You Should Know

Non violent protests work on a platform of sympathy, violence is fear, a lot of people lack any sympathy for no kings protests and those against it don't seem to fear it

How are you going to demand change when a ragtag militia force can stop it?

It's about resistance, not violence per we. Choosing the right kind of resistance for the situation is how change is made. Non violent protesting is for raising awareness and building solidarity. Violence is purely for defense and to show when a line has been crossed. Otherwise your movement will just become the next police state regime, if it doesn't get crushed outright. People advocating for violence on social media are either bots or bad faith actors trying to stop the movement. Anyone seriously considering violence against the state sure as shit aren't posting about it on Lemmy.

We're at that point and yet has Trump been impeached for denying due process and trying to create a process with ice to deport people without a trial to a foreign prison for life? Or for blatantly ignoring orders from federal courts and the Supreme Court?

Until Trump is in prison or tried for his crimes this article doesn't sway my opinion at all. Fact is too many loopholes exist in the rule of law in the usa. Only way to fix it is creating a new government with a new constitution. The executive branch as it is has way too much power consolidated. The current form of government cant go on as it is. Especially because of how much money and bribery is now involved.

I dont see this being resolved peacefully. Fascists never go peacefully. NEVER

Name one non-violent protest that changed the material conditions of those protesting, I'll wait.

General strikes accomplish a fuck of a lot more in a shorter amount of time. When the owners of the administration can't get their poptarts to the stores to be sold, the bank calls their loans and shit gets real.

How many of those were backed by much more powerful foreign powers?

my fucking ass 👅🥾

Bolsheviks, Stonewall riots, suffragettes, all famously peaceful movements that got their rights by staying on their knees and asking nicely.

Let me know what all the peaceful protests on climate change did leading up to and since the Paris Agreement.

Civil disobedience, including violent action, absolutely has a place in changing the policy of the state.

Who wrote this article? Fairy tale bullshit??

There's a book on the subject written by Srdja Popovic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution

Summary: protests that start (and try to remain) non-violent have a greater chance to succeed, because they can attract more people to their cause.

Critique: with some regimes, it's not possible to non-violently protest. For non-violent protest to work, the environment must respect a minimum amount of human rights.

Case samples:

• US during the civil rights movement era: yes
• USSR under Gorbachev: yes
• Serbia under Milosevic: yes, with difficulty on every step (Popovic was there doing it)
• Israel under Netanyahu: probably yes
• China under Xi: practically no (not for long)
• USSR under Kruschev/Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko: not really
• Russia under Putin: no, don't even hold a blank sheet of paper
• Iran under Khamenei: only if you're doing a bread riot
• Saudi Arabia, USSR under Stalin, NK under the Kim dynasty: no, and execution would be a possible outcome

...etc. In some places, you can't organize. Then your only option is to fight. As long as you can publicly organize, definitely do so - it's vastly preferable. :)

This is complete utter propaganda, especially considering it's coming from the BBC. History has shown us time and time again that the ruling class never gives up its power peacefully.

That second part is especially encouraging.