https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
It’s almost like a bank robber with the BLA may not be a great authority on how change is achieved.
Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
Okay? What does that have to do with the blatantly false assertion that no one has ever achieved their freedom by persuading their oppressors on moral grounds?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign, and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers. I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination. And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Mahatma Gandhi was also helped by the fact that India had been waging INCREDIBLY violent resistance since the late 1800s. Like, there were ambushes that wiped out whole companies of soldiers in the mountains. His campaign of non-cooperation was just the last straw for a war-weary empire that saw little use and even littler public will to dump more soldiers into India.
Also something about colonies being too expensive to maintain and focusing on the economy back home post world wars
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign,
Okay, so we’re going to ignore literally every quote of his about convincing the British and that the point of his nonviolent campaigns was to highlight the moral aspect of the conflict. Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers.
Jesus fucking Christ. What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination.
…
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1968 was a minor addendum.
I’m really not fucking sure you should be telling me to ‘learn more about this stuff’.
And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Oh, so violence was the main factor? I’m sure, then, that opinions in the US were changing at the time because no one was persuaded, they were just scared. After all, that’s how ethnic resistance movements so consistently throughout history persuade the majority of a country, definitely not resulting in long-standing ethnic conflicts and enduring prejudices with literal centuries-long irregular warfare.
Good thing these brave revolutionaries knew that moral persuasion was worthless!
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
Oh, so violence was the main factor?
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Liberals aren’t leftists.
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
I sound like a ‘liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history’ because… I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit is this?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn’t some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you’re at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn’t an option, there’s no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn’t benefit the oppressors.
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
So your argument is… what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate… doesn’t count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would’ve gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we’re talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
‘Coercive nonviolence’
Lord.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn’t have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
True left praxis. I am in awe.
MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.
Mandela was also literally the head of a paramilitary revolutionary force
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it’s probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust
MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.
What alternative method did they present, again?
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it’s probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust
Jesus fucking Christ.
Mandela led the ANC, hardly a peaceful movement. Heard of necklacing?
The dissolution of the Soviet Union came paired with a shelling of parliament. Hardly a peaceful act. Bonus fact: they held two referanda, one for the baltic member states early in the year, and one for the remainder. The Baltic states voted to dissolve, and they left. The outcome of the second referendum was that by and large, people wanted the Soviet Union to remain intact. This was ignored, and parliament shelled.
The ousting of Pinochet involved assassination attempts on Pinochet. Maybe they were peaceful assassination attempts, so I gotta hand this one to you.
Mentioning Ghandi and pretending the uprising of 1857, which inspired and propelled forward the movement for independence (including Ghandi), never happened is deeply dishonest, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives for the cause.
MLK jr., much like Ghandi, was paired with violent methods as well. Ignoring their contributions is ahistorical.
I’m assuming you’re using “etc etc etc” (etc) to mean “I can’t think of any other examples, erroneous or otherwise”, so I’ll do the same:
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
that’s a good quote and all, but i’m sure somebody in the world, somewhere in history, did do that.
Source?
Jesus
He literally was tortured and executed
some literally downvoted you for stating this fact. lol
🤷♂️😅
And then he got his freedom!
Except the part where he started flipping tables and whipping money lenders
And, how did it turn out in the USA? What is done under his name? Asking for a friend…
Remember when the founding fathers held a peaceful protest in Boston and the British were like, “Woah, we better Bach the fuck up”?
Yeah, you don’t fuck with Bach. If it was Beethoven, we wouldn’t have stood a chance.
It was peaceful? I mean, it has party in the name, not massacre. Also, it led to the revolution over time and gathered more and more people.
Disguised as Native Americans the night of December 16, 1773, Sons of Liberty activists boarded the Dartmouth, a British ship that had docked in Boston carrying a major shipment of East India Company tea, and set about throwing 342 chests of the tea into Boston Harbor. The British government considered the protest an act of treason and responded harshly.[3] Nine days later, on December 25, at the Philadelphia Tea Party, American patriots similarly protested the arrival of a British tea shipment, which arrived aboard the British ship Polly. While the Philadelphia patriot activists did not destroy the tea, they sent the ship back to England without unloading it.
In addition to proving one of the most influential events of the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party has proved an enduring historical symbol. In the 21st century, drawing inspiration from the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party in 1773, the Tea Party movement drew its name from it and has frequently cited the principles associated with it and the broader American Revolution as inspirational and guiding principles.
So if some random group comes in your home and throws all your stuff outside in the rain to destroy it, According to you they are being peaceful? Very peaceful behavior, Indeed.
I mean, yes. Violence involves physically harming people (or threatening to), not property. At least by WHO’s definition. So I mean the point being that most of these protests are not violent, just maybe destructive (and even then, most people are not being destructive.) the violence comes from the police, or literally florida saying they WILL kill you.
That’s what has been infuriating me about any news coverage of any protest anywhere. They treat property with the moral equivalence of newborns. They treat property with more compassion than the common people.
So you’re defending the East India Trading Co and the British Empire?
Really?
So much for anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism I guess. Literally the worst examples of either: But don’t destwoy de pwoperty boo hoo!
Here we go again,
The Peaceful LA Protests of June, 2025 worked. We’re all talking about it now. If the LA protests weren’t peaceful, we would have different talking points for this weekend’s protests and protesters would have been killed. This administration wants this.
YSK - That there is a lot of trolling and brigading starting to happen around the LA peaceful protests to start violence. Here is a roadmap from 2015 on how they do it.: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39873361
Also, this:
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/protest-trump-resistance-power
How did they work? ICE is still in my neighborhood snatching people up
They’re fucking brainwashed. They equate just protesting with some victory in their heads. No matter how small, every protest is some achievement
In the lib’s mind, protesting is not a tool, it’s the goal on itself. Just show up, wave a little flag and the bad guys will magically change their mind like it’s a fucking movie.
It’s all performative actions.
Hmmmm, I wonder why…
Most GOP lawmakers plan to skip Trump’s big parade
Could it be from booing in their town halls and a huge nationwide protest?
I don’t entirely disapprove your position, but i feel like this is a really bad argument. First, because it’s only a boycott of one parade, when people get abducted and deported. Second because they only ‘plan’ or ‘say they’ll’ do it.
This does not feel like a victory at all, this feels like satisfying yourself on crumbs
Edit : making it gender neutral
So because there isn’t immediate visible change, they aren’t effective?
The need for immediate gratification works to the favor of the authoritarian.
deleted by creator
The need for immediate gratification works to the favor of the authoritarian.
It’s also the same urge which draws people to authoritarianism.
This administration already called in the national guard for a peaceful protest. Do you think that it will stop here and the they will not continue to commit more and more violence against peaceful protestors until we reach a breaking point and have to start defending ourselves?
Or are we supposed to allow ourselves to become martyrs and die before we fight back against those that would see us dead.
It stayed peaceful. What do you think will happen if you open carry? Are you trying to get people killed?
False. The protestors stayed peaceful the police shot at the crowed with weapons that are called “less lethal” but have still killed people before and permanently disable people often.
Again
What do you think will happen if you open carry? Are you trying to get people killed?
People are already being killed by police/ice/this administration. If we open carry then the oppressors will die too, and each time one of them dies, they’ll think a bit harder before taking action against the population.
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts
This is misleading. Nonviolent resistance is obviously going to be more likely to succeed because armed conflict only happens when the government digs in its heels after the nonviolent resistance. What? Did you want Syrians to nonviolently resist Assad’s Sarin gas?
This administration wants this.
This administration wants people not to resist them. Failing that people resisting them verbally but in no practical manner will do just fine.
That’s not working. Just talking about it isn’t an accomplishment. Fuck
This liberal will be fucking armed and on target tomorrow. Do with that information what you will.
Americans kill nazis.
Laudable but illiberal means. Good on you.
If you see an oppressed people protesting against their opression, and your first instinct is to lecture them on the optics of their protest, you’re not really an ally. You’re just using “optics” as an excuse to not do anything to help out but still think of yourself as a good person. I don’t think anyone falls for it.
No one gives sympathy to protestors who fire the first killing shot on the authorities. Syrian peaceful demonstrators turned rebels have sympathy from the world because they were fired at first by Assad. Many people soured on the French Revolution at the time when The Terror occurred after the people started executing just about anyone deemed enemies of the revolution.
No one is against violence if it has to come to it, but on Lemmy it is the usual suspects (I probably don’t need to mention what political ideology they tend to be) who want to pull the trigger first on the army and police without ever thinking of consequences (they wilfully ignore the existence of Insurrection act). They are like the 2nd amendment right wingers, looking for any opportunities to fire their guns and live their fantasies, but on the opposite extreme end of the political aisle.
Or, it could be anti-Western actors stoking violence on Americans to maximise political divisions because it will tremendously help if US is thrown further into chaos.
Edit: wording
I think Gene Sharp characterized it nicely in his essay, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Notably, this essay has been cited as a major influence on the Arab Spring uprisings, so it’s especially relevant to the Syrian protests.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you’re at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?
If violence is off the table, the state is free to apply violence.
Here in America the police have already been shooting and killing us - without repercussions - for years. The weapons they’re using on protesters right now are called “less lethal” for good reason.
How many killing shots do the police need to take before we can take one? Should we just wait until the first murder at each city, or at each individual protest within each city, or until we see one personally?
The only time I can think of where the army and police killed protestors was during the Vietnam war, and those incidents further delegitimised US involvement in Vietnam.
The weapons they’re using on protesters right now are called “less lethal” for good reason.
They are being used for decades now. It is not unique to the current LA protests.
The only time you’ve heard of. Over a thousand people are murdered by US police annually using the 2020 protests as an example there were multiple instances of protesters being killed by police/national guard. Some of the more egregious ones: 1 2
Syrian rebels, the guys who ended up joining ISIS and Al Nusra, had your sympathy because the media told you they were angels fighting for freedom the right and proper way.
People soured on the French revolution because it turned on its base of support once the bourgeois made the progress that benefitted them, and further progress was against their interest.
You do realise there are other Syrian rebel factions?
Except the kurds, they were insignificant.
It isn’t just the Kurds.
It’s not an either/or situation.
In the (supposed) words of Al Capone
You get a lot more from a kind word and a gun than from a kind word alone.
Critically however, a gun without the kind word is also far less effective. They are like the tip and shaft of a spear. The shaft has the range, but lacks the punch. The tip has the punch, but lacks the range. Together they are far more than the sum of their parts.
In terms of protest. A peaceful protest is like the kind word. It’s a polite but forceful delivery of a message. Radical action and violence are the gun. They work best as an implied threat. The target much know that you are willing to escalate, if required.
Too much violence, and you have a riot. These can be put down with force, and have little to no public backlash. (This is what trump currently wants to happen).
Too little violence, and the protest can be safely ignored.
The perfect balance has enough to keep the government on their toes, but not so much as to drive away supporters, and burn off the anger powering things.
Currently, Trump and co are trying to goad people into over reacting and justifying an aggressive crackdown. In light of that, a message of don’t take the bait, err towards passive over violence isn’t so bad.
God, I can hear these guys having this conversation in that lilting Kiwi accent. This is exactly the sort of absurdity they used to lampoon.
Guys please, whatever you do, do NOT throw water balloons filled with liquid ass at ICE, that would be a REALLY bad idea…
https://youtube.com/shorts/tsJHV0mwTVE
Very interesting.Aren’t the libs fighting back now in LA
No
Huh, I didn’t know it was one-sided violence from the fascists
Liberals are a part of this too hombre
Contra el fascismo entonces
I agree that we have reached a point where things will only continue to get much, much worse without widespread and overwhelming violence against the authoritarians. Both those in power and those following them.
The problem is that authoritarians are primarily motivated by the irrational fear of violence. This fear justifies their violence, but nobody else’s. And they currently control the government, military, etc and therefore overwhelmingly more violent force than any resistance is likely to muster. On the other hand, authoritarian followers are predisposed to accept what they are told my the leaders of their in-groups, so when peaceful protests are called “violent riots” they will believe it unquestioningly and nothing whatsoever can or will change their minds. Hence, peaceful protest is no defense against the accusation of violence. This is why abortion is such an easy topic for social dominators to leverage when inciting their authoritarian followers: it’s “evidence” that their opponents are inherently violent, against babies. And again, reason and rationality have no part in this. The followers want to believe their out-group is violent and evil, they fear violence, so they will believe it because it reinforces their existing beliefs (a fear of violence, etc).
BTW, Democratic politicians in Missouri were assassinated this morning, and it’s not currently being widely covered by the news. So that take that how you like.
That’s not a problem, that’s why it will work. They are scared to death, and we have not made an example of any of them. Yet.
I’m just waiting for the moment that shots are fired by one side or the other, because once that line is crossed we can finally get real change.
https://anarchistnews.org/content/hostages-gun-militancy-and-militarism
Also @Mubelotix@jlai.lu
Look at what Chile achieved without firearms in 2019:
https://itsgoingdown.org/submedia-presents-interrebellium-the-estallido-social/
I get what you mean but you shouldn’t be waiting
I’m not merely waiting, I am preparing, arming myself, for the day when the revolution begins.
if we are not prepared to run things differently, they won’t. Destruction is not enough
There are some amongst us who already have plans for how to run things once the revolution is over.
Democrats drove away all the fighters by attacking anyone who was the slightest bit controversial or politically incorrect for the last 40 years. Basically the party was taken over by fools and cowards. This is our opposition party, and this is why we’re screwed. Ban Fox News.
Dont we all wish magic was real?
But it would really be amazing if the fighting WOULD stop. Even for a little while. We’ve all been at the breaking point for a long time (liberal, republican, and everyone in between). We are all paranoid about so many different things and suspicious of our own government.
While the meme is just a silly joke, magic would be nice.
