Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxTheFox]

Prove it.

What do you think a nonviolent rebellion looks like and why would it fail?

See Belarus 2020 as an example of "peaceful rebellion". Crowds were ignored, leaders were imprisoned and tortured. Nothing changed

Please, please model a peaceful rebellion that removes Putin from power. I am REALLY curious

Yeah I was about to edit in Belarus 2020. It really sucks that the only way to remove Putin is likely to cause another bloody civil war, but I just don't see an alternative.

[Quarque]

The birth of democracy (French Revolution) was pretty violent too. Not saying it was ideal, but I don't think it's helpful to bash a Russian for wanting the wrong kind of revolution, especially when nothing of the sort is currently happening. It isn't pretty when a dictator is lynched by an angry mob (happened plenty of times), but on the whole it's often still a positive change. I sincerely hope we can discuss the pros and cons of lynching Putin in a way that isn't entirely hypothetical one day.

[King Zultan]

Honestly this discussion radicalized me

You say that as if you weren't already radicalized, with your wanting to kill everyone in the government for revenge or some crap.

[MaxTheFox]

Honestly this discussion radicalized me

You say that as if you weren't already radicalized, with your wanting to kill everyone in the government for revenge or some crap.

"even more"

[Great Order]

As a Russian, I'm sorry for the crimes my people inflicted on the people of Ukraine. Whenever I talk to an Ukrainian on the internet, I profusely apologize if the subject comes up. I'm really guilty.

Eh, I've never been a fan of guilt-by-association. It's always applied inconsistently anyway. When a Christian performs a terrorist act, you don't see Christians apologising for it. If a Muslim does one, it's expected other Muslims apologise because if they don't it's seen as tacit support.

Besides, I can't see many people on this forum supporting it. At most I could see nuanced opinions still overall condemning the invasion.

[Strongpoint]

When a Christian performs a terrorist act, you don't see Christians apologising for it. If a Muslim does one, it's expected other Muslims apologise because if they don't it's seen as tacit support.

Christian terrorism (not terror acts done by Christians) is quite rare. Sure, the way American Bible Belt going, we'll see more of that but...

What is more important, if a group of Christians will hijack a plane and smash it into a high scraper IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, there will be NO major churches or individuals or any significant % of ordinary Christians who will label those guys as martyrs. Christians will say something along the lines "those monsters are not Christians and it is disgusting that they used the name of God for their vile act and no true Christian would do that."

It is simply illogical to apologize for the actions of someone who you don't see as a part of your group.

Muslim world works differently. Millions openly consider insane murderers as their brother in faith, as martyrs, as saints.

[scriver]

The birth of democracy (French Revolution) was pretty violent too. Not saying it was ideal, but I don't think it's helpful to bash a Russian for wanting the wrong kind of revolution, especially when nothing of the sort is currently happening. It isn't pretty when a dictator is lynched by an angry mob (happened plenty of times), but on the whole it's often still a positive change. I sincerely hope we can discuss the pros and cons of lynching Putin in a way that isn't entirely hypothetical one day.

I take opposition both to the labeling of the French revolution as "the birth of democracy" as well as marking it as successful. The revolution led to decades of tyranny and civil war before a general, the golden son of the revolution couped the republic and effectively reinstalled monarchy for another... I font remember when the third republic came about. 1870s-90s?

[Starver]

Be careful there ((re: Muslim World bits, missed the intermediate message being posted, during Previews to my post)). It's not necessarily indicative of the merits/demerits of the religion-as-a-whole, or even broad-stroke prominent swathes.

Spoiler: General ramble around selected parts of the realities (click to show/hide)

Christianity had its moments (and has elements that do/might aim for similar things, just less obviously so), but there weren't airliners back in the days of the Crusades, and the likes of Pope Theophilus of Alexandria (as an active arm of Emperor Theodosius I) had only a small relative reach in reinforcing the early Christian attacks on non-Christian cultures during the main period of budding-adolescence in the faith's developmental cycle.

The Islamic world is composed of many who would not be extremist. And, of those who are, it's overwhelmingly internecine with islamists of not-sufficiently-similar flavour, just as Catholic/Protestant (and other) rivalries were once a causus belli for intranational and international conflicts and fights for dominance, major rivalries within Judaism were once a thing and even beyond the Abrahamic realm you had/have sect-wise conflict at the "troublesome teenager" stage of a growing religion, wherever it no longer has sufficient friction with neighbours of an actual rival creed who don't recognise your own deity-directed views about the colour blue, or chocolate, or have vastly different ideas about what bits of whose bodies should or should not definitely be decorated, cut off or covered up.


It isn't helped that potentially (personal circumstances allowing, or through the enabling by others with both the means and agendas) the modern world has the means to discontentedly rub shoulders with far more 'others' than just those that live on the opposite side of the lake and happen to have a different idea about circumcision/whatever. But that's not any particular religion's fault.

Faith is a claimed justification by those who probably have more secular justifications but find it easier to continue promoting their 'brand' and recruiting their operatives through little more than half-truths which might or might not be believed, but it's not the core problem (or at heart just the one wide branch). The Uyghurs are clearly more sinned-against than sinning in their lives under the Chinese (overly pre-emptive?) suppression. Sri Lanka has (majority?) Buddhist violence against Muslims and Islamic establishments. Myanmar is a mess, in various ways, but it seems that Islam is the victim there, what is not successfully kept hidden from the wider world by the military leadership.

And still "In the name of Christianity" is a dominant reason to support Western interventionism (against the non-Christian world, in general, but it helps if it's the 'upstart Muhammadans', usually identified by far more offensive terms), as well as against the "godless" or "wrong-godded" in their own society. And even WASP-on-WASP violence happens, where ideology actually plays a significant part, but it'll probably be considered a secular crime for all practical reasons, where a similar feud elsewhere would not.

[Great Order]

The birth of democracy (French Revolution) was pretty violent too. Not saying it was ideal, but I don't think it's helpful to bash a Russian for wanting the wrong kind of revolution, especially when nothing of the sort is currently happening. It isn't pretty when a dictator is lynched by an angry mob (happened plenty of times), but on the whole it's often still a positive change. I sincerely hope we can discuss the pros and cons of lynching Putin in a way that isn't entirely hypothetical one day.

I take opposition both to the labeling of the French revolution as "the birth of democracy" as well as marking it as successful. The revolution led to decades of tyranny and civil war before a general, the golden son of the revolution couped the republic and effectively reinstalled monarchy for another... I font remember when the third republic came about. 1870s-90s?

Yeah, France had a democracy for a very short period before it was usurped. I think a lot of people see the US and think it's often like that, but the US's formation was an exception to the rule, and if Washington hadn't been who he was it's possible that the US would have turned into another monarchy pretty promptly too.

[MaxTheFox]

I am a Christian and I know I am supposed to forgive everyone but... I can't, as demonstrated. Those who say the religion is inherently evil piss me off as much as the fundamentalists, however.

[hector13]

Prove it.

What do you think a nonviolent rebellion looks like and why would it fail?

See Belarus 2020 as an example of "peaceful rebellion". Crowds were ignored, leaders were imprisoned and tortured. Nothing changed

Please, please model a peaceful rebellion that removes Putin from power. I am REALLY curious

If all we need is one example of something not working then I expect you support Ukraine giving up the fight because they already lost in 2014?

Putin put in a law to stop people protesting the Ukraine war because he doesn’t want people protesting. If he didn’t give a shit about it, and could just send in security forces every time, what was the point of the law? Because violently suppressing protests just encourages more protests, particularly if there are other things bothering people, like the cost of living from all the sanctions on Russia.

[Strongpoint]

If all we need is one example of something not working then I expect you support Ukraine giving up the fight because they already lost in 2014

You asked what peaceful rebellion looks like and why it would fail. I responded. It looks like Belarus. And it fails because without violence people were not ready to defend themselves and comrades against unlawful arrests.

Also, there are different kinds of lost. Ukraine achieved something in a war with Russia. in 2014, with very limited resources, we prevented Russia from getting more stuff and got years to prepare for a bigger war.  Actually, our struggle never ceased, we were at law intensity war for 8 years before it exploded into a large one.

Belarusian protests achieved nothing... oh no... they achieved best sons and daughters in prison, injuries mentally and physically... If they did plain nothing results would be BETTER.

Putin put in a law to stop people protesting the Ukraine war because he doesn’t want people protesting. If he didn’t give a shit about it, and could just send in security forces every time, what was the point of the law?

People tend to outlaw stuff that is disgusting to them. For Russians being against this war is disgusting. If it is illegal to wank on the streets it doesn't mean that the government is afraid of wankers.


But let us speak hypothetically. Few millions go on the streets of Moscow protesting, Putin sees this and resigns (LOL) and we have fair democratic elections (LOL) and we get perfect, great guys in power (lol) and Russia becomes liberal democracy

How do you think... What will ordinary hardcore Russian fascists do? All those war criminals with weapons, combat experience, connections? What will oligarchs and corrupt officials do?  Do you expect they'll go "Oh... The government changed to liberal-democracy we lost... Time to go to prison..."?

No. They'll launch a violent counter-revolution the very next day.

[hector13]

I provided examples of violent protest that have resulted in over a decade of civil war, with factions fighting enemy and friend alike.

At least in a peaceful revolution you have the opportunity to get the police and military on your side. You won’t do that by killing them from day 1. The hardcore fascists now have to fight a skilled and equipped foe that don’t have losses to make up for from a violent revolution.

[Random_Dragon]

This argument has gone on way too long. It's already very clearly understand by the "we need to do something" side that yes, they understand perfectly well that the odds of violent revolution even succeeding, LET ALONE . Fairly certain Max has already stated before they'd probably be actually out there taking action by now if they didn't fear they'd be completely alone in doing so, and that it wouldn't get far either.

Now you need to stop pulling the constant bad-faith argument shit and acknowledge that it's still MORE likely to do literally anything than a peaceful protest in an authoritarian regime. The entire point here has been that what approach is most likely to work differs depending on the situation. If you're going to get gunned down by the military either way, then that does lean the more logical response towards violence.

The entire problem here is of course that dislodging fascists is hard. Their entire MO is making it hard to dislodge them by any means. Governments in general don't like to make it easy to kick their shit in, for that matter. It's reasonable to acknowledge that the odds are low bordering on nil no matter what method is used.

But Hector, you need to stop with the personal dings towards Max and pushing things way too far just because you refuse to acknowledge that dealing with fascists isn't as simple as waving some signs around. God/gods if only it were that fucking easy...

[Strongpoint]

I provided examples of violent protest that have resulted in over a decade of civil war, with factions fighting enemy and friend alike.

At least in a peaceful revolution you have the opportunity to get the police and military on your side. You won’t do that by killing them from day 1. The hardcore fascists now have to fight a skilled and equipped foe that don’t have losses to make up for from a violent revolution.

You forgot to mention that Syrian 2011 protests were just as peaceful as Tunisian 2011 protests. Difference - Assad didn't give an F and ordered to shoot peaceful protestors. They had a choice to either surrender or start an armed revolt. If anything Syrian example proves that in some cases peaceful protests are useless.

And in Russia hardcore fascists ARE the skilled and equipped foe. They are the core of army, police, and special services

Violent resistance is not a pleasant thing. It never makes a country better. It can straight up destroy the country or turn it into Somalia for decades. It is like chemotherapy in the late stages of cancer - the only option left.

I mean, you’re at the pearly gates with St. Pete or whoever it is in your particular brand. How do you justify killing god’s children?

Now that is an easy question for a true Christian - I believe that Jesus is my savior and died for my sins, thus my sins don't matter and I deserve my place in Heaven