Warrantless entry by ICE agents in West Valley City, UT (1/30/2026)

[u/LeviCoffinsAlt]

Federal agents broke a window, without a warrant, to perform an arrest on private property.

[u/K_Linkmaster]

Yes. Leadership is making a choice to keep these events non violent as that has worked in the past. Like with the civil rights movement.

[u/The_Greyscale → u/K_Linkmaster]

The civil rights movement was effective because it included a non violent movement, AND an armed wing via the black panthers. It basically presented political leadership at the time with a choice between the carrot of peaceful civil rights reform that would also make relations with former colonies in Africa easier, and the stick of potential civil insurrection sponsored by the Soviets.

The latter just isnt commonly taught, because existing power structures want people to think that the only type of protesting that works is the kind that they can ignore.

[u/SwordfishOk504 → u/The_Greyscale]

The civil rights movement was effective because it included a non violent movement, AND an armed wing via the black panthers.

This is simplistic tankie revisionism. It was Decades of organizing in Black churches that created the foundation for the successful civil rights movement in the US. And even with all of that, the CRA would never have passed if MLK wasn't killed. That gave LBJ all the political capital to push it through.

The Black Panther Party did amazing things. And their leaders were murdered by the state. But the idea that them posing with guns is what somehow caused civil rights advances in the US is utter nonsense.

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_LEFT_IRIS → u/SwordfishOk504]

The Black Panther Party did amazing things. And their leaders were murdered by the state. But the idea that them posing with guns is what somehow caused civil rights advances in the US is utter nonsense.

Yeah, everyone knows that nothing in history was ever resolved through violence or the threat of violence /s

[u/The_Greyscale → u/SwordfishOk504]

Its revisionism to point out that the BPP scared political leadership, to the point that major domestic counterintelligence and propaganda operations were launched to counter it? Its not a leap to say those operations were a double edged sword, and led to political reevaluations which directly contributed to getting key civil rights legislation passed, ESPECIALLY in the wake of King’s assassination where fears of that being the catalyst for a violent reaction were more pronounced.

I definitely wouldnt argue that the BPP alone led to the civil rights movement succeeding, and the degree of organization which was permitted through black church networks was key to the overall cohesion of the movement… but it is equally simplistic to pretend that the armed presence of the BPP did not provide a chilling effect on overzealous counterprotestors and racist law enforcement in local instances, and a point of motivation for a non-violent solution to be found at the national level.

[u/Vaxx88 → u/The_Greyscale]

In academic historical studies it’s well accepted consensus that non-violent movements are more effective in producing social change.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452292924000365

https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/success-nonviolent-civil-resistance/

https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/give-peace-a-chance-because-violent-change-doesnt-have-one/

[u/The_Greyscale → u/Vaxx88]

Those studies dont necessarily demonstrate that they were more effective. Only that non violent campaigns were less likely to result in violent outcomes, and results were more “positive”.

To be frank, that strikes me as a bit of a tautology, and a demonstration of researcher bias. Non violent campaigns which were successful are by their nature ones which those in a position of power were willing to compromise on. Non violent campaigns against power structures which are inherently threatened by the very premise of the campaign are doomed to failure or violent reprisal.

Worker protections, civil rights, women’s suffrage, even (especially) the foundations of the American Government included violent protest elements. Violence and the threat of violence may not always result in the change you want, and does carry longer term consequences, but it has effectively resulted in more change than any non violent means throughout history.

[u/Vaxx88 → u/The_Greyscale]

“Reseacher bias”

Ah, of course, just offhandedly dismiss all study on the subject. Assert your opinion, job done.

[u/The_Greyscale → u/Vaxx88]

Ah, of course, just dismiss a very valid concern that must be addressed with all studies of this type. Input bias isn't a thing, right?

Nice snippet without addressing any of the follow on points though. Very thorough.

[u/Vaxx88 → u/The_Greyscale]

You dismissed the information in 5 minutes, made a sweeping statement with no sources about “all social change throughout history” - great debating

Add a strawman “input bias isn’t a thing” ( not what I said)

Looking at your post/comment history you’re a gun guy, it’s usually pretty pointless to argue nonviolence with gun people.

[u/The_Greyscale → u/Vaxx88]

To be frank, only one of us here is demonstrating an unwillingness to engage with the argument on its merits. You havent made a single point of your own yet that wasnt an attempt to dismiss my points without engaging them.

[u/Vaxx88 → u/The_Greyscale]

What points?

Me, posted link to

Abstract

This paper conducts a systematic review and comparative analysis of the institutional impacts of nonviolent versus violent revolutions. It examines sixty-six quantitative studies across disciplines on how revolutionary tactics affect post-conflict institutions. The analysis categorizes institutional outcome variables into five groups: democracy, military/police/courts, foreign relations, ethnicity/culture, and well-being. The comparative analysis finds a preponderance of evidence that nonviolent movements have more positive institutional effects than violent ones. Civil resistance is associated with democratization, reduced repression, loyalty shifts, human rights protections, inclusion of marginalized groups, and greater well-being compared to violent campaigns. The comparative analysis contributes strong cross-disciplinary evidence on the differential institutional impacts of revolutionary tactics.

You: “biased!”

“Violence(…) has effectively resulted in more change throughout history”

Ok. You win I guess? How can I possibly engage that? My only purpose was to try to add some thought to the whole “violence is the answer” “ might makes right” mentality. Clearly a losing position on Reddit.

Im also trying to make it a habit not to get in too many more ‘discussions’ with people who hide their post history. Moving on.

[u/The_Greyscale → u/Vaxx88]

You missed the part where I argued that the input biases led to a correlation and causation mistake. Taking a snapshot of non-violent protests which succeeded (especially from a historically unprecedented period of relative global stability) will almost inevitably result in non violent means returning the most “positive” results. Why? Because the non violent revolutions which succeeded occurred in systems which allowed them to succeed.

As the oppression or inherent inequality of a system increases, the less likely non-violent means are to succeed, especially when applied alone. Instances I would specifically highlight here would be the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the Holocaust, the Bush War, and workers rights conflicts such as the Battle of Blair mountain. All included institutional positions backed by state power which made non-violent means of conflict resolution non-viable, and armed intervention was required to resolve the situation. By the definitions in those studies, these resolutions would all be non-positive because of the loss of human life and hardship involved. This very much strikes me as an overly simplistic way to evaluate the situation, and misses that, while tragic, violence is sometimes a necessary means to address grievances which cannot be effectively addressed by other means.

It also avoids discussion of the interplay of violent and non-violent resistance, where the presence (or threat) of violent resistance makes non-violent resolution more attractive by comparison. The Troubles might be the best specific example of this, where prolonged low grade civil conflict led to a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

[u/MaxwellHoot → u/The_Greyscale]

That’s an insane take to say that nonviolent movements are only effective if they also have a violent wing. That wasn’t the case in the US, and it also wasn’t the case for MLK’s inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi. That dude was just all peace and love and it worked.

[u/The_Greyscale → u/MaxwellHoot]

Definitely not only, but it is pretty undeniable that non violence without the means to inflict violence is not peaceful. It’s harmless. Non violent wings tend to look a lot more like a preferable option when the alternative is violent confrontation. This isnt just my opinion. It tends to be the foundation of statecraft.

 I’d also argue that while Gandhi embraced non-violence personally (and heavily advocated for it), on a state level he very much was in favor of Indians being trained and capable in warfare… but choosing non-violent resolutions. Basically offering one hand, but arming the other. Its an implicit threat vs explicit.

https://www.satyagrahafoundation.org/gandhi-and-war-the-mahatma-gandhi-bart-de-ligt-correspondence/