I want to form a group on Instagram or Reddit or telegram, to fight violence hate speech on Instagram and TikTok, I have found countless disturbing Instagram posts, drunk driving memes, transphobia people about to kill themseleves or get killed and the full videos are being stored on telegram

I’m posting in this sub, yet I haven’t been active on this platform in some time. I don’t check my messages, as there’s lots of junk.

I correspond using Session - a decentralized blockchain messenger app…

I’m interested in creating a community violence crisis resource using Session (it might be similar to 988 (Suicide and Crisis Hotline). It would be for specific areas.

Thoughts? Opinions? Is it needed? Is it redundant? I appreciate your considerate comments. Thank you.

I can be reached on Session: 05bc029ecb91f49531cd08dfa50640e361e7cc5e7ee18b63cbf86d41d480c29015

In the aftermath of yesterday's disturbing incident involving former President Trump, we are reminded that violence is never an acceptable solution; as Dr. King so eloquently stated in his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,

"Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers."

Despite the progress we've made, we still grapple with systemic injustice, persistent inequality, and senseless wars that ravage our world.

Regardless of our political affiliations or beliefs, we must unite in condemning violence and embracing a path of nonviolence, understanding, and respect for each other. Let us focus on finding common ground and working towards a society that values empathy, compassion, justice, and peaceful dialogue.

By doing so, together we can create a brighter future for all, rather than perpetuating this cycle of division and harm.

Dear Friends,

I wanted to share a recent essay on Martin Luther King's world historic significance and his importance not just as a figure of history but FOR the FUTURE.

"We are living through a moral crisis in the world, and the genocide in Gaza remains at the forefront of our minds. The world is in a moment of transition and hence a moment of great violence and danger. It is a time that calls for a deep study of Martin Luther King Jr., the man who fought war with the weapons of love—with the sword that heals. Martin Luther King wrote in his essay “The World House”: “In one sense the Civil Rights movement in the United States is a special American phenomenon which must be understood in the light of American history and dealt with in terms of the American situation. But on another and more important level, what is happening in the United States today is a significant part of world development.”

The Civil Rights Movement was a part of the great upsurge of dark humanity crying out for democracy between the 1950s and 1970s. It may represent for us today one of its most advanced forms. This is not to compare narrowly revolutionary struggles all over the world, but to scientifically study the trajectory of revolutionary thought and ask what remains for us today a resource to expand democracy. Indeed, Martin Luther King represents the great gift of Black America to the nation being born within the U.S., but also a gift to the world humanity as a whole. In this essay I will try to argue that King’s inheritance must be taken up by Americans and young Indians alike. Although he learnt from the Indian tradition in his time, he may hold the key to Indians claiming their own revolutionary legacy in this time."

Hello Friends,

I am sharing an essay the latest issue of Avant-Garde: A Journal of Peace, Democracy, and Science dedicated to Martin Luther King Jr. on the 57th anniversary of his speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" and the 58th anniversary of his assassination.

Entitled Why We Must Inherit the Third American Revolution it argues that the Civil Rights Movement was indeed a revolution, and that its vision for nonviolence is essential for resolving the crises of our times. An excerpt:

"Diane Nash was 21 years old when she, along with a small number of other students from various Black colleges in Nashville, began attending James Lawson’s workshops on nonviolence in 1959.

Raised in Chicago, Nash had not encountered the full harshness and humiliating irrationality of segregation until she came to the South; Lawson’s workshops, inspired by his studies in India, were the “only game in town” where anyone talked about ending segregation. Over the course of many months, the group met, discussed, and debated—oftentimes for hours—over a series of formidable questions: was nonviolence a viable philosophy and method? Could nonviolent change ever take place in the hyper-violent American South? What would it take to desegregate Nashville? Who and what were the social forces, individuals, and institutions that mattered in the city, and how did they think and behave? Where should the effort to desegregate Nashville begin, and why? And finally: could each student accept the possibility of his or her death at the hands of an enraged white mob?

Aimed at desegregating lunch counters and other public facilities, the Nashville Sit-Ins of 1960 were the product of these months of exhaustive investigation, deliberation, and planning. It was one of the nation’s earliest, most audacious nonviolent direct action campaigns, and a microcosm for how the Civil Rights Movement created new human beings and new human relations: a condition for the rebirth of America as a nation and as a civilization in potentiality. Initially shy and timid, Nash grew to become the unquestioned leader among this cadre of students and a respected, battle-tested revolutionary in the Civil Rights Movement.

What produced a Diane Nash? To answer this question, we must rewrite our entire understanding of American history and of the very question of revolution..."

My friend and I had a small disagreement over instigators at protests, which includes undercover police. We both understand the legal aspect. It was mentioned that it should be encouraged on all sides to beat down the violent instigator regardless of what side they're on. Do you believe that would be fair in a hypothetical world without laws similar to ours? Keep in mind this hypothetical place is similar to the United States with it's same history. A citizen's arrest is probably a better idea if the person doesn't mind risks, but that's besides the point.

First time posting here. I don't see too many posts that aren't (re)sharing articles, so I hope this isn't out of place.

I came to a practice of nonviolence after beariny witness to acts of extreme violence. This ultimately lead me to such practices as feminism, veganism, and pacifism-- and ultimately nonviolence as taught in contemplative Christian and Buddhist traditions. To name a few inspirations, Thich Nhat Hanh, Martin Luther King Jr., Vaclav Havel, and some of my own mentors.

I am accustomed to nonviolence being an embodied practice that focuses on nonviolence in the mental and verbal spaces as well as in physical action. I am also accustomed to dialog with peers as being a formative part of the practice of nonviolence. Having living mirrors in which one's successes and shortcomings are reflected.

Most of the associated activism I have experience with is peaceful and in some sense passive. Civil disobedience but not violent action. Protest, sit in, public witnessing. It might involve tresspass, but not destruction of personal property, theft, violence to persons. No violent or degrading speech. A lot of work to keep clear of hateful and bitter emotions towards one's opponents.

In the last few years I am finding this approach seems to be a minority view. Groups I have been involved with seem to have a very different model. Destruction of property, violent speech, cancelling, harassing, etc. as part of nonviolent action and living.

People here have encouraged me that there are different approaches to nonviolence, and that mine is retrograde and outdated. What are the other visions of nonviolence?

Rightience.

I'm looking for audio recordings of MLK talking about nonviolence. Does anyone know of any speeches where he talks about the six principles of nonviolence? Or the four stages of a nonviolent campaign that he describes in Letter from Birmingham Jail? I've listened to many of his speeches on YouTube but only have a few good snippets. Thanks for any help.

The general rubric within which to understand this murder is cherry picking. It is not the go-to thing to think about in such cases, or in society at large, but I think it is the single largest category of what is responsible for a wide range of problems, virtually all of the problems in a way.

It shouldn't be hard to see just how the police taking Tyre down were cherry picking. All the stories about it will basically focus one what they police left out, which is the basic issue with cherry picking. One picks that one cherry they want, but it's not what we call "cherry picking" unless you're leaving out something else, either other "cherries" or other things. E.g., cherry picking in basketball is staying by the net so one can score more points, at the expense of helping others out in the court. Etc.

It is a task simply to go through all the kinds of cherry picking the cops likely engaged in. I won't do that here. The articles, however, will stress the various acts of the police, and these all amount to a charge of cherry picking one action over other, less violent actions.

The key element is that the topic of cherry picking as such should be developed into an interventional strategy with police departments. Trainees would have to generate lists and accounts of cherry picking from examples until they are versant in the concept of cherry picking. This would obviously be a part of a broader initiative and is a kind of subcategory of nonviolence/antiforce. The broader thinking and action (thoughtaction) ultimately draws into fundamental question the c/j system as a whole, but the heuristic value in the more immediate of the idea of cherry picking should be considered.

I started a Substack which focuses on Gandhi's life and lessons and ties them to self-improvement. The short posts often relate to something that happened on a certain date; here's one for January 20, the day in 1948 where there was a failed assassination attempt. https://30daygandhichallenge.substack.com/p/assassins-attack

This is one part of a larger Gandhian constructive program for holistic social, cultural, electoral, and political change in America. Nonviolent revolution is possible!

Events of mass violence, or even disruptive events such as the black plague, leave things immeasurably better for the people that survive the aftermath. The Thirty Years War made Europe's quality of life higher and made the political economy more egalitarian. Real wages had the highest increase of all time following the black death. Humans - like all primates - will always overconsume their environment until Malthusian factors kick in. Like all primates, humans are also hyper-anxious of what is 'their' territory and personal space, which is why life gets better when tons of people disappear or die. Why then are modern historians so obsessed with metrics such as nonviolence when nonviolent polities are unsustainable for a long duration?

The World Health Organization defines 'violence' as:

“the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation”

I like this definition because it can reduce 'violence' into: "behavior which has the potential to cause harm", of which can exist either the physical or psychological dimension.

Other definitions characterize violence as being (1) 'behavior intended to cause harm' and/or (2) constrained to the physical realm only. What are your thoughts on these two modifiers? Is something only violent when one intends to cause harm? If so, what word can describe 'harm caused unintentionally'? Would you challenge that violence can only exist in the body, and not the mind?

(comment by /u/ravia in the post /r/worldnews/comments/zozql9/anyone_who_underestimates_russia_is_headed_for/)

Russia, not Ukraine, is poised to become the "underdog crawls out from overwhelming odds" hero, at least to itself and its mindless supporters internally. They have the time, money and lack of opposing political will to carry out an endless war, and Ukraine can't survive that, no matter how bravely they fight. Two winters could decimate them.

Ultimately, while I think Ukraine can win, I fear they won't. This would be the world's failure, really, due to the failure specifically of the thoughtful around the globe to develop and forward militant nonviolence, very specifically. Such nonviolence would shake the grip of Russia better and yield many fewer casualties, whether it be successful or not. Violence is not a guarantee of success, it must be stressed. A full national strike rooted in a developed will and thought/action of pure nonviolence (not diversity of tactics, which Russia would of course seize upon) would make Ukraine indominable and force Russia to retreat, after trying grisly measures, of course, which would make Russia world infamous.

This might seem ridiculous, but there are many elements of nonviolence, of Gandhian satyagraha, already in play in the current situation. They have mainly to do with with the brave, resolved suffering of the people, of men, women, children, the elderly and infirm. This constitutes a certain, definite power that is obscured by the fog of war. Nonviolence brings that power to the fore.

Perhaps most importantly, nonviolence, as a kind of antiforce, gets at what Putin is really defending: the use of force itself. Russians are the bad guys in many movies, and the narrative is always the same, and something we all know: force can't really work in the long run, and it can not love.

Let's say there is massive human rights violations in a given place and non violent resistance is applied. What are the odds of it working ? Besides , why should one have the possibility of torture etc be imposed on them ?

New here, sorry if it is already discussed. I was looking for a sub for Nonviolent Communication, as taught by Marshall Rosenberg. As a former political activist using techniques of nonviolent resistance, then finding Nonviolent Communication, I see quite a lot of differences between the two. And a lot of similarities as well: both are nonviolent, and both are aiming at social change. I would be happy to discuss both here if anyone is willing to join the discussion.