Delving and Blathering

Maybe this Blog will work out better...

172 notes

schemingreader:

mumblingsage:

foreignaffairsmagazine:

Over the last century, nonviolent campaigns against authoritarian regimes were twice as likely to succeed as violent ones: http://fam.ag/1pIsNI7

“Civil resistance does not succeed because it melts the hearts of dictators and secret police. It succeeds because it is more likely than armed struggle to attract a larger and more diverse base of participants and impose unsustainable costs on a regime. No single civil resistance campaign is the same, but the ones that work all have three things in common: they enjoy mass participation, they produce regime defections, and they employ flexible tactics. Historically, the larger and more diverse the campaign, the more likely it was to succeed.
…Broad movements also enjoy a tactical advantage: diverse, nonviolent campaigns that include women, professionals, religious figures, and civil servants — as opposed to violent ones comprised of mostly young, able-bodied men trained to become militants — reduce the risk of violent crackdowns, since security forces are often reluctant to use violence against crowds that might include their neighbors or relatives.  ” 

A lot of people on Tumblr seem to think that the violent response to non-violent resistance proves that non-violent resistance does not work. In fact there has to be a violent response, since the point is to show the illegitimacy of the authority imposing the condition that people are protesting. Yes, with a sufficiently massive movement you reduce your personal risk, but the point is to show a large mass of people that the authority is in the wrong. 
By any means necessary can mean non-violently, even if you aren’t a pacifist, if the non-violent method works better. 

schemingreader:

mumblingsage:

foreignaffairsmagazine:

Over the last century, nonviolent campaigns against authoritarian regimes were twice as likely to succeed as violent ones: http://fam.ag/1pIsNI7

Civil resistance does not succeed because it melts the hearts of dictators and secret police. It succeeds because it is more likely than armed struggle to attract a larger and more diverse base of participants and impose unsustainable costs on a regime. No single civil resistance campaign is the same, but the ones that work all have three things in common: they enjoy mass participation, they produce regime defections, and they employ flexible tactics. Historically, the larger and more diverse the campaign, the more likely it was to succeed.

Broad movements also enjoy a tactical advantage: diverse, nonviolent campaigns that include women, professionals, religious figures, and civil servants — as opposed to violent ones comprised of mostly young, able-bodied men trained to become militants — reduce the risk of violent crackdowns, since security forces are often reluctant to use violence against crowds that might include their neighbors or relatives.  ” 

A lot of people on Tumblr seem to think that the violent response to non-violent resistance proves that non-violent resistance does not work. In fact there has to be a violent response, since the point is to show the illegitimacy of the authority imposing the condition that people are protesting. Yes, with a sufficiently massive movement you reduce your personal risk, but the point is to show a large mass of people that the authority is in the wrong. 

By any means necessary can mean non-violently, even if you aren’t a pacifist, if the non-violent method works better. 

(via nemithine)

2,758 notes

What I've Learned from Two Years Collecting Data on Police Killings

blacksupervillain:

dynastylnoire:

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST

a comment on the article:

past year, 33 police officers were killed by firearms, where as the amount of “justifiable homicides” by police is over 300. In Seattle in 2012, 20% of the homicides in the entire city that year were committed by police officers. That’s fucked and that’s institutional.

(Source: kingjaffejoffer, via edmondia)

134,462 notes

fatted:

Family: *says something racist*
Family: *says something sexist*
Family: *says something homophobic*
Family: *makes fun of people with tattoos*
Family: *tells you why you’re bad at life*
Family: why don’t you wanna spend time with us?

(via munkymelee)

294,453 notes

raideo:

spookyelric:

sphynx-prince:

yungcoochie:

bankston:

goodreasonnews:

amazingatheist:

I’m so glad to see the younger generation waking up to this hypocrisy. 

The homeowner at 22 one is killing me.

…………………….

This meme makes me so angry because it’s so on-target.

I am screaming

this isn’t even funny to me it just makes me want to find the nearest baby boomer and deck them in the mouth

I reblog this every time because it always re-ignites my anger.

I feel you sphynx-prince.  

(Source: seriouslyamerica, via munkymelee)