Bringing a "please don't" to a gun fight

Or Franco or Pinochet or Marcos or Saddam. Hell, put Tito on that list. Or any number of countries that had been subjugated by colonial empires, like India or the Philippines.

There are so many ways that oppressive governments work and ways that protest movements can work effectively against them. Germany 1933 has parallels to today, but it's by no means an exact match, or even a very good match.

Oh great a conspiracy theorist.

Over think of this one? The government wants you to do violence because you'll be easily hunted down and shot and Trump's approval numbers will go up for protecting the public from the violent commies.

Something like the No Kings protests worries a guy like Trump. If he's stupid enough to use violence against something like that it's over for him. It would probably only need something around 25% more support and start doing some general strike kind of activities and Trump is done. The only way he can stop it is if he can associate it with violent nut jobs. Do you want to be a violent nutjob that helps Trump with this problem?

Do you think Trump would've won the election if weren't for a nut job taking a shot at him? Violent nut jobs tried to take down Trump and they failed. Maybe let the sane people take a crack at dealing with him in a sane way.

What are you talking about? It was WWI that ended many of the Kingdoms of Europe, except for the ones that still exist today of course.

You never heard of the Congress of Vienna? Things were pretty much reset to how it was before Napoleon. I guess we got the metric system from the whole debacle, but that feels like something that could've been accomplished without 3 million people dying.

After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.

When did the Germans try to do non-violent resistance? A bunch of people tried to assassinate Hitler (they all failed) but that would be more examples violent resistance failing. I don't know of any widespread non-violent resistance movement against Nazis.

Discombobulate

World day of protest II

Okay but before the nazis won the left failed to form a government on three separate elections. Because the left was splintered between the Communists, Social Dems, and Centrists while the Nazi Party swept the entire right.

Proof?

The reason Cali has strict gun laws is ole Ronny Reagan got scared when he saw Black men with rifles marching in formation.

Preach on!

Potentially. I think it depends on how they're used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it's entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.

You are not misremembering.

Ya, and this is where they really started to fix the "armed minorities harder to oppress" bug...by making sure the gun possession of POC happened within their constraints. IE gang violence, drug war, commodity fetishism, rugged individualism all to replace grass roots organization and useful gun ownership. YN with the never ending need for for new NIKES, armed with the strap and slinging rock for cash is preferable to armed class conscious community organizers.

they can try

The Dems are doing their part to facilitate the oligarchs that give both parties their marching orders

I suppose the hope is that the military will fracture because a lot of soldiers won't be happy to shoot at the civilians they're supposedly sworn to protect. But that's entirely dependent on how brainwashed they are, and how much information they're able to get.

I’m glad for your sake the event remained nonviolent.

There was one other event where a MAGhat tried to draw a weapon, a peacekeeper with a weapon fired at them, and THEY (the peacekeeper) killed an innocent person in the crossfire.

So while that’s a better turnout than a mass shooting, I fervently hope for tensions not to escalate.

That is one of the biggest powers of a protest. It lets people know they are not alone. When we know we have backup, we are a lot more willing to act. If enough people act together, even giants fall.

Why yes keep suggesting domestic terrorism as an acceptable alternative to voting

Thanks for the link.

A major issue with your criticism is you don't directly cite or quote anything, so we can't readily verify your claims.

A more significant issue is that we have a systematic research study with a clear design & methodology to support its conclusion. Where's the superior study to support your conclusions?

If I had to choose, then I think I'd stick with the conclusions backed by systematic research.

From what I can tell, it works backwards from a conclusion the authors already held.

Held before the study? Do you think people can only write their thoughts chronologically?

They excluded peaceful events that weren’t “noteworthy,”

Where? ::: spoiler The article you linked states they analyzed resistance campaigns, not events.

Our research goals are threefold: first, to determine whether nonviolent or violent resistance campaigns have a better record of achieving stated objectives

We define a resistance campaign as a series of observable, continuous tactics in pursuit of a political objective. A campaign can last anywhere from days to years. Campaigns have discernible leadership and often have names, distin-guishing them from random riots or spontaneous mass acts.

By analyzing campaigns rather than individual events, we are able to make some general observations about campaigns that can be explored further through in-depth case studies. Moreover, resistance campaigns involve much more than just events; they involve planning, recruiting, training, intelligence, and other operations besides their most obvious disruptive activities. Using events asthe main unit of analysis ignores these other operations, whereas analyzing campaigns allows usto consider the broader spectrum of activities as a whole. :::

labeled protests as violent if police instigated violence

Where? To the contrary, there's a whole section about that backfiring against the regime opposing a nonviolent movement.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.

How would they be able to make such claims if they label all such movements as violent?

narrowly defined success windows for violent movements while crediting peaceful ones for regime collapses that likely would have happened anyway

Where? ::: spoiler Success criteria and windows for both were the same.

The outcomes of these campaigns are identified as “success,” “limited success,” or “failure.” To be designated a “success,” the campaign must have mettwo criteria: (1) its stated objective occurred within a reasonable period of time (two years) from the end of the campaign; and (2) the campaign had to have a discernible effect on the outcome. A “limited success” occurs when a campaign obtained significant concessions (e.g., limited autonomy, local powersharing, or a nonelectoral leadership change in the case of dictatorship) although the stated objectives were not wholly achieved (i.e., territorial independence or regime change through free and fair elections). A campaign is coded a “failure” if it did not meet its objectives or did not obtain significant concessions. :::

has shown that the effectiveness of nonviolence has drastically diminished

Do you have a proper study to support that by the same standards/methodology?

Even the study’s lead author has acknowledged that modern authoritarian regimes now use digital surveillance and media control to neutralize peaceful dissent.

Where? How does that affect

Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.

or make violent campaigns any more effective?

The study also ignores the reality that mixed-strategy movements—where one faction remains peaceful while another escalates—are often more successful

Do you have studies as credible as this to support that conclusion?

it frames nonviolence as the only legitimate or effective tactic

Does it? The study seems to merely compare outcomes of resistance campaigns in an unopinionated fashion as stated in the design & methodology.

Your argument would improve with stronger support.

Thank you for posting what I've wanted to convey about that study. Mixed strategy movements are the ones with true success. The civil rights movement did not succeed on MLK's back alone. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers becoming militarized is why the U.S. government started thinking about extending an olive branch. Well that and the RIOTS after Dr. MLK was assassinated by the FBI. And those riots were not "peaceful".

I mean that's how the civil rights movement succeeded here in the US. I know we get a heavily sanitized version basically reduced to "I have a dream" but the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were extremely active and militarized. It was either deal with MLK's peace movement or deal with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.

There’s also the people that have to chose between feeding their kids and missing work to go vote, etc, or who are disenfranchised of their voting rights simply by how onerous it is to vote.

People don’t not vote just because they’re lazy.

lol

lol k

I think it comes from a lack of organization. People are rightly angry so they want to act but they have no idea what is helpful so they just turn to whatever feels right. Usually something seeded in their mind from TV or movies.

It's important to note that MLK and Malcolm X were friendly and saw themselves as allies.

There's a big push of revisionist history where they want to portray it as them disagreeing about methods and arguing with each other over the best path forward. Because that's what the wealthy want us to do, because it doesn't work.

If you give a privileged population the choice between:

1. Status quo
2. Things getting better for someone else, but stays the same for you.

It's really hard to get the majority of priveleged people to pick #2

But when you add in:

3. Shit gets much worse for you and much better for the people you persecuted

Suddenly #2 becomes a popular choice. It's often the only way to get the majority to agree to equality

MLK needed the Black Panthers as much as the Panthers needed MLK.

The Black Panthers didn't even exist before MLK's largest successes.

happy cake day