10mo ago
If you want to ignore the violent revolutionaries in history because they make your narrative not work, then go ahead.
It doesn't change the fact that both the Civil Rights movement in the USA and the Indian Independence movement both had violent actors in the background telling the oppressors what comes next if they don't work with the populace.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> If you want to ignore the violent revolutionaries in history Straw man. Obviously violent revolutions work. But nonviolent ones work, too, and often without substantially needing the “violent actors in the background.” They’re both valid tools, but they work in different contexts and seldom productively together. (Disruptive protest works incredibly well with diplomacy. But not violence. That gives the oppressor justification to dial up their own violence.) > telling the oppressors what comes next What comes next if the violent elements in India or the Civil Rights movement gained the upper hand would have been borderline-exterminationist intervention. Same as happened in the countless violent failed “revolutions” that preceded them.
- lovich 9mo agoI am not allowed to go into more detail into how we differ in opinion on forums with a US nexus.