5 ms·

So like we basically agree from the perspective of outsiders, but that's not really what I meant. If you have been radicalized to the extent of being willing t

So like we basically agree from the perspective of outsiders, but that's not really what I meant. If you have been radicalized to the extent of being willing to die for nonviolence, you still win if they kill you because you are dying for your beliefs. As a radicalized person, there cannot even be futile resistance, because if the violent people were to kill all of their enemies, there wouldn't be any violence left to commit. If so, mission accomplished. It's very much a love thine enemy philosophy. When I say that Gandhi's methods haven't been tested outside of India, I'm referring to people passively offering up their lives to the state. Did this really happen during the civil rights movement? Personally I believe that this kind of self-sacrifice is not worth it, even if change is effected.

jlgreco 13y ago
I guess you and I have a fundamentally different notion of "win". If you are radicalized, they kill you for it, and then life for everyone else carries on as it was, then for me that is not a win. That is beyond any doubt a loss, and I consider opting to do that rather than sacrifice non-violence for a hope at enacting change that others can appreciate to be a selfish act. Nonviolence is not a goal for me. I consider it a tool with limited application. Failing to build a doghouse with a hammer, instead of successfully building the doghouse with a screwdrivers, is nothing to be proud of. The doghouse is what I am interested in, not the application of hammers. Or to put it in more concrete terms, the world would not be a better place had the French Resistance chosen to adopt nonviolent noncompliance. Their acts of violence were, without any question, justified and "worth it". And yes, people were absolutely putting their lives at risk during the civil rights era. People were being beaten and in many cases, killed.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  You and I have the same idea of win and we share similar beliefs; I was trying to explain things from what I understand to be the mindset of someone who fully buys into Gandhi's belief system. I seem to be doing a bad job... and there is a chance I have got it all wrong anyway.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Ah, I see. Well, in that case my disagreement is with Gandhi.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Glad we sorted that out. Here's to not being a martyr.
- rapind 13y ago
  I respectfully have to say that I think you're missing the point. If you'll forgive how ridiculous this sounds, I'll use your analogy to illustrate the difference. It's not about what you build with the hammer that matters to this person. It's that he consistently uses the hammer regardless of what is built or how efficiently it is accomplished, because he believes using the hammer to be the true way of life and far more important than the product being created. By using a more suitable tool he believes that he has already lost. It's a zen thing.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    No, that came through loud and clear to me. I disagree with him; picking the best tool for the job is more important than remaining pure in your tool use. I think that his belief that "using the hammer to be the true way of life and far more important than the product being created" is selfish. It is better to sacrifice your purity to save others. There is nothing noble about being trampled. Had the French Resistance decided that the principles of nonviolence and noncompliance were more important than killing german officers and blowing up trains, then I would think far less of them. If he thinks that they lost the moment they used violence and sabotage, then I think he is wrong. Edit: I disagree with Gandhi, not him.
    - rapind 13y ago
      Meh, you're basically arguing with a religion, which is fine, but a pretty big task. You value the end over the means. Some people believe the reverse, that the process is more meaningful and important than the goal / reward (something I become more and more convinced of as I get older). If acting according to your beliefs is selfish... well then aren't we all selfish (arguably true)? Don't be too hasty to judge.

jlgreco 13y ago

I guess you and I have a fundamentally different notion of "win". If you are radicalized, they kill you for it, and then life for everyone else carries on as it was, then for me that is not a win. That is beyond any doubt a loss, and I consider opting to do that rather than sacrifice non-violence for a hope at enacting change that others can appreciate to be a selfish act. Nonviolence is not a goal for me. I consider it a tool with limited application. Failing to build a doghouse with a hammer, instead of successfully building the doghouse with a screwdrivers, is nothing to be proud of. The doghouse is what I am interested in, not the application of hammers. Or to put it in more concrete terms, the world would not be a better place had the French Resistance chosen to adopt nonviolent noncompliance. Their acts of violence were, without any question, justified and "worth it". And yes, people were absolutely putting their lives at risk during the civil rights era. People were being beaten and in many cases, killed.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
You and I have the same idea of win and we share similar beliefs; I was trying to explain things from what I understand to be the mindset of someone who fully buys into Gandhi's belief system. I seem to be doing a bad job... and there is a chance I have got it all wrong anyway.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Ah, I see. Well, in that case my disagreement is with Gandhi.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Glad we sorted that out. Here's to not being a martyr.
rapind 13y ago
I respectfully have to say that I think you're missing the point. If you'll forgive how ridiculous this sounds, I'll use your analogy to illustrate the difference. It's not about what you build with the hammer that matters to this person. It's that he consistently uses the hammer regardless of what is built or how efficiently it is accomplished, because he believes using the hammer to be the true way of life and far more important than the product being created. By using a more suitable tool he believes that he has already lost. It's a zen thing.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  No, that came through loud and clear to me. I disagree with him; picking the best tool for the job is more important than remaining pure in your tool use. I think that his belief that "using the hammer to be the true way of life and far more important than the product being created" is selfish. It is better to sacrifice your purity to save others. There is nothing noble about being trampled. Had the French Resistance decided that the principles of nonviolence and noncompliance were more important than killing german officers and blowing up trains, then I would think far less of them. If he thinks that they lost the moment they used violence and sabotage, then I think he is wrong. Edit: I disagree with Gandhi, not him.
  - rapind 13y ago
    Meh, you're basically arguing with a religion, which is fine, but a pretty big task. You value the end over the means. Some people believe the reverse, that the process is more meaningful and important than the goal / reward (something I become more and more convinced of as I get older). If acting according to your beliefs is selfish... well then aren't we all selfish (arguably true)? Don't be too hasty to judge.