Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How does that have anything to do with your point?
Well to me those quotes didn't really sound like people who would have liked to have taken Bin Laden alive and put him on trial for the crimes he's been accused of.
Why am i missing something? Or are you just purposely being annoying as usual.
Check this out.. Very Witty!
http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Check this out.. Very Witty!http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html
****ing brilliant.
Ah, and, protesting is useless. For the most part, protests are ignored. It is only through active resistance that anything will actually start changing.
I can't believe I'm getting into this....
the word protest means more than carrying signs in large groups of people
AND EVEN THEN there are plenty of collective action protests that have had major effects
hell, a number of people in this thread would have told Ghandi to just knock it off, as his protest would be useless. NOT TO MENTION THE NEARLY INFINITE OTHER WAYS ONE MIGHT GO ABOUT TAKING A STAND AGAINST THE POWERFUL, BE IT THROUGH COLLECTIVE ACTION, PERSONAL EXPRESSION OR SOME OTHER MEANS.
No, no, I see what you are saying but protest is not a way to create social change. It raises awareness, yes, but change only comes through active resistance. Ghandi is a testament to this civil disobediance and peaceful resistance.
On a more related note, does anyone know anything about the son that was killed during the raid?
(Osama's son)
Originally posted by Liberator
No, no, I see what you are saying but protest is not a way to create social change. It raises awareness, yes, but change only comes through active resistance. Ghandi is a testament to this civil disobediance and peaceful resistance.
...
Originally posted by inimalist
the word [b]protest means more than carrying signs in large groups of people[/B]
"active resistance" is a type of protest, again, provided we don't use the restricted definition of the term that, for some reason, would only include sign carrying.
so yes, the Taliban's use of suicide bombers against NATO forces is a form of their protest against NATO policy. maybe this isn't the way the term is used most often in the media, but it is the way I used it, and in fact, I have clarified this at least twice.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's a lovely little linguistic irony that you just tried to use Gandhi as an example of 'active' resistance when he defined himself as being passive- the exact opposite of active.
You must have missed this:
Originally posted by Liberator
Ghandi is a testament to this civil disobediance and PEACEFUL resistance.
Even taking the completely peaceful route, nothing can ever be achieved without being "Active"
Ghandi was the complete opposite of being InActive.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Even taking the completely peaceful route, nothing can ever be achieved without being "Active"Ghandi was the complete opposite of being InActive.
that is semantics though
depending on how you define active, he either was or was not. He would have defined it as passive
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
You must have missed this:Even taking the completely peaceful route, nothing can ever be achieved without being "Active"
Ghandi was the complete opposite of being InActive.
I didn't miss anything; it is not my fault if you are ignorant of definitions.
Gandhi specifically used what is called Passive Resistance (although he even went one step further as time went by, beyond what other people thought of as passive).
If you try and claim Gandhi used 'active' resistance, you are simply in error as regards to how these terms are usefully used.
The fact remains it is an irony that Gandhi went out of his way to call what he did 'passive resistance'- in specific opposition to being active- only for someone to later on use him as an example of how resistance needs to be active.
Rather sad as well as ironic, though.
well, it is a semantics thing
I agree with you ush, active resistance almost always refers to collective organization that goes out and actively destroys the mechanisms of power, whereas passive simply stops doing things and prevents the powerful from doing what they want.
If we define active resistance as taking any role at all in resistance, there becomes no difference between passive resistance and doing nothing.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Ah right is just semantics then. By being Active I just meant do something. I was off the impression that being InActive would be doing nothing about the oppression.
well, that is fine, but we were talking about active and passive resistance, not being active or inactive...
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd say resisting is always active isn't it? It's an action. Passive and active resistance of course mean something different.
I get that. You are actively resisting by having a "sit-in." There's nothing passively resistant about that especially when a sign says "no negroes allowed" and the police are called to remove you.
The distinction is one of semantics, only. I don't like word games but humans are too symbolic in thinking to give up their labels.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, yeah, that's what I'm saying, it's a pointless thing to say.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I get that. You are actively resisting by having a "sit-in." There's nothing passively resistant about that especially when a sign says "no negroes allowed" and the police are called to remove you.The distinction is one of semantics, only. I don't like word games but humans are too symbolic in thinking to give up their labels.
ok, but in that definition there is no reason to distinguish between active and passive resistance, because there would be no difference between passive resistance and doing nothing, you just get resistance.
I'd agree, there is an argument to be made that the distinction is meaningless, however, I'm not sure I agree with it. I think there is some value to distinguishing between action that sets out to dismantle the ability of power to work (such as the recent protests where people shut down banks by cashing fake cheques) and passively trying to prevent the people in power from being able to do what they want (such as sit ins, Ghandi, etc)
the problem is the words have several meanings, not that these aren't meaningful distinctions, imho.