Leave a comment

Comments 9

junkmaster357 September 24 2009, 22:17:59 UTC
Hmm... interesting. The only problem I see with nonviolence is that it assumes that people have consciences that can be piqued by the inequity. As such, it loses all effectiveness if the people in power lack one in regard to the nonviolent and do not answer to people who do, or if the people with a conscience never learn of the details.

In a way, nonviolence needs media attention to work. So call a TV crew...

Reply

jarick September 26 2009, 16:17:26 UTC
Half of the point, yes-- the targets of the efforts must be able to learn of what's going on, or there's no way to get the dissonance going. Sometimes you can target the oppressors directly; other times, you need a medium of transfer...

Reply

phoenix_seraph September 27 2009, 00:13:35 UTC
 
Conscience has nothing to do with it, really.   (IMHO - In My Humble Opinion)

As best I can tell, despite the popularity of philosophical cynicism, all the scientific evidence indicates that human beings innately operate on default compassionate towards all other human beings within their spheres of awareness of the moment.

In many ways, conscience is more of an induced cognitive means of inciting compassion towards notional human beings or abstractions of human beings instead of feeling it only towards the flesh and blood ones within one's sphere of awareness.

Of course, that default compassion can be negated or reduced in an individual when a particular person behaves in a hateful or cruel fashion or when the situation requires conflict, but none of that invalidates the fact that compassion may well be hardwired into our species.

Part of the proof for this lies in the studies proving that bigotry must be learned -- the child must be taught that there are some people outside allowed compassion -- and that every nation has had ( ... )

Reply


spinthatthing September 25 2009, 00:25:34 UTC
I have nothing valuable to say or add. But I read it, and you have given me food for thought.

Reply


phoenix_seraph September 25 2009, 07:25:23 UTC
 
The proposition, then: nonviolent means are attacks just as surely as raising a hand or weapon. They simply aim beyond the flesh and blood of their enemies.I love what you've written overeall.   Your historical examples work well, as well as the fictional one ( ... )

Reply

jarick September 26 2009, 16:48:25 UTC
I would say, really, that that genuine faith in the ultimate humanity of one's opponents is not incompatible with certain, refined forms of hostility and aggression ( ... )

Reply

phoenix_seraph September 27 2009, 00:01:40 UTC
 
I would write it as either

"The proposition, then: nonviolent means are tactics just as surely as raising a hand or weapon."

or

"The proposition, then: nonviolent means are conflict strategies just as surely as raising a hand or weapon."
 

Reply

jarick September 27 2009, 00:03:30 UTC
We'll go with number two. I like that better than what I said.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up