Into the exact same regime with a new color of paint?

History has overwhelmingly shown that non-violence is more successful than violence. You do you.

You have the causality backwards.

You’re right that successful movements often have both violent and nonviolent wings - but the nonviolent components don’t succeed because of the violent ones. They succeed despite them. The research is pretty clear on this: nonviolent campaigns are actually more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones, and they’re more likely to lead to stable democratic outcomes.

Your claim that “without violent resistance, nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists” is historically backwards. Nonviolent movements get labeled as extremist precisely when they’re associated with violence, not when they’re separate from it. The Civil Rights Movement’s greatest victories came when they maintained strict nonviolent discipline - Birmingham, Selma, the March on Washington. Every time violence entered the picture, it gave opponents ammunition to dismiss the entire movement.

And about Gandhi needing violent militants to succeed - this ignores how the independence movement actually worked. The violent revolutionary groups you’re thinking of (like the Hindustan Republican Association) were largely marginalized by the time of Gandhi’s major campaigns. His mass mobilization strategies worked because they were genuinely nonviolent and drew broad participation precisely because people knew they wouldn’t be asked to commit violence.

The “good cop/bad cop” theory sounds intuitive but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. What actually makes nonviolent resistance effective is mass participation, strategic planning, and moral leverage - not the threat of violence lurking in the background.

Well that sure is an opinion I haven’t heard before

It’s a direct quote from Gandhi.

Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.

Except ketamine doesn’t do that to you

Even with high speed rail you’re looking at 30+ hours from Seattle to NYC. And that’s optimistic, ignoring the numerous alpine mountains. No thanks.

Ahh yes, trade 6 hours for a 3 day, $400 train ride to NYC.

Lmfao what a shit suggestion

… these are waffles.

Except Duolingo regularly releases these numbers. In July 2024 it was reported to be slightly above 9m monthly chinese learners…

So quite significant rise.

Ahh yes, the “i have nothing to hide why do I need privacy” argument.

Do you close your curtains or lower the blinds? Lock your front door? You must be a criminal.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

No, there are no bets, no buy in.

I don’t understand your point.

Nobody drinks the ocean. Fluoride is barely active topically. Most humans rarely if at all swim in the ocean.

Old school Runescape

I’m not sure if people are suggesting that oil itself is a magical solution or if they’re suggesting that having exclusive access to an extremely profitable resource (oil) enables a country with a tiny population to make socialism work.

I have a strange feeling that if oil became worthless Norway would quickly stop doing socialism well

Sweden is fairly unique as it’s economy wasn’t destroyed by WWII, and it’s stance on banking, foreign exports, and foreign ownership has enabled it to make massive profits. But the economy is seriously struggling today. The average home loan takes 100 years to pay off.

Finland economy replaces oil with timber and an extremely educated population. Both of which are not sustaining the model well as the country is in recession. The timber industry isnt producing sustainable profits like it used to. The debt-to-GDP ratio is extremely high. The highly educated population is leaving and people don’t typically immigrate to Finland.

So arguably the model isn’t working anymore, without something like oil to fall back on.