this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
1074 points (94.2% liked)
Political Memes
8505 readers
2843 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not familiar with the bottom three so I can't speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I'm sure you know because it's brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
It's almost like a bank robber with the BLA may not be a great authority on how change is achieved.
Okay? What does that have to do with the blatantly false assertion that no one has ever achieved their freedom by persuading their oppressors on moral grounds?
No. Like, just no. Mahatma "British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse" Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign, and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers. I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK's assassination. And that's not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Mahatma Gandhi was also helped by the fact that India had been waging INCREDIBLY violent resistance since the late 1800s. Like, there were ambushes that wiped out whole companies of soldiers in the mountains. His campaign of non-cooperation was just the last straw for a war-weary empire that saw little use and even littler public will to dump more soldiers into India.
Also something about colonies being too expensive to maintain and focusing on the economy back home post world wars
Okay, so we're going to ignore literally every quote of his about convincing the British and that the point of his nonviolent campaigns was to highlight the moral aspect of the conflict. Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
Jesus fucking Christ. What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
...
... do... do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1968 was a minor addendum.
I'm really not fucking sure you should be telling me to 'learn more about this stuff'.
Oh, so violence was the main factor? I'm sure, then, that opinions in the US were changing at the time because no one was persuaded, they were just scared. After all, that's how ethnic resistance movements so consistently throughout history persuade the majority of a country, definitely not resulting in long-standing ethnic conflicts and enduring prejudices with literal centuries-long irregular warfare.
Good thing these brave revolutionaries knew that moral persuasion was worthless!
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.
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can't blame them.
Liberals aren't leftists.
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.