[yellow, a finger up, looking smug]
The answer to oppression is NEVER violence
Turn the other cheek
Pacifism always wins
You could earn rights by asking nicely instead
[yellow, proudly showing us a huge book]
Don’t believe me?
Open a history book!
[yellow, looking frustrated as they are shuffling through the book’s pages]
Ok so…
Uhm…
Not this page…
Wait…
The next one…
Awkward…
Another…
Yeah but…
For sure this time…
[yellow, sweating, protecting their book, a hand raised towards us]
Can you stop looking?
You’re being rude
That’s my book
https://thebad.website/comic/please_resist_responsibly
FYI, there is a difference between nonviolence and pacifism. Pacifism opposes violence altogether and is predicated on the idea that there is a peaceful way to settle all disputes. That is to say, it’s a philosophical or ethical position. Nonviolence is a strategy to achieve your goals without employing violence. Nonviolent protesters do not take violence off the table altogether. Rather, they believe that violent actions are not as likely to achieve their goals as nonviolent action would be.
In general, nonviolent action is taken by groups who are opposing an oppressor that has a significant power advantage over them. By resorting to violence immediately, they play into a game that they are destined to lose. Instead, they strive to use nonviolent means to make their struggle impossible to ignore. It relies on the oppressive system being vulnerable to a change in public opinion. In general, it also involves an implication that they may someday resort to violence if things do not change. That is, it differs from pacifism in that it does not deny that violence may be necessary.
Unfortunately, the idea of “then we go into the board room and execute all those assholes” has a certain emotional appeal that’s absent from “we’ll boycott, vote, run better candidates”.
More active resistance like strikes or blocking production are a little more poetic, but tend to draw violence
Nonviolent India Independence Movement
Looks inside
A shit ton of violence
I don’t know much about Gandhi but didn’t the British grant independence to other countries just as they did to the Indians(ok, probably better than they did it with the Indians)? I mean they just couldn’t support their troops due to the ww2. Would it be violent they would have probably left sooner. If there was no peaceful independence movement at all, well they did leave like that in other countries. So I don’t get Gandhi praise, it’s not like he did anything(also he was a pedo).
Yeah they left because the British empire was collapsing during and after WWII and they knew they would be unable to sustain their presence in India, especially with the rising violence and massive population.
Gandhi had been campaigning for 20 years, but it didn’t have any effect until the British quite literally ran out of steam with zero other options.
If Churchill had won a reelection, it’s likely he would have gripped the remaining colonies for longer which probably would have ended more bloody.
Jinnah saw all the sectarian violence go unresolved under British rule and pushed for an independent Pakistan knowing it wouldn’t just magically disappear after the British left.
Gandhi ironically was assassinated by Hindu extremists for “allowing” Jinnah to succeed in making Pakistan, and now those same extremists make up the current party in power in India.
The joke is that no nonviolent movement ever really succeeded because of the non violence. India and Pakistan gained independence because the British couldn’t control the onslaught of uprisings in their colonies. The civil rights movement succeeded because the government was afraid of violent public outbursts if they didn’t start making serious law changes. Even more irony, MLK was also assassinated.
Both of those events were taken out of historical context and then presented as if nonviolent action was the major cause of change when in reality it was just one part of a much bigger picture.
The ruling class didn’t get to be the ruling class by being convivial. If you want a peaceful, classless society you need to treat it like a bonsai tree: occasionally you must nip things in the bud.
History be like:
So, you guys going to take out your child rapist leader now?
No, because Americans are actual pussies.
Pinochet.
That’s the best example, he was defeated by people basically singing and dancing and telling him NO In the polls.
As horrible the dictatorship was, I love deeply and profoundly the wholesomeness of how that monster was brought down, I always like to listen at the NO’s campaign when I feel sad or depressed because it just gives me so much hope and joy.
That also relied on the military NOT pulling a Tianemen Square Massacre.
Basically the ones in control of the violence agreed with the public, meanwhile the American brass has been getting shuffled around like nobodys buisness.
they kinda tried tough.
deleted by creator
there is a lot of unpack here, a lot of it is kinda quite untrue.
Pinochet died in house arrest in 2006 while on trial, yes, justice wasn’t really made he died of old age before being jailed by his crimes, thanks to the scumbag of Frei Jr.
But the thing is that Pinochet did wanted to claw onto power, at least up to 1997, he tought he gathered legitimate support amongst the poppulation and decided to try to win cleanly to appease the international pressure, (it wasn’t so far fetched, in the 1988 plebiscite he got 42% of the votes, and won in places like araucania).
And when the old guard managed to defeat Pinochet on it’s own game, history records that Pinochet wanted to do a self coup d’etat and not to recognize the results, but the other junta generals, seeing the writhing on the wall, moved faster, and that’s how you have General Matthei telling the press that the NO had won to the press, while on it’s way to the meeting on wich Pinochet supposedly wanted to plan the coup.
Democracy came back, Chileans were free once again, and the leader of the Opposition, old guard politician, Mr Aylwin, became president.
At the very beginning of democracy there was a strong desire for national reconciliation (see protestors/No victory celebrators hugging cops image), Chilean society was torn apart and people wanted to reunite (remember a 40% still supported Pinochet at the time), but as the truth started to came out, of the heinous crimes that happened during Pinochet, the desire for justice became way more important, but it took a long time, all the politica and legal infraestructure they set up to protect themselves had to be dismantled, but it was, and they started to be prosecuted See this hilarious clip of the director of the secret police being arrested (to wich they reacted by threatening the Aylwin’s govt with a new coup), wich added to the fact that the, now opposition, right wing, still tried to defend many of them, made it slow.
The international support never existed outside the US, there always was international solidarity for the Chilean cause for freedom and democracy, and even in the US, the support went away fast after they impeached Nixon, by 1988, when the plebiscite was, the regime was already accustomed to being an international pariah, something the NO’s campaign even mocked him for.
But overall, there is nothing i love the most in this world than the NO’s campaign, and how they promised chile that they could vote without fear, and that they could dream for a future in wich people could be free, A joy that would come, if they voted NO.
Aaanyways, Greetings from chile, a country where i was fortunate to be born, and to be born free and in democracy because my grandparents and parents voted NO that day.
Excuse my cynical ignorance. I am not Chilean, and only remember the feeling of it, and Pinochet’s escape from justice.
Yes, we were trained how to protest wrong on purpose. Ask any product of the public school system about protest and they’ll either look at you confused or start babbling on about the most PG version of MLK and/or Gandhi imaginable. Nonviolence only works when it is understood by all parties to be the alternative. Many forms of effective protest have been outlawed and the owners, in a masterstroke, turned much of society’s valid anger (along with a great deal of less-than-valid anger) into self oppression with the MAGA movement and similar movements in other countries.
tldr; we’re too stupid to save
Ask any product of the public school system about protest and they’ll […] start babbling on about the most PG version of MLK and/or Gandhi imaginable
Yup, exactly like that. Be sure to ask them literally anything else about Indian Independence. For example, when it happened with the followup of when did Gandhi’s high profile protests happen.
The State only respects power. If you can show the State that you have more power than the State, you can influence the State.
Power isn’t just physical violence. There is:
- Economic power, which is show cased through boycotts, strikes, and other means
- Soft power, which is shown through lobbying and other diplomatic means
- Political power, which is shown through the ballot box
- Protest power, which is shown through protests and marches
- Violence, which is how much violence can be afflicted onto the State
- Cultural power, how has the dominant culture
This list is no means exhaustive. Each form of power has a time and place for it.
You have no economic power, you have no soft power, your political power is limited to some states and people are being pulled from their positions, protesting has been doing fucking nothing, cultural power = 😂 irrelevant.
I reality your deluding yourself.
This is just the classic “four boxes of liberty”, rephrased.
It doesn’t have to by killing people violence though. But just going on a parade isn’t doing anything on it’s own.
It could work to show how much support a movement has, but you need something to follow up if demands are not met and you actually want something to change.
A strike or blockade isn’t violent. Non violent also doesn’t mean legal. See how many non violent terrorist pensioners the UK is locking up.
The trolls are heavy with this post. “Americans are cowards.” “Pick up a gun and fight.”
While I see thier points in relation to this post, they rarely look at America tactically. If I wanted to do a violance, I’d need to know the location of my targets, so I look them up, turns out they move from town to town state to state for mettings and things. Now that I know, my options is to go rogue and independent or gather a group. Too many are tired and exsuasted trying to survive. Many are afraid to loose thier job. Many are afraid to loose thier home… So all that’s left is lone actors. I personally have a good reason why I’m not attacking, I have a disease that makes doing any significant travel impossible. Once Americans have a garuentee that violance will give them what they want, then, and only then will violence occur. For all our bravado, we are a risk adverse people, surprisingly.
Liberals rely on you never reading lol
I guess they don’t teach you kids about Gandhi and King anymore. Or more likely you skipped school that day.
Well yes, the issue is precisely with what you are taught in school vs what is in history books.
Gandhi was the culmination of centuries of violent anti-colonial struggle. While he was doing non-violent resistance in the wake of a war, the HSRA and Anushilan Samiti acted as violent threats to incentivize the UK to work with Gandhi or risk more terrorist acts, while various extremely violent soldier mutinies weakened the british grip on the country.
MLK only worked because of the implications. The panthers, urban uprisings, Malcolm X were setting the country ablaze. MLK’s platform was that there were two options, dealing with him or dealing with the rioters. The white house had no choice due to the scale of the riots and the threat of an escalation in violent tactics (panthers were starting to show up with big guns).
In both cases, what won was the diversity of tactics. The non-violent face of those events are all that’s taught in school, but the full picture of those movements can be found in the history books. You are in no position to be dismissive of others when you are the person in the comic.
You are in no position to be dismissive of others when you are the person in the comic.
I am in an excellent position to be dismissive of calls to violence. Violence is the way of barbarians. Non-violent resistance is a progression in human civilization. Violence is a regression. Anger and hate are a poison that must be turned into compassion.
Remind me how that King thing turned out, again?
“You can’t negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it’s mouth.” -Winston Churchill on Appeasement Strategey
Remind me how that King thing turned out, again?
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Voting Rights Act of 1965. Fair Housing Act of 1968. End of Jim Crow. Nyota Uhura getting a job on the bridge of the Enterprise.
“You can’t negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it’s mouth.” -Winston Churchill on Appeasement Strategey
“Now you listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I’ll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method… is love. I love you Sheriff Truman.”
-FBI Agent Albert Rosenfield on Sheriff Truman threatening to punch him again
i was referring to how MLK ENDED
Don’t confuse nonviolence or pacifism for an unwillingness to defend oneself. God blesses the innocent, not the foolish.
That wouldn’t have worked 50 to 70 years earlier though, they would have just been massacred. Those were post ww2 for a reason.
“Political power grows from the costume of a dancing frog”
Mao Zedong if he’d been a brainrotted Liberal.
General strikes that do real economic damage would work. They would round up the leaders and prosecute them as terrorist each time.
“So love me love me love me, I’m a liberal”
deleted by creator
When the AI drones are ready to clear Russian trenches, violence won’t be an option anymore. It’s important to find good arguments and ways to convince peacefully.
EMPs are cheap.
Anti drone guns exist.
Do you believe that the population could win?
Sure it is.
I mean hell, you just might become the first people on history to win their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of their oppressors. But I’m betting on plenty of violence being the only practicable alternative to the ruling class shuffling is right past serfdom and into actual slavery.
My point is that the population can’t win against killer drones. If the drones are good enough to kill the Russian army then they are good enough to kill western civilians.
I guess that might be persuasive to someone who’s never read any history books.
Guerillas with a home field advantage defeat technologically superior forces all the time. Drones won’t change that calculus.
Guerilla needs free movement and the freedom to choose engagement. With surveillance drones how is that possible?
The same way it’s been possible in surveillance states since the invention of surveillance.
The techniques change with the tech, but nothing is infallible, including and especially the enforcers of the ruling class. But as long as you believe them to be infallible, they don’t need to be. you’ll be too cowed to resist either way.
The guards can be bribed until the guards are AI.
The opportunity for guerilla warfare is also a trap because it makes it less important to act before everything is locked up.
Acting before would be best, but we’re at least a generation away from having enough people willing to engage in meaningful resistance to make doing so anything other than a fancy method of suicide.
To be clear: I hope from the bottom of my little commie heart that I’m wrong and I’ve totally misread the moment, but I don’t think I have.
Lol comicstrips
