I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
It’s almost like a bank robber with the BLA may not be a great authority on how change is achieved.
Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
Okay? What does that have to do with the blatantly false assertion that no one has ever achieved their freedom by persuading their oppressors on moral grounds?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign, and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers. I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination. And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Mahatma Gandhi was also helped by the fact that India had been waging INCREDIBLY violent resistance since the late 1800s. Like, there were ambushes that wiped out whole companies of soldiers in the mountains. His campaign of non-cooperation was just the last straw for a war-weary empire that saw little use and even littler public will to dump more soldiers into India.
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign,
Okay, so we’re going to ignore literally every quote of his about convincing the British and that the point of his nonviolent campaigns was to highlight the moral aspect of the conflict. Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers.
Jesus fucking Christ. What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination.
…
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1968 was a minor addendum.
I’m really not fucking sure you should be telling me to ‘learn more about this stuff’.
And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Oh, so violence was the main factor? I’m sure, then, that opinions in the US were changing at the time because no one was persuaded, they were just scared. After all, that’s how ethnic resistance movements so consistently throughout history persuade the majority of a country, definitely not resulting in long-standing ethnic conflicts and enduring prejudices with literal centuries-long irregular warfare.
Good thing these brave revolutionaries knew that moral persuasion was worthless!
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
I sound like a ‘liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history’ because… I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit is this?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn’t some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you’re at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn’t an option, there’s no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn’t benefit the oppressors.
So your argument is… what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate… doesn’t count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would’ve gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we’re talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
‘Coercive nonviolence’
Lord.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn’t have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
“There were violent acts previously” does not refute “These groups achieved success with moral persuasion”
Fuck’s sake, you’re connecting Gandhi’s success with the American Revolution, MLK Jr. with the Civil War, and the fall of the Soviet Union with every major war it was involved in throughout the Cold War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
It’s almost like a bank robber with the BLA may not be a great authority on how change is achieved.
Okay? What does that have to do with the blatantly false assertion that no one has ever achieved their freedom by persuading their oppressors on moral grounds?
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign, and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers. I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination. And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Mahatma Gandhi was also helped by the fact that India had been waging INCREDIBLY violent resistance since the late 1800s. Like, there were ambushes that wiped out whole companies of soldiers in the mountains. His campaign of non-cooperation was just the last straw for a war-weary empire that saw little use and even littler public will to dump more soldiers into India.
Okay, so we’re going to ignore literally every quote of his about convincing the British and that the point of his nonviolent campaigns was to highlight the moral aspect of the conflict. Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
Jesus fucking Christ. What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
…
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1968 was a minor addendum.
I’m really not fucking sure you should be telling me to ‘learn more about this stuff’.
Oh, so violence was the main factor? I’m sure, then, that opinions in the US were changing at the time because no one was persuaded, they were just scared. After all, that’s how ethnic resistance movements so consistently throughout history persuade the majority of a country, definitely not resulting in long-standing ethnic conflicts and enduring prejudices with literal centuries-long irregular warfare.
Good thing these brave revolutionaries knew that moral persuasion was worthless!
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Liberals aren’t leftists.
I sound like a ‘liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history’ because… I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit is this?
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn’t some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you’re at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn’t an option, there’s no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn’t benefit the oppressors.
So your argument is… what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate… doesn’t count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would’ve gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we’re talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
‘Coercive nonviolence’
Lord.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn’t have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
True left praxis. I am in awe.
The most intelligent liberal, folks.
This one was only made possible after war was fought 100 years prior
This one came about as the final straw in the British Empire’s back that was started off by the American Revolution.
This one was was caused by the USSR suffering multiple setbacks after its war in Afghanistan, multiple proxy wars (e.g., Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War; the Angolan Civil War; Somalia and Etheopia; Nigerian Civil War; etc.), putting down attempts at reform in the eastern bloc (Praque Spring the Polish Crisis), the massive unrest that had plain-clothes secret-police beating protesters just before the Berlin Wall fell, a violent revolution in Romania, and the August Coup failed.
That doesn’t really refute the point, at all?
I thought you were making the point that they were peaceful , and I was refuting that stuff was peaceful.
“There were violent acts previously” does not refute “These groups achieved success with moral persuasion”
Fuck’s sake, you’re connecting Gandhi’s success with the American Revolution, MLK Jr. with the Civil War, and the fall of the Soviet Union with every major war it was involved in throughout the Cold War.
gandhi succeded at nothing, his last movement was at 1942, and India got it’s independence at 1947. Delayed effect ig