The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
Tell that to Hong Kong demonstrators on June 16, 2019, estimated by organizers at 2 million people marching. Hong Kong had a population of 7.5 million at the time.
Sure there was violence both before and after that protest, but mostly caused by violent crackdown by police.
But did it fail because there was violence or was violence a sign of stronger opposition? Causation vs correlation and all that.
Considering the UK's biggest export is independence days, it's kind of hard to think that all of those were solved through non violent means.
How many of those were backed by much more powerful foreign powers?
Non violent protests work on a platform of sympathy, violence is fear, a lot of people lack any sympathy for no kings protests and those against it don't seem to fear it
How are you going to demand change when a ragtag militia force can stop it?
there has to be a big ass asterisk on his post. generally things like the civil rights movement got partially undone and then success can be nebulous since even in a movement there are subset of goals that might not have been achieved
So how do you keep the police from making it violent?
Numbers.
The simplest answer is usually not one that works, you can disperse crowds with water cannons alone and eliminate stragglers with arrests and rubber bullets
The real answer would probably end up being violence in the end, planned action to sabotage police movements, forming communes to act in unison and to act against the state and their tools
High participation raises the likelihood that the people in the police, military, national guard, have friends and family on the other side. This makes them less likely to use force and more likely to defect.
They are already outnumbered.
What does that have to do with non-violent protesters?
Did the violent attacks by police & police dogs make the Birmingham campaign a violent protest?
That second part is especially encouraging.
It shouldn't be. Asserting that "no non-violent protests have failed" ignores an obvious null hypothesis.
Tyrannical regimes attack non-violent protests that get large enough, and then call said movements "violent" to justify what the state did to them.
Chenoweth didn't "assert" anything, she looked at hundreds of campaigns over the last century and reported results. Her work is linked in the article - you're welcome to critique her methodology after reading it. Null hypothesis my ass.
It's about resistance, not violence per we. Choosing the right kind of resistance for the situation is how change is made. Non violent protesting is for raising awareness and building solidarity. Violence is purely for defense and to show when a line has been crossed. Otherwise your movement will just become the next police state regime, if it doesn't get crushed outright. People advocating for violence on social media are either bots or bad faith actors trying to stop the movement. Anyone seriously considering violence against the state sure as shit aren't posting about it on Lemmy.
I'd say that being distruptive is what we should be discussing about. Strikes or boycotts, when organized well, can be examples of non-violent can actually work, while holding a sign in a park doesn't do anything.
Agree. But also, holding a sign in a park with 20 other people that you coordinated with is not nothing. It's community building and solidarity, which are both essential.
We're at that point and yet has Trump been impeached for denying due process and trying to create a process with ice to deport people without a trial to a foreign prison for life? Or for blatantly ignoring orders from federal courts and the Supreme Court?
Until Trump is in prison or tried for his crimes this article doesn't sway my opinion at all. Fact is too many loopholes exist in the rule of law in the usa. Only way to fix it is creating a new government with a new constitution. The executive branch as it is has way too much power consolidated. The current form of government cant go on as it is. Especially because of how much money and bribery is now involved.
I dont see this being resolved peacefully. Fascists never go peacefully. NEVER
Name one non-violent protest that changed the material conditions of those protesting, I'll wait.
The Velvet Revolution.
American Revolution. French Revolution. Iranian Revolution.
Just a few very violent, and successful, revolutions.
I don't really know if I'd consider the French revolution very succesful, considering the fact that the Bourbon dynasty was restored after only 16 years.
General strikes accomplish a fuck of a lot more in a shorter amount of time. When the owners of the administration can't get their poptarts to the stores to be sold, the bank calls their loans and shit gets real.
Right after Covid ended, the nurses in the NYC hospitals decided that after being so heroic for over a year, they deserved raises, and some other benefits. The hospitals flat-out refused anything.
The nurses went on strike. Within 72 hours, every single one of their demands was met, including a fat raise.
Unions and strikes work.
Yeah, too many people keep acting like "hold up a sign" and "start shooting" are the only two political actions possible. There is a vast array of disruptions and threats to the status quo that do not require violence.
my fucking ass 👅🥾
Bolsheviks, Stonewall riots, suffragettes, all famously peaceful movements that got their rights by staying on their knees and asking nicely.
Those are successful, yes. But then you have Arbenz's Guatamala and the FARC in Columbia and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and democratic revolts in Hong Kong and Kashmir and the French Revolution and the Polish Resistance and the failures of socialist revolts across Africa and the Middle East.
I think part of the problem is how we define "successful". Because it's easy to see how the Spanish Anarchists failed to defeat Franco. Meanwhile, we largely consider the Civil Rights Era in the United States a success, despite many of its leaders being assassinated and its efforts quashed and undo under the Nixon/Reagan Era.
Militant insurgencies end when they are crushed by police/military. Peaceful protests don't "fail" nearly so dramatically, they just fade away.
Psst, just a friendly reminder: it's Colombia with two O's and no U :) just a little pet peeve of mine.