by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,5771,5781,5791,5801,5811,5821,583. . .2,6342,635»

Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners

Northern Wood wrote:

Now, it may not be the most politically expedient position. The Civil Rights Movement lasted more than a decade. And the Indian Independence Movement much longer than that. The Hong Kong protests have been going on just a matter of months. If you're going to go the Nonviolent route, you've got to be in it for the long haul.

Actually, the modern US Civil Rights Movement is more than a century old, beginning in the mid 1800s with the US Civil War. Which was, incidentally, the single most violent and bloodiest conflict in all of US history to date.

The 1960s phase thus rests on a bed of ultra-violence which, while regretable, was necessary and morally justified because that those were the means necessary to put an end to the slavers.

I'd argue that the CCP is closer in mentality to the slavers South than it is to contemporary nominal liberal democracy, and...

Northern Wood wrote:

I don't quite follow your statement that "Non-violence as a "higher standard" necessarily implies that the state and it's citizens control equal means of access to power, and thus equal means of access to alternatives." When has this ever been the status of a nonviolent resistance movement? I'm no expert in such matters, but it seems to me that it is utilized in cases where there are large disparities in the access to power.

...so the point here is that people of color in the 1960s US while not "equal" in an absolute sense nonetheless had access to a nominally democratic system where in it was at least possible to air grievances in a legal nonviolent manner.

The legal abolishment of slavery and Brown v. Board and the like all preceded the 1960s Movement. As inconsistent and spotty as they obviously were, legal non-violent means existed and could be appealed to.

This was probably why the non-violent means of Dr. King were so effective (even if Malcolm X was constantly, correctly, and necessarily, standing right behind him to remind Whites of the alternative...).

By contrast, the CCP is already known for the violent repression of protest, and for simply jailing or disappearing any dissent of any extent. One of the most infamous contemporary examples having been ordered by Deng Zaiopeng, who, by comparison to Mao, was a flipping liberal reformer.

Thus, comparisons of Hong Kong to the 1960s US, to conclude that non-violence is a viable option presume that HK protesters have access to legal non-violent means that they simply do not. As fu*ked up as 1960s US was, it was NOT Communist China.

Alpenburg, Octopus islands, Chan island, Atsvea, and 6 othersLord Dominator, The Cypher Nine, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Northern Wood, and Sean fiobha

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I think an extreme position of saying that violence is NEVER justified is indeed hard to defend. However, I'd certainly say that violence seems like a good answer more often than it truly is, and that it often remains the visceral, common-sense, feels-right option that often causes more harm in the long run.

When it comes to HK protesters targeting a police car with a homemade bomb, or arming drones with petrol and acid bombs, or pulling a taxi driver out of his car and beating him while stamping on his face as a crowd... well these things have what -- as politicians are fond of saying -- bad optics.

For sure, there's a context here. There's police brutality, rubber bullets fired at point blank range, misinformation campaigns smearing the protestors as child abusers, and the possibility that said taxi driver ploughed into the crowd of protesters not by accident but because he was paid to by the government.

However, to those NOT on the frontline, and who do NOT have access to the secret meetings of those in charge of either side, the default position was that we were strongly on the side of peaceful pro-democracy protestors because they were peaceful, and they were pro-democracy. Protestors then engaging in the sort of actions we associate with terrorism... that sort of thing can erode public support pretty damn quickly.

If even a hippie left-wing liberal westernised democracy advocate like myself can start thinking they've gone too far, then imagine what the average neutral conservative or status quo supporter thinks. To them, the protestors have gone from being people who they might disagree with but are willing to listen to, into terrorists who attack policemen and who need to be put down.

In fact, the cynic in me asks "cui bono?" and this suspects that the most violent elements of the protests are likely to be the ones in China's pocket.

That's the truth of modern warfare - it's not a battle of guns or bombs, it's a battle of ideas. Beat up a single cop, and you can claim to have won the skirmish. Control the narrative, and you win the war.

Now to me, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, great men for sure, full of fire. But you know the words that changed the nation? The quiet resistance that the world turned on?

"I don't think I should have to stand up."

Now that's courage.

Was it? She wasn’t in danger of being shot despite the violent acts being committed against those such as Emmet Till. The NAACP chose her to do this. It was planned. Plenty of people did what she did before she did. MLK wasn’t even shot by racists. His union support was actually the reason. My point being, the sheer publicity of that killing gave the movement strength. The interesting thing about civil disobedience though is that the usual threat is jail time. In China, its death or work camps.

Did Tiannamen square change anything about China?
No. So why do you think another one will? Peaceful protests work in democratic law abiding countries only. Thats the only reason the civil rights acts were passed. We originally had to fight a war to get blacks to just to be able to live without chains. There was already so much work done that laid the foundation.

Alpenburg, Octopus islands, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, and 3 othersTurbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, and Sean fiobha

The Cypher Nine wrote:Peaceful protests work in democratic law abiding countries only.

Let me pick that one statement apart there. It just doesn't match the evidence.

First, peaceful protests are more successful than violent protests. It's been calculated that over the 20th century, non-violent campaigns for change succeeded 51% of the time, whereas violent campaigns succeeded 27% of the time.

Second, there have been multiple documented cases of peaceful protest creating lasting change in regions under dictatorship. The overthrow of Slobodan Milošević and the forcing of elections was the result of a long campaign of almost entirely non-violent civic resistance. The centralised government of Madagascar was replaced by a democratic one in the 1990s by peaceful protest -- the main violence came during the Iavohola march, when peaceful demonstrators were gunned down by the police, and the tide of public opinion swung against the government. The 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine may have taken place against a backdrop of a supposed democracy, but it was a non-functioning and corrupt system that was tyranny in all but name, and through peaceful protest change occurred. And my favourite one: East Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the German Reunification. You remember that you cited that Tiannamen Square didn't change anything? Well, it certainly did in East Germany, with the inspiration of that protest serving as one of the central rallying points for demanding change and freedom from Communism.

Third, let's look at the cases where peaceful protest transitioned into violent protest and see what happened. We all know about the Arab Spring, I hope. Peaceful protests arose, governments responded with violence, and these responses were met with counter-violence. The net result? Civil wars. Unrest. The resurgence of auhoritarianism and Islamic extremism.
I'd even posit that the supposed successful violent prodemocratic revolutions of the past, like the French Revolution, the Latin Revolutions, they installed worse tyrannies in their aftermaths. It was only the slow and steady work of reformers that turned these countries into democracies.

And finally, let's examine China itself. Yes, China has responded brutally to peaceful protest time and again. Tiannamen square. The Tibetan uprising. Falun Gong. Peaceful protest often ends in blood in China.
No denying, it's hard to protest in China. But it does make a difference, even if it's hard to see. China is gradually weakening, with capitalism and information technology opening the door to this historically troubled nation, and the gradual erosion of Chinese authoritarianism by liberal ideas making slow and steady progress. All these little cracks in the edifice add up, and eventually there'll be a change.
A violent revolution might seem quicker, and more satisfying viscerally, but in the long game it creates more problems. The tyranny we have at the moment was the outcome of the last violent revolution. Mao's Red Army didn't give China the social justice he promised, it gave a near-totalitarian state. That's where violence ends.

Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

However, to those NOT on the frontline, and who do NOT have access to the secret meetings of those in charge of either side, the default position was that we were strongly on the side of peaceful pro-democracy protestors because they were peaceful, and they were pro-democracy. Protestors then engaging in the sort of actions we associate with terrorism... that sort of thing can erode public support pretty damn quickly.

I would personally think that the moral position is to side against the CCP dictatorship, because it is not peaceful under any circumstance and it is explicitly anti-democracy. This doesn't necessarily mean that any particular action by any particular individual is necessarily moral. Indeed, going back to the ultra-violent foundation of the US Civil Rights Movement in the 1800s, attrocities were committed regularly by both sides. This is mournful, but it does not change the basic facts: 1) slavery was and is immoral, and 2) the slavers had to go because, 3) only then would a nominally democratic government that would permit non-violent and peaceful means to achieve even a single pinky hold be possible.

Come to think of it, perhaps a better comparison to the current situation in Hong Kong might be the history of the Republic of China on Taiwan. I understand history there is replete with atrocities (nearly 40 years of martial law and extensive use of capital punishment to repress dissent). None the less, I get the impression that the ROC is now generally considered among the world's "first world developed" democracies.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

That's the truth of modern warfare - it's not a battle of guns or bombs, it's a battle of ideas. Beat up a single cop, and you can claim to have won the skirmish. Control the narrative, and you win the war.

When the global narrative turns to favor the CCP, I hereby swear I will eat this very keyboard.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Now to me, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, great men for sure, full of fire. But you know the words that changed the nation? The quiet resistance that the world turned on?

"I don't think I should have to stand up."

Now that's courage.

As already noted, courage with the advantage of an at least theoretically nominal democratic system, itself only made possible by the most brutal act of violence in US history about a century before. Without the nominal democracy secured by violence, Ms. Parks certainly would not have seen the end of the day, never mind the 21st century.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

A violent revolution might seem quicker, and more satisfying viscerally, but in the long game it creates more problems. The tyranny we have at the moment was the outcome of the last violent revolution. Mao's Red Army didn't give China the social justice he promised, it gave a near-totalitarian state. That's where violence ends.

We might be presuming that Mao (or the Bolsheviks, or the Khmer Rouge, or etc.) actually honestly held social justice as a goal. I think this is giving them too much credit.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

First, peaceful protests are more successful than violent protests. It's been calculated that over the 20th century, non-violent campaigns for change succeeded 51% of the time, whereas violent campaigns succeeded 27% of the time.

I would like a citation to the data used, so that I can calculate how many of the "non-violent campaigns" were historically preceded by "violent campaigns" that secured the necessary institutions and structures that make "non-violent campaigns" effective.

I can think of at least one, and would be precisely 0% surprised to find many more.

Post self-deleted by Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners.

Octopus islands

Why do you keep deleting your own posts?

Should I add nation borders to the climate map? If so, should I add nation names and/or capitals as well?
Currently I'm thinking of just adding borders and names.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:[spolier]Let me pick that one statement apart there. It just doesn't match the evidence.

First, peaceful protests are more successful than violent protests. It's been calculated that over the 20th century, non-violent campaigns for change succeeded 51% of the time, whereas violent campaigns succeeded 27% of the time.

Second, there have been multiple documented cases of peaceful protest creating lasting change in regions under dictatorship. The overthrow of Slobodan Milošević and the forcing of elections was the result of a long campaign of almost entirely non-violent civic resistance. The centralised government of Madagascar was replaced by a democratic one in the 1990s by peaceful protest -- the main violence came during the Iavohola march, when peaceful demonstrators were gunned down by the police, and the tide of public opinion swung against the government. The 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine may have taken place against a backdrop of a supposed democracy, but it was a non-functioning and corrupt system that was tyranny in all but name, and through peaceful protest change occurred. And my favourite one: East Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the German Reunification. You remember that you cited that Tiannamen Square didn't change anything? Well, it certainly did in East Germany, with the inspiration of that protest serving as one of the central rallying points for demanding change and freedom from Communism.

Third, let's look at the cases where peaceful protest transitioned into violent protest and see what happened. We all know about the Arab Spring, I hope. Peaceful protests arose, governments responded with violence, and these responses were met with counter-violence. The net result? Civil wars. Unrest. The resurgence of auhoritarianism and Islamic extremism.
I'd even posit that the supposed successful violent prodemocratic revolutions of the past, like the French Revolution, the Latin Revolutions, they installed worse tyrannies in their aftermaths. It was only the slow and steady work of reformers that turned these countries into democracies.

And finally, let's examine China itself. Yes, China has responded brutally to peaceful protest time and again. Tiannamen square. The Tibetan uprising. Falun Gong. Peaceful protest often ends in blood in China.
No denying, it's hard to protest in China. But it does make a difference, even if it's hard to see. China is gradually weakening, with capitalism and information technology opening the door to this historically troubled nation, and the gradual erosion of Chinese authoritarianism by liberal ideas making slow and steady progress. All these little cracks in the edifice add up, and eventually there'll be a change.
A violent revolution might seem quicker, and more satisfying viscerally, but in the long game it creates more problems. The tyranny we have at the moment was the outcome of the last violent revolution. Mao's Red Army didn't give China the social justice he promised, it gave a near-totalitarian state. That's where violence ends.[/spoiler]

Hmmm. I'm sceptical. In all of those cases of the success of the non-violent protests against supposed dictatorships, the "dictators" either weren't dictators (I mean there's a huge swathe of levels of lack of freedom between the supposedly free liberal west and outright totalitarianism) or they lost their conviction. EG compare East Germany in 1950s when enough of the communist party elite were true believers and 1980s when they were just going through the motions and were not going to resort to violence to defend the regime. The long and the short of it is that sticking daisies in the barrels of rifles won't work if the person holding the rifle has enough bullets and is willing to use them.

However, on the original question. I think it's a negative direction. I'm generally supportive of non-violence but I can recognise that sometimes it may be the only answer to tyranny willing to use violence to defend itself. But if you don't have the ability to outgun or outlast your opponent at least to the stalemate stage, which these protesters clearly don't, you've no business biting off more than you can chew. All this will end up with is lives pointlessly lost and no gains made. Perhaps even the people of Hong Kong will wind up in a worse situation than before.

Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners

Octopus islands wrote:Why do you keep deleting your own posts?

I keep forgetting that double-posting is naughty.

Also, am currently on my way over to my university library to check out This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/908375079):

From the publisher:

"Civil rights scholar Charles E. Cobb, Jr. reveals how nonviolent activists and their allies kept the civil rights movement alive by bearing and, when necessary, using firearms. Whether patrolling their neighborhoods, garrisoning their homes, or firing back at attackers, these men and women were crucial to the movement's success, as were the weapons they carried. Drawing on his firsthand experiences in the Southern Freedom Movement and interviews with fellow participants, Cobb offers a controversial examination of the vital role guns have played in securing American liberties."

In a related Salon article I'm still reading, Cobb Jr. notes that the 1960s Civil Rights Movement was very careful to employ nonviolence including in the "optics" sense, however, he also appears extremely skeptical of the notion that the ownership of firearms (and thus the implied threat of violence) by blacks would have made any difference vis-a-vis response by their opponents; he notes that buses full of protesters weren't firebombed because anyone was afraid they were full of weapons, but rather because they were full of people seeking their civil rights:

https://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/guns_made_civil_rights_possible_breaking_down_the_myth_of_nonviolent_change/

At any rate, he seems to paint a picture of a "nonviolent" movement nonetheless backed by the means of self-defense (and thus, necessarily, of violence), if needed.

Cobb Jr., by the way, is a professor at Brown University and one of the original organizers of the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_E._Cobb_Jr.).

Alpenburg, Octopus islands, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 2 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, and Sean fiobha

Speaking of China and Hong Kong and freedom stuff, it was interesting to see the footage of Hong Kong politicians protesting the leader from giving her speech. Those aren't the nameless "be water" people; they know exactly who their politicians are.

My first thought was like, "damn, that's gutsy. I wish US politicians would do that sometimes."

The next thought was a sinking, "they are all probably so dead, or at least 'reeducation camp'-ed."

And then it occurred to me that it's a very desperate, heroic sort of fight that those people are in right now. They're looking at ultimately being swallowed up into the mainland in 2047, and they're one city against the leviathan, and yet they're resisting and fighting. It's almost like Constantinople at the end. It also shows how despite the benign and forward-looking image the PRC would like to project, they have an awfully bad time of getting people to join the party. One quarter of the Uyghurs are locked up, Tibet is being actively Sinicized, Taiwan is like "oh [expletive]!" and Hong Kong is trying to maintain their freedom.

If the PRC is so great and futuristic and wonderful and prosperous, why do all of these other groups either become subjugated or die on their sword in resistance?

Maybe Winnie the Pooh is Sauron, and the Hundred Acre Wood is Mordor? >__>

(And Trump is Denethor: "Boromir was shot by orcs. I like people who weren't shot by orcs. Now I'm setting myself on fire. Flee for your lives!"

Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners

Ruinenlust wrote:

And then it occurred to me that it's a very desperate, heroic sort of fight that those people are in right now. They're looking at ultimately being swallowed up into the mainland in 2047, and they're one city against the leviathan, and yet they're resisting and fighting. It's almost like Constantinople at the end. It also shows how despite the benign and forward-looking image the PRC would like to project, they have an awfully bad time of getting people to join the party. One quarter of the Uyghurs are locked up, Tibet is being actively Sinicized, Taiwan is like "oh [expletive]!" and Hong Kong is trying to maintain their freedom.

I mean, we can argue endlessly about violence vs. non-violence, but one one thing close to 100% of any who cares agrees on is that passivity is guaranteed failure.

Octopus islands wrote:Why do you keep deleting your own posts?

Should I add nation borders to the climate map? If so, should I add nation names and/or capitals as well?
Currently I'm thinking of just adding borders and names.

I do not know if it conflicts with your planning but I have always envisioned my nation having a Cfb climate at lower elevations and a Cfc climate in the central mountains. Otherwise, I believe that it is up to you to decide which details are included on the climate map. I am based on an island so I can do without borders/names, but it would be nice to have the site of my capital marked (it is up in the central Cfc mountains).

Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners wrote:I mean, we can argue endlessly about violence vs. non-violence, but one one thing close to 100% of any who cares agrees on is that passivity is guaranteed failure.

i believe there are ways of being neither passive nor violent. i seem to recall there was some guy named ghandiji, and there have been several others.
(and p.s.; he didn't fail)

I have no idea what I should look like on the climate map, but I'm reasonably certain it's the extreme opposite of everyone else :P
(Is smog an option?)

Octopus islands

Here's the climate map, if you haven't seen it. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/394325831515635712/633479152091136036/forestclimatepng.png

The colors are based off of the colors used on the Wikipedia page for the Koeppen system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
You may notice, I don't have every variation of climate type possible (i.e. I only have Csa, not Csb or Csc).
Currently, I only have the ones I deemed important and/or not too difficult to place.
This includes:
- Tropical rainforest, tropical monsoon, tropical savannah
- Hot desert, hot steppe, cold desert, cold steppe
- Mediterranean, humid subtropical, oceanic
- Humid continental, subarctic
- Polar tundra, polar ice caps

This is because that would make it too complicated. Not to mention, the only things I have to work off is rough placement of mountains, general geography, and latitude, so I couldn't really do it if I tried.

All of the climates are based off of latitude, land placement, ocean placement, and wind/ocean currents. I don't intend to change it to fit people's canon (sorry), but if you'd want to be moved so that your climate better fits your canon, I am happy to do so.

The final version will (at the very least) have a key for the different colors and have country borders.

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Altmer dominion, and 1 otherSean fiobha

Octopus islands, would you please move me to a subarctic climate or use it where I already am?

Lord Dominator, I don't think that radioactive toxic waste dump fits into the Köppen system. I do not know what that means for the map. Maybe you will just be gray like "data deficient" nations on real-world statistical maps.

Octopus islands, Lord Dominator, Outer Bele Levy Epies, and Sean fiobha

Octopus islands

Turbeaux wrote:Octopus islands, would you please move me to a subarctic climate or use it where I already am?

Yeah, I'll get it for you :)
Would you prefer east of Ruinenlust, south of Palos Heights, or north of Bagiona?

Altmer dominion

I'm actually not opposed to the humid subtropical/oceanic climate on the island of Auridon (https://i.imgur.com/TCWxk8B.png) or the inland semi-arid plains of Elsweyr (https://i.imgur.com/UCZWthx.png). It's quite the serendipitous alignment, all things considered.

That said, Valenwood, which is on the coast of the mainland, isn't quite there yet. Much more of a rainforest, it's actually the location prominently displayed on my nation banner. The current climactic map displays the coast to be a mix of semi-arid and tropical savannah(?, can't tell if it's Humid continental). Most accurately, the coastline would be tropical, more of the rainforest or monsoon variety, whichever would be more realistic. That band of tropics then gives way to the current arid lands of Elsweyr.

So far, this map has been really awesome in it's detail. Looking forward to the completed map!

So to be clear, my understanding is that I am in a Tropical zone? Specifically savannah?

Octopus islands

Altmer dominion wrote:Most accurately, the coastline would be tropical, more of the rainforest or monsoon variety, whichever would be more realistic.

I mean no offense, but...
This is the most "accurate" the map can get, based on your location.

The Cypher Nine wrote:So to be clear, my understanding is that I am in a Tropical zone? Specifically savannah?

Yes. Savannah and a bit of desert on the north, monsoon on the eastern side.

Lord Dominator, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Altmer dominion, and Sean fiobha

Octopus islands wrote:I mean no offense, but...
This is the most "accurate" the map can get, based on your location.

Yes. Savannah and a bit of desert on the north, monsoon on the eastern side.

Is there a way to be more monsoon or more Tropical Rainforest and almost no desert while still retaining the other qualities?

Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners

Cameroi wrote:i believe there are ways of being neither passive nor violent.

Of course.

Cameroi wrote:

i seem to recall there was some guy named ghandiji, and there have been several others.
(and p.s.; he didn't fail)

Gandhi was dealing with the British Empire which I'd again assert, while obviously far from benevolent in many respects, is again a far cry from the CCP. Also, if wikipedia and its references are accurate, Gandhi served the British against the Boers in South Africa, helped recruit Indians to join the British Army during World War I, but apparently changed his tune during World War II, presumably because of his campaign for Indian independence.

If all of this is true, then he really wasn't opposed to violence in principle, so much as he knew full well the value of violence as a tool given the specific circumstances.

Which, you know, duh.

Altmer dominion

Octopus islands wrote:I mean no offense, but...
This is the most "accurate" the map can get, based on your location.

No, no, it's all good. Read up on the humid continental climate, seems to have a lot of variability that will still work. Still pondering about my tree-based capital Elden Root being in an arid plain, but it's tough 'cause everything else is bang on the money. Guess that's more indicative about the amount of thought put into Elder Scrolls climatic zones. *shrug*

I finally got this nation back to the anarchy it deserves. Notwithstanding the lunacy of answering issues creates I hope to keep it that way while increasing scientific advancement and eco-friendlieness.

Octopus islands, Lord Dominator, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Myordas, and 2 othersWernher Magnus Maximilian Von Braun, and Sean fiobha

Think about my cichlid game with this theme song:

Iza Ngomso-Christopher Tin:

youtube.com/watch?v=DxxWtt_5oZc

Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners wrote: -snip-

Thanks for the lengthy response. I had a hell of a day yesterday and am only getting around to read it now.

If I understand, you seem to be saying that nonviolent resistance works only in societies that are constrained in how brutal they can legally respond? I suppose I can see the rationale here. But with the world's focus on Hong Kong, surely China is operating under a decent amount of constraints, even if they aren't constitutional ones?

And I guess I would just caution how eagerly one would wish for the escalation of violence in any given situation. There's always the chance for it to spiral wildly out of control, and for it to result in grave atrocities being visited on the general populace. Human beings are brutal, and when things become unchained and the rule of law and society breaks down, the outcome can be devastating, and often the most vulnerable suffer the worst.

«12. . .1,5771,5781,5791,5801,5811,5821,583. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement