Please resist responsibly

Bad@jlai.lu · 5 days ago

Please resist responsibly

BillyClark@piefed.social · 4 days ago

The entire list is counter-examples, even the ones they mentioned. I am guessing that they simply disagree with the definition given by Wikipedia. They seem to be claiming that violence prior to a revolution by somebody else who wasn’t part of the party that came into power, but which weakened the authority, is disqualifying as a nonviolent revolution.

If they don’t like Wikipedia’s definition, then they can mention that. But it’s impossible to argue against a premise that they didn’t even specify. They didn’t give substantive anything to argue against, so what would I even be arguing? Like I said, unless they state their specific problem, in my view, the entire list, even the ones they mentioned, are what you’d call counter-examples. They haven’t given a better definition of a nonviolent revolution.

If you want an example where there was no violence at all by anybody, even unrelated parties, and again, the list is only 7 entries long, just look at the June Democratic Struggle, which is the fourth in the list. Two after they stopped looking further, and I think 4 more than you looked at.

jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 days ago

The simple fact is the there are almost no examples of non-violent revolutions. Almost every single revolution has violence as a component of it. it doesnt matter if a particular group within the wider populace (ghandi) was non-violent they were uplifted by the actions of the violent groups if only to offer an alternative group to ‘negotiate’ with.

the simple fact is: revolutions dont occur unless violence is necessary, after all if violence wasnt necessary the changes would have been made long before the revolution grew legs cropped up.

BillyClark@piefed.social · 4 days ago

You asked for an example with zero violence. I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it, first saying there are “almost no examples,” but then go on to ignore it completely and say that “revolutions don’t occur unless violence is necessary.” If you had already made up your mind and decided to ignore any contrary evidence, you shouldn’t have asked for counter-examples.

I wasn’t even trying to argue for nonviolent revolutions, only to say that the tiniest bit of effort shows that they have occurred. At any rate, I don’t think you’re the kind of person I want to continue interacting with. So, bye. I’m finished with this particular exchange.

jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · edit-2 4 days ago

You asked for an example with zero violence.

No I didnt. I was explaining to you why wikipedia’s list isnt useful and why the individual stop looking into the instances on the list immediately after finding counter examples in literally the first couple instances listed.

I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it.

Because I didnt give a shit about your example because I knew what I’d find. but lets address it now to demonstrate the point I was making:

The June Democratic Struggle in South Korea was preceded by significant violence during earlier protests, notably the Gwangju Uprising in 1980, where the military brutally suppressed demonstrations, leading to widespread casualties. This history of violence contributed to the urgency and scale of the protests in June 1987, as citizens demanded democratic reforms and an end to authoritarian rule.

You can’t say ‘look this uprising succeeded without the use of violence!’ when the reason it succeeded was arguably because of the use of violence that proceeded it. They’re not independent events. Its the same regime, same population, within less than a generation, involving many of the same actors and part of an ongoing sequence of resistance.

My statement of there being very few examples of non-violent revolutions was a hedge because I’m not intimately familiar with the history of every civilization on the planet for all time. But every time this conversation has come up and people like yourself have cropped up I can’t recall a single instance that was referenced as being violence free.

As people have literally done for you multiple times now, you’re just fucking wrong.

dropdrip@lemmy.ml · edit-2 4 days ago

You write entirely dishonest trite! That ‘revolution’ was preceded by the Gwangju Uprising, a massacre. The protestors retaliated with violence. It is this history–the threat of violence–that underpins ANY political power. There are no peaceful revolutions. Anyone who attempts to frame something as peaceful to prove that there is such a thing looks at an event myopically and dishonestly.

Read your own fucking articles. There’s nothing peaceful about killings and torture. “On June 11, the National Police Agency defended its actions on the previous day, describing rallies as illegal, and as violent “disorderly conduct”, and declaring their intention to crack down on further unrest.” You: but-b-b-but it was a peaceful protest. You are a liar and a bootlicker.

BillyClark@piefed.social · 4 days ago

The Gwangju Uprising happened in 1980. The June Democratic Struggle happened over 7 years later in 1987. Why didn’t you mention that? Is it because you knew that it would completely discredit your point? Is it because you didn’t think somebody would call your bluff and fact check you?

So, you’re calling me a liar, and aggressively, while saying… that. I’m sorry, but I am reporting and blocking you.