Soooo.. Non-Violent v. Violent Protest

Discussion in 'Films, TV, Music, Books, Etc.' started by UrbanMasque, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. UrbanMasque

    UrbanMasque Everyone Wears a Mask

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,150
    Likes Received:
    5
    Are we going to see some changes in Egypt or are these pot smoking youngsters just scribbling Anarchy on the walls because they are bored upper-middle class adolescence - and will be forgotten about tomorrow when school starts.



    tl;dr
    Holding hands and picket signs walking down the street signing petitions doesn't get $h!t done.
     
    #1
  2. malakian

    malakian Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    7,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    #2
  3. UrbanMasque

    UrbanMasque Everyone Wears a Mask

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,150
    Likes Received:
    5
    Results. Getting results is the topic. Regret will definitely follow suit, but the results mean success. Results are defined as changes - Mubarak will reshape the gov't tomorrow.

    Why so quiet GR?!
     
    #3
  4. Lien

    Lien Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    3,720
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...Why ya only talking about Egypt dude? Tunisia was the first one do start this, then came Algeria AND then came Egypt...
    You're slow urban :)

    Oh and malak, Egyptian goverment did and are doing some nasty things... but the Tunisian's just 2 weeks ago did some crazy stuff too, sometimes worst. Look what happen there, the street may still be in chaos but a "president" that was in power for more then 20 years is now gone.

    I'm more surprise that all these country in turmoil where the hot tourist spot in Africa.
     
    #4
  5. Longo_2_guns

    Longo_2_guns Forum Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    17,191
    Likes Received:
    48
    It depends on the setting. When you're in a system where you have no voice whatsoever, violence may be the only way to act. Yet that always comes at a cost, since violence begets more violence, and the hand will simply clamp tighter before it loses its grip.

    In nearly every other situation ever, non-violence is the path to respect. Did you know the race riots in the South nearly killed the civil rights movement? Because they did, and thank goodness there were enough sensible people to keep their heads and refuse to fight, or else you'd probably be in a segregated school.

    Violence should only be used as a last resort in any situation. And there are hardly any situations where violence is ever needed.
     
    #5
  6. LinksOcarina

    LinksOcarina Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the way things are going at this point, the best method is the violent solution, to be honest. Really tragic but in a country that has head a 30 year dictatorship for the most part controlling things, I think the non-violence method will not work at this point.

    Tunisia was able to be non-violent, from what I understand. Egypt is too hot right now to stay that way. Hell, since January 1st things have been simmering....
     
    #6
  7. UrbanMasque

    UrbanMasque Everyone Wears a Mask

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,150
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am not disagreeing that Violence should be used as a LAST resort. Why? Because it gets results when peaceful protests dont - which they often DONT! Democracy, Dictatorship, Commune - Violent protests work.

    I guess longo, what I'm hearing is that Violence is acceptable given the situation and the level of oppression? And who gauges the legitimacy of one protest vs. another.
     
    #7
  8. Eyebrowsbv31

    Eyebrowsbv31 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that this is all pointless. Regardless of who is in power next, they'll establish a false democracy because, as Socialist leaders like Hugo Chavez (sorry, President Dictator Chavez) could tell you, just because you lose an election doesn't mean you have to give up power. This is something that is proving more and more impossible for young democracies and revolutionaries to accomplish; a functioning system. Although 49% of this country was not happy that barack obama won, we didn't start riots, violent protests, etc. When one party loses here it's usually accepted, and if it isn't it goes to court, not the streets.

    I'm just not going to see any change here. There are so many factors to think about, such as the current state of Islam, that will majorly influence the outcome of this. They are fighting for "freedom" so to speak, but not freedom as Westerns come to think about it. I can guarantee the new governments (if they succeed) that will spring up in North Africa will give a shit about the rights of woman for example.
     
    #8
  9. UrbanMasque

    UrbanMasque Everyone Wears a Mask

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,150
    Likes Received:
    5
    Good point eyes - but I can remember people here peacefully protesting the GW v Gore election in 2000.. what came of that?! A few people got arrested and we all went on with our lives.

    DARE I SAY... that if this country took to the streets smashing and burning to the extend we see in Egypt - AND the gov't tried to enforce curfew on its citizens who were violently opposing it - we would've seen some movement out of that election scandal ( a change in procedure to say the least). IMO, It would take something severe to cause the US to resort to this. People in the US are too pacified for violent action.

    There have already been changes since the rioting (only 5 hrs in) - he asked gov't officials to step down from their posts to pacify the mob. We will see tonight if they comply. (+1 for violence)

    I'm not saying I like it, but i kinda do like people fighting for what they want, I'm saying that violent protests get results - and non violent protests get ignored.
     
    #9
  10. Longo_2_guns

    Longo_2_guns Forum Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    17,191
    Likes Received:
    48
    No, what would've happened if people started rioting is a whole lot more people would've been arrested and all support for the cause would've been lost by anyone who wasn't adamant, resulting in the whole thing appearing to be a group of barbarians who can't stand losing. Instead, they would've simply cracked down harder on any protest in the chance that it would turn violent.

    Negative attention is hardly good attention.
     
    #10
  11. Eyebrowsbv31

    Eyebrowsbv31 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still hung up on bush vs. gore, stuck in the past, if you bothered to look at real facts they only wanted to "recount" in heavily democratic districts, not the entire state. That was the issue, gore knew he couldn't get that , so he conceded. Thank god we didn't have him or we'd have 25%-50% ethanol gas and forests being clear cut for more corn. Global warming would have accelerated, and we'd all been toasted. Gore admitted as much recently :p.


    Anyways, I believe in being civil over violent.What you have now is the minority causing trouble for the majority, and it alienates them. Russian just did their version of a violent protest by blasting an airport, and look how good that did them.

    What the world needs is a global army (that's not the UN, because the boy scouts are tougher), that when shit like this happens, when there are clearly dictatorships in power, protects these protesters and keeps the violence to a minimum. We need diplomats with balls of steel to deal with these people in power that refuse to give up, and if they don't, they're removed.
     
    #11
  12. UrbanMasque

    UrbanMasque Everyone Wears a Mask

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,150
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gore didn't want to press the issue because it wasn't right for the country at that time ( probably avoiding a more vocal opposition to the bush presidency). Yea right, a global police force??! And who would make up that squad, which countries? If the tea party got violent and decided to take their country back - would you welcome in some outside force to pacify US citizens?! Who would oversee this force? How big would it need to be? And most importantly - How is it funded (that'll be your biggest problem).

    Its stilll better than NO attention.
    __________________________________________

    I would love to hold hands and walk down the street getting shit done, but you guys are missing the point that THAT DOESN'T DO SPIT! I'm not arguing over the preference or the barbarism of the acts - I'm arguing about the effectiveness. ANDDDDD, violence wins every-time.
     
    #12
  13. Longo_2_guns

    Longo_2_guns Forum Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    17,191
    Likes Received:
    48
    You know what, you're right? Violence always proves to be the best solution for any problem. For example, lets look in the 1820's, when the Cherokee chose a nonviolent protest of several treaties, but no one cares about them. Then came the violent solution to the problem, which was done by the US Army forcibly removing them from their land, resulting in the infamous Trail of Tears, one of the darkest points of American history.

    Speaking of dark things, how about those black people? If only they had persisted in their constant race wars that alienated all but the most militant supporters of the civil rights cause. That sure would've shown them! Or how about those migrant workers, peaceably protesting unfair wages and treatment. What they should've done is taken their tools and smashed some cars. That would've earned the respect of the people and the government much greater than they did with their protests.
     
    #13
  14. UrbanMasque

    UrbanMasque Everyone Wears a Mask

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,150
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ignoring your sarcasm - Politically yes, you are absolutely right. Violent PROTEST is more effective than Non-Violent, I'm glad your seeing things clearly now.

    Lets talk about black people... I love how people completely ignore the response caused by the riots during the 60's. The chaos wasn't causing the US to look poor in the eyes of the international community AT ALL was it? No. It was Dr. King, and Rosa, who inspired a nation, AND THE WORLD ,with their steadfast defiance that turned the tide. Egypt looks terrible to people on the outside looking in - which is why they will change the make up of their gov't.

    I think we've outlined the problem here with your thought process... Protesting isn't about earning peoples respect, not at all - because if you had it you wouldn't need to advocate for your cause would you? I was born to a mom and dad, just like you were - why should i have to earn your respect? Its about Fighting for your right to exist, to be treated fairly, and to be allowed access to everything your money can afford you - without being discriminated against.

    Lay down and be slaughtered, or stand up and be counted. Yea, I guess you got me - being society's punching bag is the way to go. We enjoy the boot heels on our necks Mr. President, the view is fine from down here. Hand me that petition - I'd love to sign it and go home to jerk off over how good it felt to make a difference today.
     
    #14
  15. madster111

    madster111 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    6,774
    Likes Received:
    0
    Violent protest works more quickly and efficiently if enough people do it that the government cant stop it.

    If only a small group get violent, said small group gets arrested/killed.
    But what if half the populace did it?
     
    #15
  16. Longo_2_guns

    Longo_2_guns Forum Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    17,191
    Likes Received:
    48
    I like how the two examples you give are prime examples of why nonviolent resistance works. Meanwhile, those who took up arms over the issue, such as the militant Black Panthers and the race riots that ensued did in fact leave a bad taste about civil rights in the mouths of most Americans and nearly killed the entire civil rights movement. It was because of the nonviolent stance of Dr. King that anything positive resulted from it.

    I want to outline this part in particular, because in all honesty it was so stupid it made my head hurt. That's EXACTLY the point of protesting. Because you DON'T have their respect and they DON'T advocate your cause, and protesting is to EARN people's respect and prove that your cause is just so that they WILL advocate your cause.

    Which ties in to...
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi. This said from the man who helped free an entire nation from British rule with his leadership tactics. Or if you want something more recent, watch this interview of the former head of the KKK, who was so impressed by the tactics taken by a black reverend that the two actually became friends as a result. There's an entire world of difference between a nonviolent resistance and being stepped on.
     
    #16
  17. Sightless

    Sightless Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    5
    Forty minutes.

    I agree with this entirely.

    I am most intrigued by the people's relationships with the military in various areas, as opposed to the police. I find myself in awe of the people, not only in their protests, but in maintaining order -- protecting peace, and directing traffic. Their sense of empowerment is beautiful. I also appreciate very much the efforts of certain media to talk about these events in a smart way that does not merely sensationalize or dismiss them.

    Also: how the hell do people manage to get such amazing photographs during these times?
     
    #17
  18. UrbanMasque

    UrbanMasque Everyone Wears a Mask

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,150
    Likes Received:
    5
    WTF r you babbling about? do you know? So much stupidity, typical snowflake bay area education man. Flower power dude, Kumbaya stuff. There were no sympathetic whites rallying with the panthers, right? The people being put off by the display were the same people advocating the status quo. Malcolm X (you don;t really hear about him in school do you?) and the nation of Islam accomplished nothing, right? The were so effective that the CIA/FBI had to sabotage their orgs. and assassinate their leaders.

    Ghandi, Dr. King - great men with great messages, but props for the state to ensure it doesn't loose control. But in all honesty, I don't fault you for being dense - a lot of people share your viewpoint because its all they know.
     
    #18
  19. Longo_2_guns

    Longo_2_guns Forum Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    17,191
    Likes Received:
    48
    While there were some white supporters of the Black Panthers many of their leaders, especially Carmichael, really didn't believe that white people should be allowed to even support them. There was even a debate as to whether they should be allowed to even accept white donations. And Malcolm X was another story altogether, as he was very pro-violence and considerably anti-white. That is until his trip to Mecca when he was referred to as a brother by people of all races and ethnicities. After which he promptly gave up his racist and violent teachings and was promptly killed because of it.

    And considering both Gandhi and Martin Luther King fought against the state, it's hard to say that it deserves any props.
     
    #19
  20. Eyebrowsbv31

    Eyebrowsbv31 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,972
    Likes Received:
    0

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice