1w ago

Looking for answers

You're viewing a single thread.

125 comments

There's a lot of evidence that says that non-violent resistance is more often effective, and when it is effective it's more effective, than violent-based resistance.
Can't grab the source info link at the moment, but this video talks about it.
https://youtu.be/5Dk3hUNOMVk
Edit:
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/about/civil-resistance/
- non-violent resistance is more often effective
  It's only ever effective when a credible violent alternative is present.
  No oppressed person in history has ever gotten their rights by appealing to the better nature of their oppressor.
  Civil rights weren't won when black people asked politely and just moving everyone's hearts at how unjustly they were being treated, when MLK died, he had a 75% disapproval rating. Civil rights were won through repeated demonstrations of power and showing what would happen if their demands weren't met.
  
  You're jumping the gun and assuming a lot.
  Please read more about what I am talking about before assuming what I am saying.
  https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/about/civil-resistance/
  
  I couldn't get past the 4th example of "non-violence" without laughing at how wildly revisionist they are. While each of these had non-violent components, none of them would have succeeded without violence. The housing rights act wasn't passed until literally every city was on fire.
  Here's a great book detailing the experiences that lead civil rights leaders to understand the importance of a real, credible threat for any "non-violent" component to be effective..
  The British gave up their occupation of India after a decades-long nonviolent struggle by the Indian population led by Mohandas Gandhi.
  The Danes, Norwegians and other peoples in Europe used civil resistance against Nazi invasion during World War II, raising the costs to Germany of its occupation of these nations, helping to strengthen the spirit and cohesion of their people, and saving the lives of thousands of Jews in Berlin to Copenhagen to Paris and elsewhere.
  Labor movements around the world have consistently used tactics of civil resistance to win concessions for workers throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
  African Americans used civil resistance in their struggle to dissolve segregation in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.
  
  Civil resistance against Nazi invasion
  I'm sure the 2.7 million tonnes of bombs being dropped on them didn't exactly tip that scale much...
  
  I couldn't get past the 4th example of "non-violence" without laughing at how wildly revisionist they are. While each of these had non-violent components, none of them would have succeeded without violence.
  I believe the violent aspects of these resistances are considered and included in the overall analysis in the book I linked.
  I think you may be jumping to conclusions when you see something that doesn't immediately fall into your own views. Those examples are clearly a simplified and truncated set to quickly get the point across for the purpose of an "About Us" page while there is lots of in-depth information available throughout the site.
  If you have qualms with their findings or data, you'd be better off taking it up with them instead of me. I don't purport to be an expert on this subject. I am only relaying that there is plenty of credible research, data, and analysis that shows that non-violent resistance is effective.
  Edit
  Here you can see how and why the book defines these. The book and its author is a major resource for the website.
  https://www.ericachenoweth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/WCRW-Appendix.pdf
  
  Wait, are you using multiple accounts to support your argument? The OP comment is under a different username but you just responded to that person as if you made that initial content presenting the data.
  And reminder that Lemmy shows edit history.
  
  Are you talking about enkers's comment? I saw their response, which was clearly meant for me and responded. Then they deleted that comment and moved it to where they intended to put it, so I did the same.
  https://sh.itjust.works/comment/15571731
  
  Yeah, sorry 'bout that; that was my bad. I didn't mention it since you figured out my intent. Looks like me moving my comment might have led to some confused lemmings, though.
  
  No, the op comment presenting the data. The username just changed right now to match yours.
  
  I'm very confused about what you're claiming. Are you saying I somehow edited a comment's user?
  Regardless, I'm not using multiple accounts to... argue with myself?
  If a comment author changed username, I would be dubious of the platform you're using to view this thread. Could be an issue with an app you're using.
- A few questions for the study:
  What's the data source? If they're just doing news reports and traditional history that can hide a lot of failed non-violent protests. A non violent protest, especially one against the medias interests, is way less likely to show up in the historical record then a violent insurrection. Only the successful movements like the civil rights movement will get mentioned on the non-violent side whereas every insurrection or riot, successful or not, is captured in the historical record.
  What's the breakdown by method? It seems they're including strikes in this which has a very high success rate and high occurrence, so much so it could drown out all the failed protests.
  
  The book's methodologies: https://www.ericachenoweth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/WCRW-Appendix.pdf
  The data set:
  https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.7910%2FDVN%2FMHOXDV
- Random, generalizing comment:
  The people saying "Violence isn't the answer" are the people who don't want to see anything change
  50 upvotes. Comment actually based on real data that happens to show that the original premise is actually wrong: 0 upvotes. Why is Lemmy exactly like Reddit? I thought people coming here were a bit more aware of ideologies etc.
  
  The real data you like is arguing the Nazis were more effectively defeated through non violence.
  
  Lemmy is just slower Reddit. Plenty of ideologues here.
  
  Everyone's an idealogue. Don't kid yourself, ObjectivityIncarnate.
  
  There is a massive difference between someone who actively fights against their biases and doesn't let them dictate the conclusions they reach, and is always open to changing those conclusions and their way of thinking as new information comes to their attention, and someone who clings to those biases, and happily ignores anything that may challenge them.
  I only define the latter category as "ideologues". Sure, technically everyone who is sapient has an ideology, but as the definition says:
  an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
  I have a feeling you know very well that's the kind of person I was talking about. And no, not everyone is like that. On Reddit I was once called a "commie" and a "Nazi" on the same day by different people in different subs, lol, both in reaction to being told a fact that contradicted a bias of theirs. Those are the kind of people I'm talking about.
  
  This whole UHC/Luigi thing has really outlined how dangerously toxic Lemmy is. I mean "dangerous" very literally, too. It should not incite the amount of vitriol I have received because I dared to say "I don't like killing".
  
  Not just Lemmy, dude. Go out into the world and you'll hear the same sentiment straight from human mouths.
  In this case, the "dangerously toxic" thing going on here is the US healthcare system. It's broken and everyone knows it. Apparently, no amount of complaining, begging, and letters to Congress are going to fix it so, here we are. It speaks volumes to me that even after the fucked up election this year, dems AND pubs are backing this HERO.
  You might not like it but we seem to be in a spot where the talking has failed so the killing (or at least the threat of it) must begin.
  
  Apparently, no amount of complaining, begging, and letters to Congress are going to fix it so, here we are.
  There are other stronger actions available before advocating for killing. Let's focus on those first, eh?
  
  What's your best idea?
  
  And yet, Brian Robert Thompson will never kill again.
  
  You got flak - rightfully - because you critiziced the claims adjustment while having no sympathy for the victims of legalized mass murder by denial of claims. So don't play the victim here.
  
  Never did such a thing. Lying should not be necessary to try to make a point.
- 1900-2006? This past century has literally been humanity's most transformative ever, and this chart is just glomming all the data together. We'd need to see trends of how these have changed over time to get a realistic picture.
  
  Well, when you only look at that one image alone and not any of the rest of the information and studies that accompany it, I can see why you'd make that hasty judgement.
  Maybe go read more of the vast amounts of information available on it: https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/about/civil-resistance/
  
  That's the exact same link I already read. Did you mean to send me something else? There was a link titled "award-winning research" to a $27 book. I wasn't able to find any further data sources beyond the provided anecdotes. Did I miss something?
  (Minor edit for clarity.)
  
  "anecdotes"? Yes, you have clearly missed a lot. There's lots available and easy to find. I don't think you need me to hold your hand.
  Here's a full dataset if you want: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.7910%2FDVN%2FMHOXDV
  
  I mean, you literally said:
  the rest of the information and studies that accompany it,
  (Emphasis mine.)
  I only saw only one study referenced, which seems to be a book, not an academic paper.
  In any case, I appreciate the data sources. I'll take a look.
  
  The book itself is based on multiple studies. Here is the first part of the second paragraph for the book's description:
  Combining statistical analysis with case studies of specific countries and territories [...]
  The website has some other studies referenced and such. It kinda seems that you barely opened either of the links.
  
  Ok, well I don't have the book, or links to the studies it's based on, so that's not particularly helpful.
  I throughly scanned the page for data sources and scholarly papers, and also read some of the major concepts and provided examples. I did not see any further studies or data linked in either of the pages you linked to yourself, but if I did miss something, please feel free to point it out.
  Once again, thank you for providing the source data you already did. It's a fairly complicated dataset, so it'll take some effort to grok.
  
  Here's the methodologies of the book
  https://www.ericachenoweth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/WCRW-Appendix.pdf
  
  Thanks! That's a big help.

125 comments