[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
I came hear to check whether someone already gave this answer. Thanks. :)
It’s high time for a riot.
The beginning rage baited me
The real reason MLK Jr is posthumously a hero.
I too would have an easier time achieving major changes through non violent means if I had my jojo stand Malcom X standing menacingly out of sight behind me at all times threatening more violence and more uprisings if my peaceful demands were not met.
Malcolm X posed as MLK j(oesta)r’s stand is an amazing image lmao
Ghandi too
Workshop: arguments for keeping the fourth panel? I feel like ending on #3 is a lot stronger.
i like the fourth pabel. it shows someone loudly proclaiming the status-quo establishment line, being shown to be embarassingly, catastrophically wrong, and rather than changing their ways, their worldview, or owning up to their mistake, they change subject, deflect, and get defensive. i think that’s a well-observed comic panel
Oh, yes, panel #4 is definitely true and I do enjoy looking at that guy freaking out; I just think it’s making a second point (how claims are defended in the contradiction to the evidence) at the expense of the first point (that this claim is in contradiction to the evidence).
You can make both points, of course, but the last one is the one more likely to be remembered.
I think you’re right, much better that way.
Thanks, useful advice on writing/pacing is rare.
It definitely feels risky giving unsolicited feedback, because maybe it’s not wanted.
I also wonder how much of my fear was shaped by r/comics somewhat brutal and arbitrary moderation. I think there was an explicit rule about not saying anything negative, as if the sub were a site to encourage women to take photos of themselves.
History be like:
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.
So, you guys going to take out your child rapist leader now?
No, because Americans are actual pussies.
“The people in charge insist that rising up physically against the people in charge is always wrong, and so they’ve made rules against doing that, or suggesting it online, or making any sort of plans to do it. As always, the folk with all the money and power have all of our best interests in mind.”
Repeat after me: Carrot or stick. If a group has been wronged, they are only responsible to offer one of the two, you can decide which you will take when it becomes time to talk about solving the problem
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.
This is just the classic “four boxes of liberty”, rephrased.
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 = 😂.
I reality your deluding yourself.
Remember the words of Martin Luther King: “When you’re marching in the streets try not break anything.”
I don’t want to say about the frequency or which way is more effective, but there have been nonviolent revolutions. Wikipedia even has a page about it. It took me only a few seconds of searching to find it.
So, the comic author is mocking people who make conclusions without actually looking at the data, and meanwhile, they seem to have written the comic making the opposite conclusion ironically without actually looking at the data, either.
It would be so nice if things were always one way or always another way, and people love to assume that their common sense and existing knowledge will be enough to make conclusions, but the comic is right in that regard. If you tell other people your conclusions but you haven’t done the research, you really do open yourself up to looking foolish… Not that it seems like most people care about that these days.
That section of the Wikipedia page is pretty weird looking right off the bat. The first two are the cedar in Lebanon and the Mirabal sisters which are circumstances that are hard to call nonviolent.
The cedar revolution can only be called nonviolent if you disregard the 01 protest wave that preceded it and established with violence that everyone was actually on the side of ending syrian occupation and not having car bomb attacks all the god damned time.
And el jefe was fucking assassinated by the military at international urging. That’s not nonviolent!
I didn’t look any further but it really seems like a bad list that’s written with incredibly rose-colored glasses.
The article states what it considers a nonviolent revolution. It doesn’t mean there was zero bloodshed, but that the actual parties that were trying to take power did not use or threaten violence.
Even if you disagree with their definition or believe that they gave a bad example, I imagine that you wouldn’t find the entire list objectionable.
There are only 7 examples in the whole list.
I didn’t look any further
A very useful tactic in this specific situation.
A very useful tactic in this specific situation.
when you find counter examples to the premise you stop since the premise is demonstrably incorrect.
The entire list is counter-examples, even the ones they mentioned. I am guessing that they simply disagree with the definition given by Wikipedia. They seem to be claiming that violence prior to a revolution by somebody else who wasn’t part of the party that came into power, but which weakened the authority, is disqualifying as a nonviolent revolution.
If they don’t like Wikipedia’s definition, then they can mention that. But it’s impossible to argue against a premise that they didn’t even specify. They didn’t give substantive anything to argue against, so what would I even be arguing? Like I said, unless they state their specific problem, in my view, the entire list, even the ones they mentioned, are what you’d call counter-examples. They haven’t given a better definition of a nonviolent revolution.
If you want an example where there was no violence at all by anybody, even unrelated parties, and again, the list is only 7 entries long, just look at the June Democratic Struggle, which is the fourth in the list. Two after they stopped looking further, and I think 4 more than you looked at.
The simple fact is the there are almost no examples of non-violent revolutions. Almost every single revolution has violence as a component of it. it doesnt matter if a particular group within the wider populace (ghandi) was non-violent they were uplifted by the actions of the violent groups if only to offer an alternative group to ‘negotiate’ with.
the simple fact is: revolutions dont occur unless violence is necessary, after all if violence wasnt necessary the changes would have been made long before the revolution grew legs cropped up.
You asked for an example with zero violence. I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it, first saying there are “almost no examples,” but then go on to ignore it completely and say that “revolutions don’t occur unless violence is necessary.” If you had already made up your mind and decided to ignore any contrary evidence, you shouldn’t have asked for counter-examples.
I wasn’t even trying to argue for nonviolent revolutions, only to say that the tiniest bit of effort shows that they have occurred. At any rate, I don’t think you’re the kind of person I want to continue interacting with. So, bye. I’m finished with this particular exchange.
You asked for an example with zero violence.
No I didnt. I was explaining to you why wikipedia’s list isnt useful and why the individual stop looking into the instances on the list immediately after finding counter examples in literally the first couple instances listed.
I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it.
Because I didnt give a shit about your example because I knew what I’d find. but lets address it now to demonstrate the point I was making:
The June Democratic Struggle in South Korea was preceded by significant violence during earlier protests, notably the Gwangju Uprising in 1980, where the military brutally suppressed demonstrations, leading to widespread casualties. This history of violence contributed to the urgency and scale of the protests in June 1987, as citizens demanded democratic reforms and an end to authoritarian rule.
You can’t say ‘look this uprising succeeded without the use of violence!’ when the reason it succeeded was arguably because of the use of violence that proceeded it. They’re not independent events. Its the same regime, same population, within less than a generation, involving many of the same actors and part of an ongoing sequence of resistance.
My statement of there being very few examples of non-violent revolutions was a hedge because I’m not intimately familiar with the history of every civilization on the planet for all time. But every time this conversation has come up and people like yourself have cropped up I can’t recall a single instance that was referenced as being violence free.
As people have literally done for you multiple times now, you’re just fucking wrong.
You write entirely dishonest trite! That ‘revolution’ was preceded by the Gwangju Uprising, a massacre. The protestors retaliated with violence. It is this history–the threat of violence–that underpins ANY political power. There are no peaceful revolutions. Anyone who attempts to frame something as peaceful to prove that there is such a thing looks at an event myopically and dishonestly.
Read your own fucking articles. There’s nothing peaceful about killings and torture. “On June 11, the National Police Agency defended its actions on the previous day, describing rallies as illegal, and as violent “disorderly conduct”, and declaring their intention to crack down on further unrest.” You: but-b-b-but it was a peaceful protest. You are a liar and a bootlicker.
The Gwangju Uprising happened in 1980. The June Democratic Struggle happened over 7 years later in 1987. Why didn’t you mention that? Is it because you knew that it would completely discredit your point? Is it because you didn’t think somebody would call your bluff and fact check you?
So, you’re calling me a liar, and aggressively, while saying… that. I’m sorry, but I am reporting and blocking you.
You asked for it:
Next is Ecuador in ‘05 when they sent guiterrez to Brazil.
But here’s the third sentence in the intro paragraph of the Wikipedia article about that event:
What started as nonviolent anti-government protests in March mushroomed into violent rioting and spread countywide. Protesters demanded the fall of the government and an end to corruption.
Maybe the next one will prove your point…
South Korea! The June Struggle? Here’s the Wikipedia article on its background:
Chun and Roh were unwilling to use violence as the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul were approaching. They believed that doing so would draw further criticism, with the regime already under international pressure after the Gwangju Uprising and its massacre a few years earlier.
Almost like the nonviolent resolution was made possible by violence before it…
How about the next one:
Oh, the white lily student movement! Surely there’s a good solid Wikipedia article about that!
Barely past a stub? No mention of the boat people massacre three years before, changs successors recognizing the need to get international support after decades of martial law and the clear message from foreign influence in the Tiananmen protests the year before?
Must have been the wind.
Dateline - Philippines edsa 2, nonviolent government handover as long as you don’t count the precipitated edsa 3 just a few months later.
Oh, now we’re talking about Sudan, never mind that after the protest wave (not entirely nonviolent but I’ll leave that by the wayside for now) the military took over the transitional government.
Now I know I took a pretty let’s call it conversational tone in the above and that breakdown is for two reasons, one, I don’t want to legitimize that dogshit Wikipedia article by talking about it in neutral language and two, I’m tired.
The point isn’t to argue over specifics about some shitty wiki article but to recognize that things are only called “nonviolent” when arbitrary lines around them in time, place and even people that exclude the violent component of their existence are drawn.
Almost like the nonviolent resolution was made possible by violence before it…
Everything has context, but the context isn’t the thing itself. Sometimes, the context is the exact opposite of the thing.
Your claim seems to be that a nonviolent revolution is impossible if there was ever a violent attempt in the past that anybody in power remembers. If it sounds like a ridiculous idea, that’s because it is.
I don’t think this is the least bit complicated or controversial. I’m not even claiming that a nonviolent revolution is a good idea or possible in the future, only that it’s happened in the past. This is just a basic fact. I don’t think I can have a reasonable discussion with a person who rejects unpleasant facts.
At any rate, I think you’ve spurred me into doing something rather ironic in this situation. I’m just going to go ahead and block the entire lemmy.ml instance. There’s a button for it, but I haven’t tried it before, so there’s no time like the present. I just want you to know that the irony isn’t lost on me, that I’m judging others on your instance for the context of where they’re logged in from. But I suspect that anybody reasonable has already decided not to have an account over there. I expect this will save me the trouble of blocking you all individually. Adios.
You’re not even reading what I wrote.
I said that you can only call something nonviolent by drawing an arbitrary line separating it from the violence that preceded it, followed it or the violence done by someone else or threatened by other events.
Sucks to suck I guess. Bye.
right but that doesn’t change the fact the results are bleak
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 lllk at the NO’s campaign when I feel sad or depressed because it just gives me so much hope and joy.
It was that the Western support that put him in power dried up. I believe, that if he thought he could survive a revolution, he would have clawed and fought all the way to the end. The killer didn’t have some change of heart. Instead, he decided to enjoy his wealth and die a rich man in Europe. When that became difficult, he returned home and was shielded from prosecution for his crimes. I don’t know where all this flowery revision of history is coming from.
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.
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.
Violence is always the answer. Plus it makes the best airplanes.
Violence is not the answer, it is the question and the answer is YES
