Top products from r/PoliticalVideo

Nobody is obligated to be tolerant of intolerance.

That said, I've posted this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating here:

On Nonviolence:

>"Nonviolence is fine as long as it works," Malcolm X once said. Recently, Columbia University Press published an extraordinary scholarly book that proves how nonviolence works far better as a method for social change than violence. This breakthrough book demonstrates that Gandhi was right, that the method of nonviolent resistance as a way to social change usually leads to a more lasting peace while violence usually fails.

>Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan uses graphs, charts, sociological research and statistical analysis to show how in the last century, nonviolent movements were far better at mobilizing supporters, resisting regime crackdowns, creating new initiatives, defeating repressive regimes and establishing lasting democracies. Their evidence points to the conclusion that nonviolent resistance is more effective than armed resistance in overturning oppressive and repressive regimes and in leading to more democratic societies.

>This report should cause the whole world to stop in its tracks and take up nonviolent conflict resolution and nonviolent resistance to injustice instead of the tired, old, obsolete methods of war and violence.

>Why Civil Resistance Works is the first systematic study of its kind and takes us well beyond the research of Gene Sharp and others to demonstrate once and for all the power of nonviolent civil resistance for positive social change. Anyone interested in the methodology of nonviolent conflict resolution should get this book and study it. Indeed, one wishes the State Department and the government would learn its lessons, renounce its violence and start supporting nonviolent, people-power movements.

>For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were "more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals," the authors conclude. By attracting widespread popular support through protests, boycotts, civil disobedience and other forms of nonviolent noncooperation, these campaigns broke repressive regimes and brought major new changes for justice and peace. Much of the book focuses on four case studies to explain their conclusions: the Iranian revolution of 1977-1979; the first Palestinian Intifada of 1987-92; the Philippines People Power revolution of 1983-1986; and the Burmese uprising of 1988-90.

>Through their statistical analysis, the authors found that nonviolent resistance presents "fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement and commitment, and that higher levels of participation contribute to enhanced resilience, greater opportunities for tactical innovation and civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for a regime to maintain its status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents' supporters, including members of the military establishment."

>Contrary to popular belief, "violent insurgency is rarely justifiable on strategic grounds," they write. "Nonviolent resistance ushers in more durable and internally peaceful democracies, which are less likely to regress into civil war."

>"We analyze 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns between 1990 and 2006," the authors explain in their introduction.

>Among them are over one hundred major nonviolent campaigns since 1900, whose frequency has increased over time. In addition to their growing frequency, the success rates of nonviolent campaigns have increased. How does this compare with violent insurgencies? One might assume that the success rates may have increased among both nonviolent and violent insurgencies. But in our data, we find the opposite: although they persist, the success rates of violent insurgencies have declined. The most striking finding is that between 1900 and 2006, nonviolent resistance campaigns were nearly twice as likely to achieve full or partial success as their violent counterparts. Among the 323 campaigns in the case of anti-regime resistance campaigns, the use of a nonviolent strategy has greatly enhanced the likelihood of success… This book investigates the reasons why—in spite of conventional wisdom to the contrary—civil resistance campaigns have been so effective compared with their violent counterparts.

>While only one in four violent campaigns succeed, about three out of four nonviolent campaigns succeed, they report. "We argue that nonviolent campaigns fail to achieve their objectives when they are unable to overcome the challenge of participation, when they fail to recruit a robust, diverse, and broad-based membership that can erode the power base of the adversary and maintain resilience in the face of repression."

>The evidence of their research points to the superiority of nonviolent resistance at every level, including against genocidal regimes. "The claim that nonviolent resistance could never work against genocidal foes like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin is the classic straw man put forward to demonstrate the inherent limitations of this form of struggle," they note.

>While it is possible that nonviolent resistance could not be used effectively once genocide has broken out in full force, this claim is not backed by any strong empirical evidence. Collective nonviolent struggle was not used with any strategic forethought during World War II, nor was it ever contemplated as an overall strategy for resisting the Nazis. Violent resistance, which some groups attempted for ending Nazi occupation, was also an abject failure. However, scholars have found that certain forms of collective nonviolent resistance were, in fact, occasionally successful in resisting Hitler's occupation policies. The case of the Danish population's resistance to German occupation is an example of partially effective civil resistance in an extremely difficult environment.

>The famous case of the Rosenstrasse protests, when German women of Aryan descent stood for a week outside a detention center on the Rosenstrasse in Berlin demanding the release of their Jewish husbands, who were on the verge of being deported to concentration camps, is a further example of limited gains against a genocidal regime brought about by civil resistance. The German women, whose numbers increased as the protests continued and they attracted more attention, were sufficiently disruptive with their sustained nonviolent protests that the Nazi officials eventually released their Jewish husbands…The notion that nonviolent action can be successful only if the adversary does not use violent repression is neither theoretically nor historically substantiated.

>These studies "call for scholars to rethink power and its sources in any given society or polity," the authors suggest. "Our findings demonstrate that power actually depends on the consent of the civilian population, consent that can be withdrawn and reassigned to more legitimate or more compelling parties ... We hope that this book challenges the conventional wisdom concerning the effectiveness of nonviolent struggle and encourages scholars and policy makers to take seriously the role that civilians play in actively prosecuting conflict without resorting to violence."

>I have long believed that Gandhi -- and Jesus -- were right to insist on the method of nonviolent resistance for both moral and practical reasons, but now the facts are in. The evidence is all laid out in this scholarly report.

>The book went to press just as the revolutions of the Arab Spring were beginning. "If these last several months have taught us anything, it is that nonviolent resistance can be a near-unstoppable force for change in our world, even in the most unlikely circumstances." This book is a great resource for those of us who teach and advocate peace and nonviolence. More, it is a source of hope proving the ancient wisdom that mobilized nonviolent resistance is the best weapon for peaceful change. May it be taught far and wide and inspire many more to join the grassroots nonviolent movements for a new world of justice and peace.

Will double check the factoid.

If true, 1. Not suprising 2. Sad. TeeRump & Republicans dont care one lick about religion. https://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate/dp/1501238221#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1485075753097
They only pander to social issues for votes, but remember congress's job is to manage govt money, not social issues. As long as the 'base' only cares about social issues, they get both Votes, and Freedom to vote for big biz interests, aginst the best interests of 'the base'.


On the morals statement... Wow, 1. Not suprising 2. Sad.

> This is an idea that few serious science supports anymore

This is untrue. Many notable neuroscientists have long documented the structural, chemical, and behavioral differences in the brains of boys and girls. In fact, one study by Simon Baron-Cohen (the cousin of this guy) found that infant boys and girls react differently to their environments.

He studied one day old infants and learned that boys will look longer at objects but shorter at faces; conversely girls will look longer at faces, and shorter at objects. There is zero chance that this behavioral difference is the result of socialization.

A not dissimilar phenomenon is observable in chimpanzees, too. Male chimps will play with tool-like toys and largely ignore baby dolls, while the female chimps often are disinterested in the tool-toys but will spend large amounts of time nurturing and caring for the baby dolls.

Further, Steven Pinker wrote an entire book about the fallacy of what is often called the "Blank Slate Theory"; concluding that, while environment does play a role, biology is by orders of magnitude more influential on human behavior.

Even in countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, some of the most gender egalitarian societies on planet Earth, you still find that jobs like engineering contain mostly men, and jobs like nursing contain mostly women. A documentary was even made on this surprising finding.

Finally, a recent article in the Telegraph cites a study which says that this false narrative of male/female neuro-equivalence is putting women's health at risk.

To quote an interviewed scientist in the article, "the last two decades had proven the assumption [that men and women are neurologically the same] as false, false, false."


Male and female brains are different. The science is very conclusive on this.

> The wage gap isn't real

The gap does exist, of course. It is the reason why it exists that they disagree with. The media will tell you its sexism, Paeger (and the actual Dept of Labor report) will tell you its primarily life choices & biology.

Bill Burr was right. Most of these people are just the arrival of the everyone gets a trophy generation. They stand on their soapbox, high on their self-perceived virtue. Meanwhile, they are shutting down free speech and rational, open discourse.

The 'students' (if you want to call them that) need to read their history or try these books to give them some better insight:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
This book chronicles the overall nature, roots, and definition of Fascism. The definition one may find in the dictionary is not what you may find it to be, within the context of history and reality. It documents the popularity of fascism within communities of the arts (screenplay, music, acting, etc.) and how it was widely accepted specifically within counter-culture movements, which I think is ironic.

Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans

This speech has been turned into a book called "The Speech" by Bernie Sanders, its a great read if you don't want to watch the 8 hour video.

I could say the same thing to you.

Read this book on 9/11.


And here's an article about Trump's nuclear deals with the Saudis.


You could also look up Senator Bob Graham on Youtube or something for his interviews or statements about the 9/11 commission. Really interesting stuff that no one talks about; definitely not in mainstream media.

Back in the good ole days? You really have fallen for the idea that things used to be way better haven't you. You are pretty foolish if you think judging people that way was a better way to go.

Penn and Teller did a Bullshit on why 'The good ole days' are literally bullshit. You should watch it.
https://www.amazon.com/Penn-Teller-Season-Six/dp/B015R739Q2

>Stating that Trump is "not at 'war' .... is just outright ludicrous as well. Just take a good look at the man's Twitter account or the remarks he made in general.

Calling the press on their nonsense is not the equivalence of a war with them or an attempt to destroy them. The press has a right to be heard, not a right to be protected from a backlash.

Any president that has ever been marginally successful has had to do the same thing Trump is doing. I'd encourage you to read this book and see how Lincoln did the same thing in his day.

I don't know about this particular law, but laws governing charity handouts have existed since colonial times. It was more common than not to criminalize what was known as "bad charity" because it was believed to do more harm than good.

This book discusses the history of it rather extensively:

Read all about it

If only people had started pointing this out a long time ago... 1987

This speech is based off his book https://www.amazon.ca/Making-Our-Democracy-Work-Judges/dp/0307390837

Malcolm Gladwell discussed this in the excellent book Outliers.

https://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

His treatment is nuanced. If I remember correctly, he argues that wealthy families tend to produce successful children because of a culture within the family that teaches that obstacles can be overcome.

Gladwell describes specific cases of people proven to be possessed of exceedingly high IQ's that allowed themselves to be stymied by obstacles. And he sites cases of people with less intellectual endowment that managed to find success after overcoming many obstacles because they saw obstacles as something to deal with rather than something to be defeated by.

I suppose that not being beat up by poverty in youth might help one to avoid feeling that one was destined to be a victim.

I hate Trump a fair bit, and that goes back to well before he was elected. He's a garbage human.

That said, there is really good body of evidence that he is just not well physically, and most likely has dementia or Alzheimer's. The anonymous op-ed in the Times is only the latest confirmation of it, not the first time it's been pointed out.

I mean, there have literally been books written about it. As much as it pains me to say it, Donald Trump is not completely to blame for every horrible thing he does because some of it is caused by a medical condition that affects him mentally.

What's important about that is that he shouldn't be serving as President because he's not able to do it, and everyone paying attention, especially everyone who interacts with him, knows it.

The other thing is that people shouldn't mock someone for medical problems or mental illness, even if that person is Donald Trump. I have great confidence that Trump would be just as shitty even if he didn't have dementia, but since he does I just want him to stop endangering the country, get help, and be taken care of. Get him out of office, let him watch as much Fox & Friends as he wants and rant on Twitter all day. It's what makes him happy, apparently.

I know what it's like to see people disappear slowly over time due to dementia, and it's horrible beyond imagining. I would not wish it on anyone. Not even Donald Trump.

He does a lot of horrible things, but he's also old and sick. If he was just some guy in a nursing home it would be just another Wednesday. The difference is he 's in the highest office in the land, so that needs to be removed from the equation.

USSR and Communist China were still atheist regimes

7% of all wars were religious wars.

This is such a hard promise to make. Anyone who knows anything about how cancer operates, has a full understanding that we simply don't have the overall knowledge, yet, to cure it.

The simple truth is there are too many forms of cancer to have a cure all for the ultimate human disease. We simply don't know enough about what causes it, how it happens, why it happens and the right avenues of treatment to be able to eradicate cancer on all levels.

It should be mentioned, a great read about the subject is "The Emperor of all Maladies". For anyone looking to understand the human history of cancer and why it is so hard to eradicate, it is well worth your time. - http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography/dp/1439170916

I think President Obama set a good goal in suggesting we, as a nation, cure cancer. Yet I also think the smarter bet, one which we are closer to, would be to fully tramp out AIDS and HIV. For the interested, look at the recent Vice report on AIDS which HBO ran a bit ago.

http://www.vice.com/read/watch-the-trailer-for-the-vice-on-hbo-special-report-on-the-fight-to-end-aids-009

Cancer is a great goal. One to strive for and continue to fight against. It is, without question, the ultimate of all human disease. In a way, cancer defines us. But defeating AIDS, I believe, is a more concrete goal which can be reached.