2010-2020 saw more mass protests around the world than at any other point in human history, but the societal changes that resulted were often the opposite of what protesters demanded. Author Vincent Bevins explains why.
No, which is why I would like to at least try some other ideas before violence. Because violence doesn’t seem to be doing a lot of anyone any good, historically or presently.
That’s literally what this entire post is talking about, though… I’m not saying violence is necessarily the answer, but we’ve been trying nonviolent methods, and they aren’t working
To be more accurate, they posited that the more chaotic the action, the more effective the protest has historically been, not that non-violent protest is not effective at all. I think that’s an important distinction.
They also say this:
People are willing to stand up and ask for it, but all you have to do is just tinker with the tactics, tinker with the approach
I believe it is possible to create chaos without requiring violence. I agree we need to tinker with the approach. I do not think escalating straight to violence is necessary and that we possess the creativity to modify tactics instead of abandoning principles. We should leave the most damaging options for the last resort.
We have tried some non-violent methods. It may not be the non-violent part that is causing them to be ineffective. It is possible to modify the tactics before abandoning peace.
We have also tried the violent option for instigating social change thousands of years. I am not convinced that the good to come from those historical examples outweighs the bad, or is even close. I am convinced that people who feel wronged often want equal or greater revenge and it is often targetted really poorly.
Removed by mod
Truly the only way meaningful change is ever achieved.
I would really like it if we could at least try some other non-violent strategies first, but that’s just me.
Have you been living under a rock
No, which is why I would like to at least try some other ideas before violence. Because violence doesn’t seem to be doing a lot of anyone any good, historically or presently.
That’s literally what this entire post is talking about, though… I’m not saying violence is necessarily the answer, but we’ve been trying nonviolent methods, and they aren’t working
To be more accurate, they posited that the more chaotic the action, the more effective the protest has historically been, not that non-violent protest is not effective at all. I think that’s an important distinction.
They also say this:
I believe it is possible to create chaos without requiring violence. I agree we need to tinker with the approach. I do not think escalating straight to violence is necessary and that we possess the creativity to modify tactics instead of abandoning principles. We should leave the most damaging options for the last resort.
Alternatively…
A bit of tar and feathering is always fun
Tar and feathering is a slow death frequently from infections in the burns. It is a revolting and grotesque torture technique.
We have, that’s the problem
We have tried some non-violent methods. It may not be the non-violent part that is causing them to be ineffective. It is possible to modify the tactics before abandoning peace.
We have also tried the violent option for instigating social change thousands of years. I am not convinced that the good to come from those historical examples outweighs the bad, or is even close. I am convinced that people who feel wronged often want equal or greater revenge and it is often targetted really poorly.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m not convinced you have one to change.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod