Have non-violent protests ever achieved anything in history besides

Yes, look at PooInLooistan with Gandhi.

File: malcolm x.jpg (61KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 850x400px

Too reliant on the consciousness of the opponent.

Doesn't work the opponent starts rolling people over Tienanmen Square style.

>>2396079
That doesn't count as the british were going to leave India anyway because of WW2 draining their finances

>>2396066
If it's done correctly it's more efficient, it costs the state money instead of making weapons manufacturers rich. Civil war is sustainable, constant bleeding is not.

File: Zizek.jpg (116KB, 630x531px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 630x531px

>>2396066
ackshually
>wipes nose and sniffs
Non-vio-lent pr0-tests are the most vio-lent pro-tests of them all. You see, *sniffs* Gandhi, was akschually MORE vio-lent *sniff* than Heetler. Because he and his supporters *sniff* had the potential vio-lence *sniff* and moreover the disruptive ability to shake the...British...Raj at the core at its most essential fundementals. Now Heetleer did not seek to upset such core fundamentals *sniff* in fact he was in this respect not vio-lent enough for my *sniff* liking

>>2396066
It creates perfect martyrs for violent uprising.

>>2396079
Self harm is violence

How naive must you be to fall for the non violent protest meme?

Banks, politicians, global corporation#8488585, established politicians all love peaceful protests. How convenient!

>>2396167
This is true though.

>>2396066
>virtue signalling

Please stop with this stupid meme. You don't know what that means.

>>2396066

Public opinion matters, yes. Protests bring attention to issues, and that affects public opinion.

>>2396487
>You don't know what that means
People performing low risk public displays in order to advetise their supposed superior moral virtue by supporting social and political changes the require no personal sacrifice on their part.

>>2396079
Please tell me you are not serious

>>2396508

If supporting a cause signals moral virtue then the morally virtuous would support it regardless.

>>2396552
Untrue. A perception of virtue does not necessarily dictate virtue.

t. Kant

>>2396552
The difference lies in intention. If you're doing something to support it that in one way or another have some sort of sacrifice (such as having to go outside or spend time doing it) it's not virtue signalling. Nor if you actually believe in it beyond whatever hype there is.

>>2396572

But the imitation of virtue wouldn't be possible without virtue to imitate. Saying people who disagree with you are "virtue signaling" is essentially admitting you yourself are unvirtuous.

>>2396593
Allow me to counter with an example:

>Man wants to virtue signal
>He donates money to send food to starving children in Africa
Seems pretty virtuous, right? He's feeding those that can't feed themselves. Except...
>African farmers stop growing food because can't compete with FREE food
>Feedback loop

His actions signal virtue, but further the problem and thus are not virtuous. The virtuous action would be to help fix the problem, such as buying seeds for farmers, teaching them scientific farming techniques, etc. Instead, because the first action gives the perception of virtue with minimal work on their behalf, the people go through with it. Perception of virtue != virtue. Calling it virtue signalling is not inherently calling yourself unvirtuous. It's just calling a spade a spade.

>>2396621
If that guy donated enough food to singlehandly over the entire african food demand hes not only virtuous but a fucking saint.

Yes.

>>2396680
He's not the only one donating. Every other virtue signaling individual doing the same thing is as well. I don't even know why you're debating this or why you're trying to build a strawman out of my argument. It's common knowledge that food donations are seriously harming Africa. It would be more virtuous for him to do nothing than to donate food or money for food.