• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Something tells me you don’t actually understand the difference between a violent campaign and a nonviolent campaign.

    Yes, the goals cannot be violent. That doesn’t mean violence cannot be extremely useful when applied tactfully.

    • save_the_humans@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Nonviolent resistance movements are more likely to facilitate transitions from autocracy to democracy, improve democratic qualities like civil liberties, transform security forces and judicial systems in rights-respecting directions, and enhance well-being measures such as life expectancy.

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452292924000365

      The commonly held belief that most revolutions that have happened in dictatorial regimes were bloody or violent uprisings is not borne out by historical analysis.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

      Empirical evidence strongly favors strategic, organized nonviolent resistance as the most effective path to sustainable political change.

      Political assassinations are a tool of desperation. They’re effective at creating instability and further violence; counterproductive for achieving lasting political goals. They fail to eliminate the ideas, movements, and structures that person represented.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Those nonviolent movements didn’t exist in a vaccuum, and dismissing the violence that WAS present as wholly separate and due no credit is IGNORING HISTORY.