A subreddit devoted to nonviolence. At this momentous time in which nonviolent revolution is showing that it is possible, all the more reason to explore, share and discuss this important issue. This subreddit is devoted to:
I have a background in the Evangelical friends / Orthodox Quakerism, and I still follow Jesus and want to adhere to his teachings on non-violence. But I’m interested in hearing from any backgrounds on this. I particularly enjoy judo and jiu jitsu as “gentle arts” and have found a gym that doesn’t use overly aggressive techniques and has a diverse array of student. Still, though, I have wondered about where there is something problematic in spending so much time around people who have an interest in things like UFC and MMA.
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?
Video games as an art form are almost all combat-focused. I don't hate this, I love my Doom in fact, but it limits the storytelling capacity of video games to have to be stories about things other than mowing down baddies. As an artist, I'd like to explore that area. I'm working on a game now where you play in a desperate survival situation not as a soldier, but as a doctor.
Yuma Will Burn is an experimental narrative survival game where choices have long-lasting story and mechanical consequences. Harsh survival mechanics exist alongside a dynamically changing narrative in an uncaring and sadistic world of triage, poverty, and fear.
As a developer, I've taken a risk by dedicating so much time to a game of this type. The genre is VERY obscure and niche. I still did it though, because I believe in both the artistic value of a deep and complex moral/narrative experience and the unbridled passion this audience for them has.
I encourage you to check out and wishlist the game with the link above. I'm a biased party, but I think it's worth your time.
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.
This is becoming more and more obvious and uncomfortable to me. It seems like there's no form of entertainment that does not involve some form of violence, most commonly physical, but emotional and psychological abuse is pretty common as well. Is it really possible to tell a story aimed at adults that doesn't revolve around beings harming each other in some way? Even Star Trek, which theoretically centers on the effort to find nonviolent solutions, almost inevitably ends with someone firing a hand phaser or a ship launching a torpedo spread at another ship to solve whatever problem is currently occuring.
When it comes to your journey in life what is the most beautiful thing you have learned?
It could be a verse, a quote that really sums it all up or hits you in a profound way, or an experience, everything is open :)
But what is that one thing that really stands out and you felt the most close to the truth in hearing or experiencing or learning it? :)
why items highly subsidized by the government are expensive? Shouldn't subsidy reduce price?
If you participate in sports such as wrestling or fencing, would that be considered violent?
Biden recalled a phone call between Nash and U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy's top aids where they warned her about the increasing violence surrounding the Freedom Rides.
"She replied, and I quote, 'We all signed our last will and testaments before we left. We know some of them will be killed. We cannot let violence overcome nonviolence,'" Biden said.
Biden praised her "unshakeable courage," during the Civil Rights Movement.
I.e., that's the main function. A simple "proof" for this would be a gun owner/open carry advocate (etc.) type person might well buy junk insurance with a completely unaffordable $10,000 deductible, because "look, nothing's going to happen!", while they want the guns because "something might happen!". But the real reason is that they derive an ongoing personal support, reassurance, inner sense of vindication (as if this were even possible in this context), etc., as regards petty arguments in which they don't actually intend to pull a gun. Another proof: you'd want to see instances in which they screw up and actually do pull a gun for the petty disagreement. And sure enough...