I think the problem is people don’t understand the third path. Nonviolent means are not physically violent towards people - it works because of violence all the same though
Protests themselves are just a show of solidarity. They will never change anything - unless they are large or sustained enough that the implied threat of violence causes fear in the leadership. They are just a symptom of discontent, police and the military can disperse the people, and they will, without the implied threat of what happens when you close this outlet
Then there’s economic violence. You can shut down a city or grind the economy to a halt with enough motivated people. That will piss people off… At first. If you keep it going, it will transform from an inconvenience to a threat to normalcy - at first, most people will be annoyed at the protesters, but once they feel their life disruptered they will be more angry at the state and just want it to stop
You can do the same legally. You can gum up the works, get yourself arrested for a specific reason to challenge that reason in court, over and over until you freeze up the legal system. You can even win, and push back the boundaries of the law oppressing you
Then there’s martyrdom. You can force the state to commit violence on you. You can set yourself on fire. You can give up your life to amplify your message. This makes people very uncomfortable
There’s always violence. It can be implied, it can be against yourself, it can be against property, it can be against the feeling of normalcy itself - but there’s always some kind of violence. Because ultimately, violence is asserting your will over others, and that’s what a movement does
Nonviolent means are not physically violent towards people - it works because of violence all the same though
Nonviolent means can (and often do) work when oriented towards pressuring a population. That’s not a reason to discount the value of nonviolent means oriented towards moral persuasion. That’s all I’m saying.
There’s always violence. It can be implied, it can be against yourself, it can be against property, it can be against the feeling of normalcy itself - but there’s always some kind of violence. Because ultimately, violence is asserting your will over others, and that’s what a movement does
I’m not writing off nonviolent means - I’m a strong believer in the third path. But you have to understand what you’re doing… It is not enough to hold signs and march. It matters where and how you march, when you march, and the physical consequences of you marching
Is persuasion violence? Sometimes. When there’s any degree of coercion, it’s violence
You need the coercion. You need to wake people the fuck up and make them pay attention.
They want to live their lives and ignore the scary reality of this takeover of society. They want to stop watching the news. I understand it… This shit is terrifying to live through. I feel the urge to put my head in the sand too
We cannot let them. And that is coercion. That is violence… Just a far better kind of violence
I think the problem is people don’t understand the third path. Nonviolent means are not physically violent towards people - it works because of violence all the same though
Protests themselves are just a show of solidarity. They will never change anything - unless they are large or sustained enough that the implied threat of violence causes fear in the leadership. They are just a symptom of discontent, police and the military can disperse the people, and they will, without the implied threat of what happens when you close this outlet
Then there’s economic violence. You can shut down a city or grind the economy to a halt with enough motivated people. That will piss people off… At first. If you keep it going, it will transform from an inconvenience to a threat to normalcy - at first, most people will be annoyed at the protesters, but once they feel their life disruptered they will be more angry at the state and just want it to stop
You can do the same legally. You can gum up the works, get yourself arrested for a specific reason to challenge that reason in court, over and over until you freeze up the legal system. You can even win, and push back the boundaries of the law oppressing you
Then there’s martyrdom. You can force the state to commit violence on you. You can set yourself on fire. You can give up your life to amplify your message. This makes people very uncomfortable
There’s always violence. It can be implied, it can be against yourself, it can be against property, it can be against the feeling of normalcy itself - but there’s always some kind of violence. Because ultimately, violence is asserting your will over others, and that’s what a movement does
Nonviolent means can (and often do) work when oriented towards pressuring a population. That’s not a reason to discount the value of nonviolent means oriented towards moral persuasion. That’s all I’m saying.
Is persuasion, then, violence as well?
I’m not writing off nonviolent means - I’m a strong believer in the third path. But you have to understand what you’re doing… It is not enough to hold signs and march. It matters where and how you march, when you march, and the physical consequences of you marching
Is persuasion violence? Sometimes. When there’s any degree of coercion, it’s violence
You need the coercion. You need to wake people the fuck up and make them pay attention.
They want to live their lives and ignore the scary reality of this takeover of society. They want to stop watching the news. I understand it… This shit is terrifying to live through. I feel the urge to put my head in the sand too
We cannot let them. And that is coercion. That is violence… Just a far better kind of violence