This book sometimes gets framed as “this proves non-violent protest is always better”, but its text is far more nuanced than that. For any peaceful group that succeeds, you can find a more violent group working for the same goals. This is so consistent that making an academic case that peaceful protest works in isolation is an impossible task. For MLK, it was groups like the Black Panthers. For Gandhi, it was the Indian National Army.
Fascists would very much like it if you swallowed the idea that peaceful protest on its own is sufficient.
On today, the day we celebrate MLK Jr. maybe you could give peace a fucking chance.
So if we come back tomorrow, do we get to argue without this shield around bad facts?
Yeah but most if not all of India was united against the British. They saw it as a potential military defeat if it did go sideways. The difference here is that Trump is wielding the government and zealous supporters against small marginalized groups of people.
If Britain decided to just murder people until everyone fell in line they would have had their asses kicked. If trump.does it he’d get it done pretty quickly.
Thanks for proving my point with India despite the nuance. I mean you are really just arguing for violence at this point.
I get it, it is pre-emptive violence to prevent future violence!
Back to the argument that moar guns will solve the problem though. I get it now, more guns equals more violence and random Internet guy frezik likes violence!
“Gandhi even said that he disagreed with their methods but believed that they’re committed patriots and that they’re right to refuse to take on the creed of nonviolence,” Ghosh said. “It’s very interdependent; you can’t tell the story of Gandhi without telling the story of the revolutionary terrorists.”
Yeah, I don’t think that proves your point at all.
No, it is just you and your one Ghandi quote saying they were part of it. It is not a quote saying he would never had made it without their violence.
You really should stop pretending you know shit about this. I studied it in college and I don’t feel like I could explain all the complexities of the groups interacting.
It is clear there have been many peaceful movements. Which leads us back to the concept that we need moar guns to solve our problem.
Did moar guns solve Ghandi’s problems? Did moar guns solve Martin Luther King’s problems? Don’t bother answering because these are rhetorical questions.
There were violent groups working for India’s independence against the British.
Which brings me to this: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156837
This book sometimes gets framed as “this proves non-violent protest is always better”, but its text is far more nuanced than that. For any peaceful group that succeeds, you can find a more violent group working for the same goals. This is so consistent that making an academic case that peaceful protest works in isolation is an impossible task. For MLK, it was groups like the Black Panthers. For Gandhi, it was the Indian National Army.
Fascists would very much like it if you swallowed the idea that peaceful protest on its own is sufficient.
So if we come back tomorrow, do we get to argue without this shield around bad facts?
Yeah but most if not all of India was united against the British. They saw it as a potential military defeat if it did go sideways. The difference here is that Trump is wielding the government and zealous supporters against small marginalized groups of people.
If Britain decided to just murder people until everyone fell in line they would have had their asses kicked. If trump.does it he’d get it done pretty quickly.
This is a really interesting thought.
Thanks for proving my point with India despite the nuance. I mean you are really just arguing for violence at this point.
I get it, it is pre-emptive violence to prevent future violence!
Back to the argument that moar guns will solve the problem though. I get it now, more guns equals more violence and random Internet guy frezik likes violence!
Yeah, I don’t think that proves your point at all.
No one attributes the success of the movement in freeing India with violence even if it did happen.
You are really reaching trying to prove violence has a purpose. And that purpose is apparently to get you off.
Nobody attributes it, except for people who have studied it beyond pop culture.
No, it is just you and your one Ghandi quote saying they were part of it. It is not a quote saying he would never had made it without their violence.
You really should stop pretending you know shit about this. I studied it in college and I don’t feel like I could explain all the complexities of the groups interacting.
It is clear there have been many peaceful movements. Which leads us back to the concept that we need moar guns to solve our problem.
Did moar guns solve Ghandi’s problems? Did moar guns solve Martin Luther King’s problems? Don’t bother answering because these are rhetorical questions.
Guns create problems, they don’t solve them.