←back to thread

560 points whatsupdog | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.624s | source
Show context
asib ◴[] No.45167257[source]
> The demonstration turned violent when some protesters entered the Parliament complex, prompting police to resort to baton charges, tear gas shells and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, eyewitnesses said.

14 people dead from so-called "non-lethal" means. How do 14 people end up dead without the police coming with intent to do harm?

replies(5): >>45167399 #>>45167501 #>>45167564 #>>45167636 #>>45167860 #
bjackman ◴[] No.45167399[source]
Also note the phrasing. The content is "the police killed 14 people". But the form is "the situation turned violent as a result of the protester's actions".
replies(4): >>45167442 #>>45167588 #>>45167697 #>>45170650 #
ddtaylor ◴[] No.45167442[source]
"See what you made me do" is a common phrase in domestic abuse.
replies(2): >>45168088 #>>45174187 #
whamlastxmas ◴[] No.45168088[source]
It’s also irrefutable fact that pro-state or pro-cop agitators throughout history will pretend to be a demonstrator and throw a single brick to give the cops an excuse to break some skulls
replies(2): >>45168430 #>>45168625 #
martin-t ◴[] No.45168430[source]
In primitive societies where people are expected to resolve their own problems because everyone is roughly equal, violence is the principal currency, for better or worse.

But in "civilized" societies with multiple layers of power structures, you are not supposed to solve your own problem, you are supposed to show somebody in a position of power that you are the victim so they solve the problem for you. This means victimhood is the principal currency of power.

Don't believe me? Every governments which allows protests says they must always be peaceful and "violence doesn't belong in politics". Yet how many of those governments were created by violent armed revolt against a previous authoritarian government? How many by "peaceful" protests?

replies(4): >>45168869 #>>45169637 #>>45169639 #>>45175491 #
1. achenet ◴[] No.45169637[source]
> Yet how many of those governments were created by violent armed revolt against a previous authoritarian government? How many by "peaceful" protests?

This is actually an interesting question.

Many post-colonial governments, notably India, were create through what might be called non-violent means. Would be interesting to have someone properly research that.

replies(1): >>45170954 #
2. martin-t ◴[] No.45170954[source]
Yes, I won't pretend it's clear cut or that the numbers without context mean much.

How I see it:

- Victimhood works when there is somebody to appeal to or other people to gain support from. - Violence works when there's no higher power or when you already have the most popular support you ever will.

Getting more people to join you and openly protest is a lot of implied/potential violence. Meaning you can use victimhood (see how the police are beating us) to gain more potential violence for use later. Either the people in power see this and back down (e.g. Velvet revolution) before the violence materializes, or not. They can also see how successful materialized violence can become and flee (e.g. Syria) or they can try to win a civil war (e.g. Myanmar).

I haven't read much about India yet but my guess is victimhood worked in the case of India because essentially they were getting the support of citizens in the UK (a higher power) to pressure their government into giving it independence. It was costly for the politicians to be oppressors and also get reelected.

Victimhood failed in China and recently Belarus because 1) there was nobody to appeal to 2) the oppressors didn't back down 3) the protesters failed to materialize the violence and were defeated by the government's violence.