https://twitter.com/harmonylion1/status/1219291414653104130?s=19
Individual terrorism doesnt destabilize power, it just shocks the populace and gives the state an excuse to go on a reactionary rampage.
Dang, so the Iraq War protests and Occupy Wallstreet just weren't provacative enough? Well shucks, next time we'll just try to be more provocatively non-violent. That'll work.
Strikes are violence against the profits of rich people so that's bad of course.
I don't know if you remember when they were trying out the "economic terrorism" line for anything that disrupted business a few years ago but it really bothered me.
Yup. Technically non-violent protest is supposed to be one that does not go into violence, but still causes some challenge to the power of the authorities. Whether it is blocking roads, striking, or looting it is all there. And a major component in it is that it relies on the authorities responding out of proportion, because that is what discredits the authority. But it also relies on the implicit threat that it can turn violent.
In modern discourse a lot of these have been turned into "violent" ones both for consent manufacturing, but also because of this thing literally ingrained in education since early on that anything violent is really really bad. The system exists to a large extend because people do not know what is violent and are trained to be docile. Protests are reduced to a government sanctioned parade, that in no way or form challenges power. This is actually quite interesting to consider from a historic perspective - one of the big thing governments have learned since the 19-th century is how to pacify entire populations and how to make it so that any real challenge to authority is considered completely out of norms. Which means that in essence the vast majority of peoples anger will be redirected to above mentioned government sanctioned parades.
nonviolent protest only works if the people you're protesting against aren't willing to use lethal force
Or they were looking for an excuse to do that particular demand anyways, but they didn't have the necessary political capital.
This is transcendent. Like a zen riddle. I can't stop thinking about it but I've made no progress.
He means that since noone owns the code for each flavor of bitcoin, none of them can be shut down. I think it's a good point: when I hold my dollar bills in my hand I'm always worrying that someone is going to hit the off switch on USD
Most recent thread:
"Love is the restraint of power
1/
You can see this even in kissing
Kissing = “I could bite you, but I won’t”"
Am I tripping or is this a terrible graph? I don't mean politically I mean mathematically. With a graph like that, the intersection is 0, the origin. The line should be contained in the top right quadrant. It's like the only graphs they know are the political compass graph and the ones from high-school algebra. If this were meant to be like a political compass graph, you don't draw lines between the points. The line represents a continuity rather than discrete points. If you place Hitler and Ghandi on a political compass, you wouldn't draw a line between them. Same thing here.
So fix the axis, there is no negative justness or effectiveness. Then don't draw a line between the points that are separate things.
I think what this person really wanted to do was show that as protests grow from terrorism to non-violent protests. But you need axis that compare the nonviolence to effectiveness. Then nonviolence to justness. Then justness to effectiveness. But you would need to throw in a third or fourth dimension to show all that as one. This single graph doesn't convey what the author intends. It's just someone who wanted to draw a graph to make it seem scientific.
No it should be taken on face value. Y is effective and X is justness and Y = Cos(X)
The way to do effective protest is to keep your x value equal to or greater than abs(pi/2)
No, its a graph of effectiveness in function of violence. It works out.
what i'm getting from this is that terrorism gets the goods
Literally 100% as effective as non-violent protest, maybe a little higher, definitely the message they were going for
Martin Luther King Jnr's civil rights protests is maybe the only example within modern history, but even then I imagine civil rights 1968 may have been a trade off for the Vietnam War to continue.
But I also think the graph doesn't discuss whether property damage counts as non-violent protest.
They also weren't just individual protests, but series of sustained actions stemming from organized SCLC and SNCC stuff. Organizing doesn't exist, it's only spontaneous actions or individual violence. There's no threat of escalation from organizing, organizing to display an alternative system of community defense or structures, collective withholding of labor, there's just people doing murder or doing provocative protests that get big media attention-that's how power works.
But yea, property damage and different types of violence too.
I would like to reassert my position that property damage is not only ethical, but also necessary. Positions of power don't give a shit if the cop dies- it's a PR win for the establishment.
The structures will freak out about paying for broken glass and insurance companies trying to squeeze their way out of not paying.
The OP Twitter thread just somehow pivots Non violent protest to Bitcoin and non violent protest.
Anything yo pump BTC huh.
