Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
I sound like a ‘liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history’ because… I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit is this?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn’t some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you’re at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn’t an option, there’s no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn’t benefit the oppressors.
So your argument is… what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate… doesn’t count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would’ve gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we’re talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
‘Coercive nonviolence’
Lord.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn’t have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
“Violence is a tool but so is moral persuasion, both have their place and both have their victories.”
Wow, what a shitlib I am for thinking that moral persuasion has ever had a role in society. A shitlib just like MLK Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. Amazing how many shitlibs there are out here.
Moral persuading goes hand in hand with actual violence to show that you mean business. The moral persuasion just goes to get the common folk on your side so to try to prevent future issues. Look at Malcom x and MLK. MLK wouldn’t have got nearly as far without the threat of Malcom X causing actual immediate change. Like open carry laws.
Moral persuasion is a great tool, but alone, enacted zero real change.
Not going to lie, I have no sources to back this up, it’s just what I was taught in highschool.
That said, even with both violence and non- violent persuasion, racism still perpetuates within America.
“We’ve tried non-violently pressuring people into violence so that they can die for our beliefs and it hasn’t changed anything for the better in a century. Therefore, non-violence doesn’t work.”
I sound like a ‘liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history’ because… I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit is this?
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn’t some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you’re at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn’t an option, there’s no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn’t benefit the oppressors.
So your argument is… what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate… doesn’t count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would’ve gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we’re talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
‘Coercive nonviolence’
Lord.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn’t have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
True left praxis. I am in awe.
The most intelligent liberal, folks.
“Violence is a tool but so is moral persuasion, both have their place and both have their victories.”
Wow, what a shitlib I am for thinking that moral persuasion has ever had a role in society. A shitlib just like MLK Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. Amazing how many shitlibs there are out here.
Moral persuading goes hand in hand with actual violence to show that you mean business. The moral persuasion just goes to get the common folk on your side so to try to prevent future issues. Look at Malcom x and MLK. MLK wouldn’t have got nearly as far without the threat of Malcom X causing actual immediate change. Like open carry laws.
Moral persuasion is a great tool, but alone, enacted zero real change.
Not going to lie, I have no sources to back this up, it’s just what I was taught in highschool.
That said, even with both violence and non- violent persuasion, racism still perpetuates within America.
Valid stuff. A top mind of Lemmy, even.
“We’ve tried non-violently pressuring people into violence so that they can die for our beliefs and it hasn’t changed anything for the better in a century. Therefore, non-violence doesn’t work.”
Is, I think, what this boils down to.
Noone is stopping you from continuing to do nothing.