One of the reasons not to hold up non-violence as the ultimate ideal for protesters is that it prevents an intelligent and moral debate within the movement about the rules of engagement *for* the use of force.
Näytä tämä ketju
-
If HKers can reduce and continue to suppress China's Freedom of Action, they win. That's their goal. In that context, I'm just not sure what force gets them. They're not in a position to impose the kinds of costs, through force, cf what they can impose through non-violence.
Denying the PRC the excuse closes down the PRC's freedom of action by imposing much greater reputational cost for acting. It's not ideal - HK's position is very weak, in my view - though the cause is just - which makes any strategic calculation hard.
-
-
I think, in fact, that targeted violence against stores whose owners back Beijing is a potentially very effective strategy - because it imposes *costs* on an otherwise cost-less decision for Hong Kong's billionaires, and incentives them to find answers.
-
But this kind of discussion is something too that you can only have when not holding up non-violence as a pure ideal that protesters fall short of.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.