Lowpast

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

Into the exact same regime with a new color of paint?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (34 children)

History has overwhelmingly shown that non-violence is more successful than violence. You do you.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago

You have the causality backwards.

You're right that successful movements often have both violent and nonviolent wings - but the nonviolent components don't succeed because of the violent ones. They succeed despite them. The research is pretty clear on this: nonviolent campaigns are actually more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones, and they're more likely to lead to stable democratic outcomes.

Your claim that "without violent resistance, nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists" is historically backwards. Nonviolent movements get labeled as extremist precisely when they're associated with violence, not when they're separate from it. The Civil Rights Movement's greatest victories came when they maintained strict nonviolent discipline - Birmingham, Selma, the March on Washington. Every time violence entered the picture, it gave opponents ammunition to dismiss the entire movement.

And about Gandhi needing violent militants to succeed - this ignores how the independence movement actually worked. The violent revolutionary groups you're thinking of (like the Hindustan Republican Association) were largely marginalized by the time of Gandhi's major campaigns. His mass mobilization strategies worked because they were genuinely nonviolent and drew broad participation precisely because people knew they wouldn't be asked to commit violence.

The "good cop/bad cop" theory sounds intuitive but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. What actually makes nonviolent resistance effective is mass participation, strategic planning, and moral leverage - not the threat of violence lurking in the background.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Well that sure is an opinion I haven't heard before

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Except ketamine doesn't do that to you

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Even with high speed rail you're looking at 30+ hours from Seattle to NYC. And that's optimistic, ignoring the numerous alpine mountains. No thanks.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Ahh yes, trade 6 hours for a 3 day, $400 train ride to NYC.

Lmfao what a shit suggestion

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Turns out they changed the suggestion for that too! Start with blood tests and go from there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yes, blood and stool tests are not only just as effective for screening, they are they recommended tests.

view more: next ›