How come one side apparently MUST remain nonviolent but not the other
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
207 points (96.8% liked)
politics
26166 readers
2562 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because of propaganda and state power. It’s not a symmetrical conflict.
It certainly isn't
They don't have to, but data shows over and over that non violent ones more often end to being more successful at regime change.
Benefits for the non violent:
- more people are willing to join protests
- much harder to use force to squash protesters (they can still try, but that often motivates more people to join, that is what for example happened in Euromaidan)
- it is much harder to frame that those protesters are there to hurt ordinary people
- sends signal for good people in power to do the right thing and that we have their back
- validates people that they aren't alone and that it is a lot of us
We actually have more power than them, they only succeed if we get scared and think there's nothing we can do. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
I've seen many statements to that effect. I have not seen political science studies that support it though.
Not much history to support it either.
Because there is none. The state always preaches nonviolence to keep us passive and not a threat to the status quo. They want peaceful from us but subject the working class to violence with every action.
It's a little more nuanced.
Violent resistance tends to swap one regime for another.
Non-violent resistance tends to create more positive social change.
If the only goal is to get rid of Trump, either one can work. If the goal is to have a brighter future then a revolution with minimal violence is preferable.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452292924000365
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Basically, if we start shooting, that will result in a military response, and the US military is really good at massacres.
"Give me liberty or give me 40 more years of wage slaving consumerism and hoping my demographic isn't next"
Not sure if you are aware but the military are already responding
They are fucking begging for violence to break out so they can start a massacre. They're doing some heinous shit. It can get infinitely worse.
Has to be better than letting them slowly boil the frogs
What we want is to create a broad understanding of popular support for antifascism so that the military takes the side of the people. A huge public rally is part of that
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Just look how stupid the administration is sending troops to Portland because all of the "violence". If Portland was more violent then they could carry the narrative rather than people dressed up in costumes. People will remember the frogs and the absurdity of the situation.
Both should, one does. Don't sink to their level.
“When they go low we go high” got us Donald Trump
If your country doesn't sink to their level soon you won't have the right to protest them any longer
Until when? The world wars are clear evidence that eventually violence is the correct response.
Where's the line?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Some months ago I was giving a coworker shit for not doing much of anything. No protests. No volunteering. No donations. Just works his mid six figure job, plays video games, and dates his works-at-google girlfriend. He admitted maybe he could do more. I said I could nag him the next time a big protest happened. He said sure.
Well, I messaged him with a quote from that conversation. He was like "oh it's Saturday?" And then no further responses until I followed up a day later. He's not going to do anything.
The other guys from that group also don't do anything.
Something about rich white straight (-passing) men comfortably just keeping their heads down and not even doing a half assed minimum bothers me.
But I guess there's nothing to be done. I'll be doing my best.
Get a woman in the group to invite spouses and girlfriends. The men will mostly follow.
A handful will decide they like cybertrucks more than sex
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm not calling for violence, none at all, but peaceful protests like these that one day are and the next day aren't are just ignored.
At the very least make it a protest that bever stops. Every day people are on the streets. Block the streets, whatever it takes, within a non violent protest, to get their attention and keep it
Abolitionist movements, women's suffrage movements, and civil rights movements were all successful non-violent resistance movements.
What did violent resistance movements achieve other than getting a bunch of people killed? Oh right sometimes the leaders of violent resistance movements get power and there is the 100% predictable result of putting violent people into power.
On the internet there's always some foreign troll farm whispering "burn down your own capital" in everyone's ears all of the time in every country they don't like. But it's stupid to listen to them, their motives aren't to improve anything for you, they just want to create chaos.
Violent resistances don't accomplish anything. Non-violent resistances have accomplished a lot if you actually study history instead of listening to the troll farms.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes.
Now get out there.
I'll be there tomorrow with the frog guys!
They are empty vessels/pressure release valves provided by the oligarchy to prevent organic protest from rising that would actually threaten their existence.
Actually, they are extremely effective methods to put flyers in hands. It's where people sign up for mutual aid groups or find union advocates
It's a networking event. The protest aspect is just to pump up the energy and set the theme for the event. This is how you turn liberals into leftists, and connect them with local organizations.
I feel like both are true. They are pressure releases that keep fast and dramatic change from occurring and the elites do prefer we do polite protests instead of the guillotines we should be building.
But they are definitely great for turning libs into leftists and networking. They have produced some benefits.
load more comments
(6 replies)
They typically lead to more political involvement
Only because people have started to become affected personally by government policies. Many of those who voted for Trump regret are also in No Kings protest.
I'll happily welcome anybody who flips because they recognize how awful Republican policy is. That's important if we are going to have a durable majority
load more comments
(2 replies)
The biggest win is getting more people involved and comfortable with protesting and non compliance. Today was the largest single day protest in American history and up 40% from No Kings I.
You can't go from zero to prolonged protests over night. Each event needs to build on the last with increased experience and new participation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fuck yeah they do, see you there comrades
"we're experts, we studied administrations where the government was comprised of people that gave at least 1/3 of a fuck what the population thought so naturally my opinion can be applied to an administration that gives absolutely no fucks whatsoever about the population."
They care enough that they're trying to talk it down. Having a big chunk of the population turn out to tell off a dictator is a key step in how they lose power
Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.
Kwame Ture
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'd love for protests to have wins, someone teaches what they are.
What i see: politicians fervently getting in photo op moments vs fixing this cluster fuck w living in. I swear every dem wants to get arrested for the gram....while I actually need them to unify on voting agendas.
load more comments
(1 replies)
See you out there folks!
Wasn't that long ago in the evolutionary timeline that humans diverged from sheep. For safety reasons we still want to be part of the biggest flock. Seeing huge numbers of people at protests stirs something in our DNA.
view more: next ›