Hacker News Reader

Comment by tines | Hacker News Reader

> I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.

This is a pretty shallow opinion imo. The government operates on violence. America was founded in a violent revolution. The question people are asking isn't about whether violence has its place (it does); it's about how bad things have to get before you stop considering your government to have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, and people can start justly using violence themselves.

View on HN

"Non-violence is a very non-functional approach in a society that's based entirely on organized force and violence."

Non-violent economic power is an extremely powerful tool within systems that restrict the use of force.

If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days.

The allure of violence is that people mistakenly think that they make change without support, when in reality, they are usually just creating effects, not the change that they want.

Shooting a school or rioting has a lot of effects, but they almost never make the desired change.

If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days.

This might be more persuasive if you supplied some examples.

> If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something

Huge ask right at the beginning. If that is met, there are several examples such as The Velvet Revolution, Iceland's Financial Crisis Protest, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, Philippine People Power Revolution (1986) etc.

Such a huge ask, I think that most of western society is not in a state to be able to fulfil it. Especially in the US and UK (but probably many others), we've become so polarised that there's some kind of perceived honour in opposing the other 'side', regardless of your own actual opinion. If we needed to fight for suffrage today, for example, I don't think there would be a "vast majority", just two roughly equal sides taking opposing views for the sake of it.

Well, the internet has finally helped realize the politician's dream - making the voter believe that:

    1. They are in the right (no pun intended) group
    2. All other groups are in the wrong
    3. Their leader cares about them 
    4. He/she has the solution

When the reality is:

    1. Most of us are in the same group
    2. The group is of screwed over people
    3. The leaders only care about gaining and staying in power
    4. Why would the leaders find any solution that won't help with gaining and staying in power?

There is no difference between economic power and violence, it is it's currency. Rioting begot the civil rights act.

Sure seems different when my employer pays me to work instead of beating me.

They don't have to, it's outsourced. If you don't take it you'll end up on the street and the cops will beat you.

Do you have any idea just how bad a violent revolution in modern day America would get? The recent Civil War movie doesn't do it justice. I'm assuming anyone advocating for this has swallowed Russian propaganda.

I was there during the revolution in Ukraine. Life isn’t the movies.

I’m not advocating for violence. On the contrary. But one has to wonder sometimes what percentage of the population has to work full time while not being able to afford basic necessities, until violence becomes an option

Even if we see 20 Luigi Mangione copycats in 2025, this isn't doing to start a violent revolution nor a civil war in the US.

It would actually do the opposite - the great positive effects from those 20 Luigis would reduce the chance of such a thing occuring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com