[yellow, a finger up, looking smug]
The answer to oppression is NEVER violence
Turn the other cheek
Pacifism always wins
You could earn rights by asking nicely instead
[yellow, proudly showing us a huge book]
Don’t believe me?
Open a history book!
[yellow, looking frustrated as they are shuffling through the book’s pages]
Ok so…
Uhm…
Not this page…
Wait…
The next one…
Awkward…
Another…
Yeah but…
For sure this time…
[yellow, sweating, protecting their book, a hand raised towards us]
Can you stop looking?
You’re being rude
That’s my book
https://thebad.website/comic/please_resist_responsibly
In an examination of 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns, between 1900 and 2006, nonviolent campaigns achieve partial or full success at twice the rate of violent campaigns
I don’t want to say about the frequency or which way is more effective, but there have been nonviolent revolutions. Wikipedia even has a page about it. It took me only a few seconds of searching to find it.
So, the comic author is mocking people who make conclusions without actually looking at the data, and meanwhile, they seem to have written the comic making the opposite conclusion ironically without actually looking at the data, either.
It would be so nice if things were always one way or always another way, and people love to assume that their common sense and existing knowledge will be enough to make conclusions, but the comic is right in that regard. If you tell other people your conclusions but you haven’t done the research, you really do open yourself up to looking foolish… Not that it seems like most people care about that these days.
That section of the Wikipedia page is pretty weird looking right off the bat. The first two are the cedar in Lebanon and the Mirabal sisters which are circumstances that are hard to call nonviolent.
The cedar revolution can only be called nonviolent if you disregard the 01 protest wave that preceded it and established with violence that everyone was actually on the side of ending syrian occupation and not having car bomb attacks all the god damned time.
And el jefe was fucking assassinated by the military at international urging. That’s not nonviolent!
I didn’t look any further but it really seems like a bad list that’s written with incredibly rose-colored glasses.
The article states what it considers a nonviolent revolution. It doesn’t mean there was zero bloodshed, but that the actual parties that were trying to take power did not use or threaten violence.
Even if you disagree with their definition or believe that they gave a bad example, I imagine that you wouldn’t find the entire list objectionable.
There are only 7 examples in the whole list.
I didn’t look any further
A very useful tactic in this specific situation.
