For best results, you need a trifacta.

A popularist movement is core. This should be non-violent and as welcoming to new members as possible.

A political group then acts as a focus for the group. It translates the mob grievances into politically actionable demands.

A radical group acts as the teeth. It forces the government to take proper notice of the other 2 groups.

The Irish troubles would be a good example. The popular movement was ignored by the UK government. It bubbles over into riots etc at times, which actually hurt their message in many ways. The Sinn Féin party focused the discontent and gave the UK government someone to negotiate with. Finally the IRA provided the force on the UK government.

Take away any leg and the whole movement stutters. If the popularist wing gets violent, then it bleeds members fast. Without a political wing, the movement is unfocused and will achieve nothing. The violent wing can be dropped IF there is sufficient threat of its existence/creation to keep governments motivated. Unfortunately, most governments that let things escalate that far will just dig in their heels, rather than do the sensible thing.

In an examination of 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns, between 1900 and 2006, nonviolent campaigns achieve partial or full success at twice the rate of violent campaigns

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict

Public Education in the US LOVES Martin Luther King Jr.

Barely ever any mention of Malcom X.

I hold that nobody would've listened to MLK if the alternative wasn't Malcom's approach.

Workshop: arguments for keeping the fourth panel? I feel like ending on #3 is a lot stronger.

Peace is only an option when the social contract is maintained.

When power structures violate it or make sure you're excluded from it, it's time for bricks

The real reason MLK Jr is posthumously a hero.

You want your rights?

You have to be willing to throw bricks.

FYI, there is a difference between nonviolence and pacifism. Pacifism opposes violence altogether and is predicated on the idea that there is a peaceful way to settle all disputes. That is to say, it's a philosophical or ethical position. Nonviolence is a strategy to achieve your goals without employing violence. Nonviolent protesters do not take violence off the table altogether. Rather, they believe that violent actions are not as likely to achieve their goals as nonviolent action would be.

In general, nonviolent action is taken by groups who are opposing an oppressor that has a significant power advantage over them. By resorting to violence immediately, they play into a game that they are destined to lose. Instead, they strive to use nonviolent means to make their struggle impossible to ignore. It relies on the oppressive system being vulnerable to a change in public opinion. In general, it also involves an implication that they may someday resort to violence if things do not change. That is, it differs from pacifism in that it does not deny that violence may be necessary.

History be like:

It depends at what stage of oppression we are in. There's a point for both a soft touch and for violence, wisdom is knowing what to do and when to do it.

The ruling class didn't get to be the ruling class by being convivial. If you want a peaceful, classless society you need to treat it like a bonsai tree: occasionally you must nip things in the bud.

Prisoners dilemma. Turn the other cheek all but guarantees oppression. Cooperation, and tit-for-tat (swift rebuke + forgiveness) wins

Nonviolent India Independence Movement

Looks inside

A shit ton of violence

"The people in charge insist that rising up physically against the people in charge is always wrong, and so they've made rules against doing that, or suggesting it online, or making any sort of plans to do it. As always, the folk with all the money and power have all of our best interests in mind."

Pinochet.

That's the best example, he was defeated by people basically singing and dancing and telling him NO In the polls.

As horrible the dictatorship was, I love deeply and profoundly the wholesomeness of how that monster was brought down, I always like to listen at the NO's campaign when I feel sad or depressed because it just gives me so much hope and joy.

I don't want to say about the frequency or which way is more effective, but there have been nonviolent revolutions. Wikipedia even has a page about it. It took me only a few seconds of searching to find it.

So, the comic author is mocking people who make conclusions without actually looking at the data, and meanwhile, they seem to have written the comic making the opposite conclusion ironically without actually looking at the data, either.

It would be so nice if things were always one way or always another way, and people love to assume that their common sense and existing knowledge will be enough to make conclusions, but the comic is right in that regard. If you tell other people your conclusions but you haven't done the research, you really do open yourself up to looking foolish.... Not that it seems like most people care about that these days.

I swear half of lemmings are yellow guy

So, you guys going to take out your child rapist leader now?

No, because Americans are actual pussies.

Requisite link directly talking about this:

The success of nonviolent civil resistance: Erica Chenoweth at TEDxBoulder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w

Erica's original hypothesis was that violence was more successful, but was convinced to do research on the topic and found that while it does work, nonviolence on a mass scale is more effective.

The two papers:

Original. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works..The-Strategic-Logic-of-Nonviolent-Conflict.pdf

Updated. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/questions-answers-and-some-cautionary-updates-regarding-35-rule

Why not both?? Brought to you by a radical flank theorist.

Imagine a group of people that is perceived as violent agitators. Lets assume they have demonstrated that they will escalate their violence if their demands aren't met. However, the people in power do not want to negotiate with terrorists, do not want to legitimize violence and their only answer to it is oppression. Now imagine a second group of people that has adjacent demands but obeys to non-violence principles and to methods generally regarded as civil disobedience. This second group will point at the violent radicals and position themselves as a reasonable alternative. The people in power will see them as a way out of the violence and will be willing to negotiate with them.

Overall, the first group might not get all it wanted, but there will be compromise and change towards their demands.

This can only work with people in power who eventually, bottom down, have a conscience and semblance of ethics. Dictators don't care about repressing their own people and will avoid the false dichotomy by lumping both groups together and send them to prison camps.

In practice it is also really hard to navigate as the opposition to the people in power is de facto divided, creating double opportunities to tank each group with various techniques like media manipulation, attacking leadership with lawsuits, blocking funding etc.

Repeat after me: Carrot or stick. If a group has been wronged, they are only responsible to offer one of the two, you can decide which you will take when it becomes time to talk about solving the problem

The beginning rage baited me