Does non-violent protest actually work?

Ask Christians

Peaceful protests work if you have enough threat of violence if your demands arent met.

You mean, it only works when taking advantage of whites.

"Non-violent protest" is an oxymoron.

...

Try to set the night on FIRE!

It worked just fine against the Romans, who had absolutely no compunction about rounding up undesirables (innocent or not) and feeding them to wild animals for cheap mass entertainment. No matter how hard Romans tried to exterminate Christianity all they did was guarantee its rise.

Turns out that bad press is better than no press, that people aren't nearly as stupid as we sometimes think they are and get it when a ruling power is trying to draw attention away from shitty policies by scapegoating a minority, and people will sympathize with their fellow oppressed over their oppressors, especially when the oppressed are the ones holding the moral high ground.

Yes

they did win in the end desu

Wasn't there an argument on here once that these Christians were intentional criminals and by extension martyrs?

No, and the kind of people pacifists hold up as "Non-violent protestors" didn't just achieve their goals by asking nicely.

It's just that they've been sanitized by the establishment to be held up after-death as shining examples of how to be a good slave.

The romans didn't actually try all that hard to exterminate christianity dude, that's apologist horseshit.

>>feeding them to wild animals for cheap mass entertainment.
There is little if any evidence this actually happened.

>>christians
>>moral high ground
lol no. As soon as the minimal state repression ended once constantine came to power christians immediately started to try and destroy polytheist temples and to either kill or attempt to kill polytheist clergy and worshippers.

most pivotal nonviolent protest movements/leaders who we praise as efective and havving won the day were not the only force on the scene

in india there was violent subversion of british rule and in aerica black millitancy was a thing...I tend to believe that both sides in their own ways create a dilema for governments and the governments when finaly cornered will chose to cede ground to the nonviolent side becuase they will acept concession and be more managable and co optable....but behind every nonviolent movement is a violent movement that also scared the governmnet shitless

Why?

Basically, it's hard to tell whether or not their "all pigs are racists" platform is real or imagined by the media.

nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of-blacks-what-the-data-says.html

when you're working for the NWO it is.

any kind of protest works when you have the NWO's back really

>The romans didn't actually try all that hard to exterminate christianity dude,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire

> that's apologist horseshit.
I think your post is pagan apologist horseshit so there.

It's not that they didn't try hard, it's that their society was simply too primitive and inefficient for them to form that organized and exhaustive of an effort. But the persecutions get more severe as time goes on, especially among governors of the provinces. Pliny the Younger was a notorious anti-Christian governor who dismissed them as atheists and flat out executed anyone who confessed to being a Christian, and he did so with the blessings of the emperor Trajan. In his personal correspondences he lays out in specific detail how he would force them make a public offering to the gods and curse Jesus, and considering that he was far from the only governor going on record of requiring these things, we can assume that they were typical.

>There is little if any evidence this actually happened.
Nigga are you serious?
penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/bestiarii.html

> minimal state repression
Let me guess, slavery and colonialism "weren't that bad" either, right? It was more like a happy fun camp that was ruined by those darn do gooders and their stupid liberal agenda, right?
> christians immediately started to try and destroy polytheist temples and to either kill or attempt to kill polytheist clergy and worshippers.
Oh yes, the pagans were totally innocent bystanders who didn't lift a finger to stop the spread of a religion hostile to their world view and to the opulent, repressive status quo profiting from it.

Non-violent protests only work when the group protesting has the support of an interested third party in the media, intelligentsia or bureaucracy of the group they are protesting against.

they can work in democracies (inluding flawed ones), where freedom of press and at least basic human rights are respected, so the message of those protest can get to the masses, and they will get upset seeing the government acting oppressive.

but they won't work in a dictatorship. if Gandhi tried to do his thing in the Soviet Union, he would have been arrested during his first protest, executed in some basement and the whole thing would have been covered up by the KGB. even in today's China, most people never heard about the Tiananmen square protests.

Violence is the fastest way.

Sometimes.

But I don't see how (for example) the American Revolution could have been won just with protests and hunger strikes.

Yes, to an extent. You need massive massive general strikes and sit-ins and happenings

Also, countries that undergo peaceful revolution tend to fare better.

Zimbabwe turned to shit fast compared to South Africa which is still somewhat functional, could be a good example

>MLK was pretty effective though.

What about the impact Malcolm X had during the same time period?

Literally every single communist regime in Eastern Europe was a totalitarian regime and the only one which fell to violent revolution was Romania. All of the others fell to non-violent protests.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

Rulers only rule with the consent of the ruled.

Cops are really fucking racist pigs who should all be shot and set ablaze.

>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire
Yeah no. This doesn't prove what you think it proves, the persecutions were with the brief exception of Nero sporadic at most and only really began in earnest during the third century.

>>It's not that they didn't try hard, it's that their society was simply too primitive and inefficient for them to form that organized and exhaustive of an effort
lol bullshit. If roman society was too primitive to persecute religions out of existence greco-roman polytheists would still be around today.

>>But the persecutions get more severe as time goes on, especially among governors of the provinces. Pliny the Younger was a notorious anti-Christian governor who dismissed them as atheists and flat out executed anyone who confessed to being a Christian, and he did so with the blessings of the emperor Trajan. In his personal correspondences he lays out in specific detail how he would force them make a public offering to the gods and curse Jesus, and considering that he was far from the only governor going on record of requiring these things, we can assume that they were typical.

No actually we can't assume that because some governors did a thing that means all of them did so.

>>Let me guess, slavery and colonialism "weren't that bad" either, right? It was more like a happy fun camp that was ruined by those darn do gooders and their stupid liberal agenda, right?
Nice job trying to put words in my mouth, and slavery and imperialism were done by christians as well.

>>Oh yes, the pagans were totally innocent bystanders who didn't lift a finger to stop the spread of a religion hostile to their world view
I never said this.

>>and to the opulent, repressive status quo profiting from it.
Yeah? What do you think the upperclass in medieval europe was?

>>penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/bestiarii.html
This doesn't say what you think it says.

>Yeah no. This doesn't prove what you think it proves, the persecutions were with the brief exception of Nero sporadic at most and only really began in earnest during the third century.
You obviously didn't read it hard enough. Try again

>lol bullshit. If roman society was too primitive to persecute religions out of existence greco-roman polytheists would still be around today.
The rise of the Christian religion was not a centralized phenomenon the way that the pagan state persecutions were. Paganism evaporates within virtually a single generation of Christianity's introduction and that holds true for small town ancient Rome, for medieval Scandinavia ,and for modern Papua New Guinea. Polytheism is a more primitive and less efficient means of organizing data about reality which is why pagans abandon their faith with such alacrity. Even ostensibly pagan traditions like Taoism and Hinduism are much evolved from their primitive iterations.

>No actually we can't assume...
Actually, yes we can if the historiographic and archaeological record support it. Though Roman governors were a diverse lot, their mistrust of Christianity was a common denominator.

>slavery and imperialism were done by christians as well.
That's because any religious tradition can be twisted into an instrument of oppression, even Christianity. But the fact that you're making light of oppression leads me to believe that you lack the maturity to appreciate what it actually means to be oppressed.

>I never said this.
You merely implied it. Don't pee on me and tell me its raining.

>Yeah? What do you think the upperclass in medieval europe was?
A step in the right direction compared to the brutal and uncaring Roman aristocracy.

>This doesn't say what you think it says.
And this is the second time in a single post that you've demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. Animal shows were a regular and important aspect of Roman blood sport and were a staple of state executions.

>You obviously didn't read it hard enough. Try again
Yes I did, you are a faggot.

>>The rise of the Christian religion was not a centralized phenomenon the way that the pagan state persecutions were. Paganism evaporates within virtually a single generation of Christianity's introduction and that holds true for small town ancient Rome, for medieval Scandinavia ,and for modern Papua New Guinea. Polytheism is a more primitive and less efficient means of organizing data about reality which is why pagans abandon their faith with such alacrity. Even ostensibly pagan traditions like Taoism and Hinduism are much evolved from their primitive iterations.
lol no.

Christianity became predominant because of state sponsored repression and murder when more subtle methods like the co-opting of pagan holidays, rituals and sometimes even deities failed.

>>That's because any religious tradition can be twisted into an instrument of oppression, even Christianity. But the fact that you're making light of oppression leads me to believe that you lack the maturity to appreciate what it actually means to be oppressed.
By the mere fact that both of us are posting on Veeky Forums the odds are that neither of us know what oppression is like.

And when polytheism is oppressive, it's honest about being oppressive.

>>you merely implied it. Don't pee on me and tell me its raining.
Says the christian apologist.

>>A step in the right direction compared to the brutal and uncaring Roman aristocracy.
Oh please, Nero Caesar the quintessential example of a decadent pagan invited those made homeless by the fire that swept through rome into his palace.

>>And this is the second time in a single post that you've demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. Animal shows were a regular and important aspect of Roman blood sport and were a staple of state executions.
Where is the proof that christians were being fed to animals in any significant quantity.

Shut up you fucking idiot.

>Yes I did, you are a faggot.
ur a faget. Read up on the persecutions of Decius and Diocletian. Both of these emperors made a concerted effort to stamp out the Christian religion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution
>Christianity became predominant because of state sponsored repression and murder when more subtle methods like the co-opting of pagan holidays, rituals and sometimes even deities failed.
By the time Theodosius made Christianity the state religion, virtually the entire population were Christian. And pagans were hardly innocent in matters relating to bending the law in order to favor them. They literally made it against the law to not make sacrifices at their temples.
>By the mere fact that both of us are posting on Veeky Forums the odds are that neither of us know what oppression is like.
The difference is that one of us doesn't think it's a big deal to be oppressed
>And when polytheism is oppressive, it's honest about being oppressive.
I'm sure the oppressed felt better knowing that
>Nero Caesar the quintessential example of a decadent pagan invited those made homeless by the fire that swept through rome into his palace.
Who also used the fire as an excuse to put his opulent new palace right on top of Rome's most prized and valuable real estate, and then when Romans were worked into a furor over it tried to weasel out of a bind by scapegoating innocent Christians.
>Where is the proof that christians were being fed to animals in any significant quantity.
pic related. There are numerous murals of Romans sentenced to Damnatio ad Bestias and there are numerous historical accounts of Christians being sentenced to this fate like Satarus, an early priest. Tacitus himself wrote on these matters.
straightdope.com/columns/read/2841/were-christians-really-thrown-to-the-lions

>Actually, yes we can if the historiographic and archaeological record support it. Though Roman governors were a diverse lot, their mistrust of Christianity was a common denominator.
Almost forgot this. There is no such evidence of anything other then sporadic persecutions in the records. If we had it that wikipedia link would have mentioned it.

Secondly.

>>Paganism evaporates within virtually a single generation of Christianity's introduction and that holds true for small town ancient Rome
Greco-Roman polytheism was actually evolving into a more mature form in the Empire's later years. The basic idea comes from platonic philosophy where the classical homeric gods and goddesses are manifestations of a singular godhead, kinda like hinduism actually.

Yes it does, indirectly. India got its independence because the Brits couldn't afford to keep it colonized. Better to give control to a bunch of Oxbridge-educated, non-violent moderate than to let a civil war start. Same with civil rights - it was MLK as a hero vs insurgency by black panthers.

Violent reaction to nonviolent protests was what caused the Iranian revolution. Killing protesters causes a domino effect. Same in Libya (2011) and Syria.

>Read up on the persecutions of Decius and Diocletian. Both of these emperors made a concerted effort to stamp out the Christian religion.
Yes and I don't deny that the 3rd century is when the persecutions began in earnest and with good reason, seeing as how the christians had been constantly trying to undermine roman civil and miltiary institutions.

>>By the time Theodosius made Christianity the state religion, virtually the entire population were Christian.
Completely unsupportable claim and nonsensical as well as there would have been no need to outlaw polytheist religious services.

>>And pagans were hardly innocent in matters relating to bending the law in order to favor them. They literally made it against the law to not make sacrifices at their temples.
Oh gee I wonder why that started, it couldn't have been due to the christians stirring shit up and attacking pagan temples in an attempt to get martyred could it? Naw the christians are good boys and girls they never would have done something like that, lol.

>>The difference is that one of us doesn't think it's a big deal to be oppressed
Oh really, try telling that to the greco-roman polytheists who got murdered on the order of guys like theodosius and justinian for having different religious beliefs.

>>Who also used the fire as an excuse to put his opulent new palace right on top of Rome's most prized and valuable real estate, and then when Romans were worked into a furor over it tried to weasel out of a bind by scapegoating innocent Christians.
It's not actually possible to say that the christians didn't cause the fire, they very easily could have, and Nero's assholery has it's equal in most christian european monarchies that came later.

>pic related. There are numerous murals of Romans sentenced to Damnatio ad Bestias and there are numerous historical accounts of Christians being sentenced to this fate like Satarus, an early priest. Tacitus himself wrote on these matters.
>straightdope.com/columns/read/2841/were-christians-really-thrown-to-the-lions
Sad and unfortunate I supposed, but my sympathy for christian martyrs is severely limited. They again deliberately attempted to undermine the civil and military institutions of the empire and then when they had control of it they were all too happy to do everything in their power to keep the polytheists of the empire out of those institutions. Not to mention there was no need for their stubborness on these matters either, the monotheistic jews got away with just having to pay a tax until they rebelled once too often, there's no reason why the early christians couldn't have made a similar deal other then their own stubbornness.

Only in white countries. Any other race would just lynch them.

Proof anarchism doesn't work and humans need leaders to get things done. Absolute monarchism when?

>Yes and I don't deny that the 3rd century is when the persecutions began in earnest and with good reason, seeing as how the christians had been constantly trying to undermine roman civil and miltiary institutions.
I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that pagans had legal monopolies on virtually all economic activity in the Empire, and how something as simple as getting a license to work a trade required sacrifices at a pagan temple, how paying your taxes was synonymous to making a sacrifice at the temple of Jupiter? And that was persecution by the central government. Prior to that time period most of the persecution was done at the province level by governors.

>... there would have been no need to outlaw polytheist religious services.
Of course there was no need to outlaw polytheistic religious services (except for blood sport by the Christian emperor Honorius in 399 CE) because paganism thoroughly vanished once Christianity was decriminalized by Constantine.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_4th_century

>attacking pagan temples in an attempt to get martyred could it?
So wait, your hypothesis is that Christians actually wanted Damnatio ad Bestias? Are you sure you're not going to start talking about the benefits of slavery and colonialism?

>try telling that to the greco-roman polytheists who got murdered on the order of guys like theodosius and justinian for having different religious beliefs.
Oh please, pagans had absolutely ZERO qualms about genociding each other out of existence. Hell, genocide is why they deified Julius Caesar. You make it seem like they *weren't* products of their beastly, savage, iron-age environment.

>It's not actually possible to say that the christians didn't cause the fire, they very easily could have, and Nero's assholery has it's equal in most christian european monarchies that came later.
>Of course its true because we know evidence obtained by torture is always accurate
wew lad

>Almost forgot this. There is no such evidence of anything other then sporadic persecutions in the records. If we had it that wikipedia link would have mentioned it.
There's all kinds of evidence for the Christian persecution. Hell, they have a young girl's prison diary.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html

>Greco-Roman polytheism was actually evolving into a more mature form in the Empire's later years.
I agree, and although these ideas were stripped of their polytheistic heritage they lived on in Christian theology, and form an important link in the philosophic tradition bridging Greco-Roman civilization with Judeo-Christian Western civilization. Human knowledge is a tapestry that builds on itself.

>Sad and unfortunate I supposed, but my sympathy for christian martyrs is severely limited.
Cowards are cruel, but the brave love mercy and delight to save.

>They again deliberately attempted to undermine the civil and military institutions of the empire
Because you're talking about a bloated, oppressive status quo which taxed its citizens without regard for their wishes, which put down frequent uprisings with brutal violence and forced people to worship their patriarchal pagan gods. Their legal system was a dysfunctional mess with no oversight or restriction and was plagued by demagoguery. You're talking about a society that didn't bat an eye when their leader (Emperor Commodus) rounded up all the legless cripples in the city and clubbed them to death in the arena for the sake of his own sick amusement. Nobody was going to say anything to the single richest person in the empire who was also the high priest of the state religion and commander in chief of the armies, including his own personal army which he parked in the city itself and openly oppressed their citizens on their employer's behalf without any accountability or limitation on their power.

you'd rebel too

...

All that this romeposting has done is made me wonder: how is Christianity big there in the first place?

How do you go from ignoring it, to hating it, to REALLY hating it, to the point where you are tossing them in arenas/subjecting them to persecution, only to have it suddenly become the state religion and all hooray for jeeby chreeby?

And I swear to fucking god if that Jesus/lamb avatarfag shows up and starts talking about how Christianity was just more popular because it was the 'wurds of the lawd' then I'm going to convert to radical Islam

>>I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that pagans had legal monopolies on virtually all economic activity in the Empire, and how something as simple as getting a license to work a trade required sacrifices at a pagan temple, how paying your taxes was synonymous to making a sacrifice at the temple of Jupiter? And that was persecution by the central government. Prior to that time period most of the persecution was done at the province level by governors.
Blah blah, the jews managed to work within this system and survive it. There's no reason the christians couldn't have come to some sort of similar arrangement other then their own stubbornness.

>>Of course there was no need to outlaw polytheistic religious services (except for blood sport by the Christian emperor Honorius in 399 CE) because paganism thoroughly vanished once Christianity was decriminalized by Constantine.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_4th_century
Oh bullshit, that map that just shows the spread of christianity through the empire there were still plenty of polytheists in those places and guys like Julian and Eugenius wouldn't have appealed to polytheists in order to solidify there power.

>>So wait, your hypothesis is that Christians actually wanted Damnatio ad Bestias?
Some of them did yes. Or at least some of them wanted to be martyred.

>>Oh please, pagans had absolutely ZERO qualms about genociding each other out of existence.
Pagans did it too so christians are justified in their assholery! Please.

>>Hell, genocide is why they deified Julius Caesar.
No the conquest of gaul and influx of wealth he caused are the more likely explanation for that.

>>You make it seem like they *weren't* products of their beastly, savage, iron-age environment.
They were a lot more civil then a lot of what came before them and a lot of what came after.

>>wew lad
lol yourself faggot.

>There's all kinds of evidence for the Christian persecution. Hell, they have a young girl's prison diary.

>>One of the most amazing documents historians of early Christianity are privileged to have is the prison diary of a young woman who was martyred in the year 202 or 203 in Carthage, as part of a civic celebration. Her name is Perpetua. And she insisted on being killed.
This both does not disprove my claims of the persecutions being sporadic at most before the 3rd century and is an example of a person who it is hard to feel sympathy for.

>>I agree, and although these ideas were stripped of their polytheistic heritage they lived on in Christian theology,
In other words, were blatantly stolen by people desperately trying to justify the legitimacy of their stupid cult.

>Cowards are cruel, but the brave love mercy and delight to save.
It's hardly a matter of cruelty, but rather there being such a thing as limits to sympathy for people who always transgressed social boundaries while simultaneous making no real effort to come to sensible compromises. The christians could have payed a special tax just like the jews did but instead they insisted on remaining apart from society and condemning other people and their beliefs as evil. That has consequences and again my sympathy for fanatics is limited.

>Blah blah, the jews managed to work within this system and survive it.
Nigger do you even Jewish war? Diaspora? The Jews suffered horribly at the hands of the Romans.
>Oh bullshit, that map that just shows the spread of christianity through the empire there were still plenty of polytheists in those places and guys like Julian and Eugenius wouldn't have appealed to polytheists in order to solidify there power.
Only in isolated pockets of old families that gradually and unevenly faded out of existence.
>Some of them did yes. Or at least some of them wanted to be martyred.
I don't think you're appreciating how bleak life was in the Roman Empire
>Pagans did it too so christians are justified in their assholery! Please.
People are products of their environments, but every new generation dilutes the crazy
>No the conquest of gaul and influx of wealth he caused are the more likely explanation for that.
And they couldn't have cared less that all that wealth came from the slit throats of every Gallic man of fighting age
>They were a lot more civil then a lot of what came before them and a lot of what came after.
They were a heck of a lot more civil than the societies around them, that's for sure. But the dark ages weren't as dark as what the historiographic record might suggest.

>In other words, were blatantly stolen by people desperately trying to justify the legitimacy of their stupid cult.
Oh please. Good artists copy and great artists steal. That's how the world works

>The christians could have payed a special tax just like the jews did but instead they insisted on remaining apart from society and condemning other people and their beliefs as evil.
This ancient society was dominated by competitive mystery cults. Christians beat the rest by being the best organized and by appealing to the right people (mostly women and slaves at first, but by the time of Constantine virtually every soldier in the empire was a Christian)

>Because you're talking about a bloated, oppressive status quo which taxed its citizens without regard for their wishes, which put down frequent uprisings with brutal violence and forced people to worship their patriarchal pagan gods. Their legal system was a dysfunctional mess with no oversight or restriction and was plagued by demagoguery. You're talking about a society that didn't bat an eye when their leader (Emperor Commodus) rounded up all the legless cripples in the city and clubbed them to death in the arena for the sake of his own sick amusement. Nobody was going to say anything to the single richest person in the empire who was also the high priest of the state religion and commander in chief of the armies, including his own personal army which he parked in the city itself and openly oppressed their citizens on their employer's behalf without any accountability or limitation on their power.

This is a hilariously one-sided and inaccurate view of the roman empire under the polytheist Caesars.

>>rebellions were common
When? You mean during times of strife where the government was in an uncertain position? Yeah no shit. That happens anywhere regardless of religion.

>>frequent uprisings
During times of political instability? Maybe.

>>brutal violence
lol like christians were any better about this when they had power.

>>forced people to worship their patriachal pagan gods
lololololololol this from a christian ahahahahaha

>>patriachy

>>god the father and the son and the holy spirit
Only one of those isn't male dumbfuck.

>>You're talking about a society that didn't bat an eye when their leader (Emperor Commodus) rounded up all the legless cripples in the city and clubbed them to death in the arena for the sake of his own sick amusement.
>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
>>multiple people tried to kill him when he was alive and he was denounced after his death and all his statues were torn down, but they didn't bat an eye

lol.

>>Oh please. Good artists copy and great artists steal. That's how the world works
Oh please, fuck off with that blatant excuse for this kind of theft.

>>This ancient society was dominated by competitive mystery cults. Christians beat the rest by being the best organized and by appealing to the right people
lol bullshit, they won out by getting the reigns of power and murdering anyone who seriously opposed them.

>>(mostly women and slaves at first, but by the time of Constantine virtually every soldier in the empire was a Christian)

>>but by the time of Constantine virtually every soldier in the empire was a Christian)
Oh look, lies and bullshit.

>Nigger do you even Jewish war? Diaspora? The Jews suffered horribly at the hands of the Romans.
Yeah but see, the jews were constantly rebelling and murdering tons and tons of roman citizens when they did so. They had their beat downs coming too frankly.

>>Only in isolated pockets of old families that gradually and unevenly faded out of existence.
Unsupportable claim.

>>I don't think you're appreciating how bleak life was in the Roman Empire
Compared to what and when?

>>People are products of their environments, but every new generation dilutes the crazy
This is a pitiful dodge.

>>And they couldn't have cared less that all that wealth came from the slit throats of every Gallic man of fighting age
You realize that this didn't happen yeah? Plenty of Gallic men actually fought in caesar's armies at first as allies and later some of them were legionaries.

Oh and nobody cares where their wealth and comforts come from. Most of us now are communicating over computers made by third world slave labor.

>>They were a heck of a lot more civil than the societies around them, that's for sure. But the dark ages weren't as dark as what the historiographic record might suggest.
In what sense? There was a mass scale breakdown in civil order that christianity did jack and shit to stop and constant warfare and violence.

One other thing.

>>you'd rebel too
No I wouldn't, because the Roman empire was one of the best things going before the modern era.

Jesus Christ you're a long winded bastard

>This is a hilariously one-sided and inaccurate view of the roman empire under the polytheist Caesars.
No, it's a frank and realistic one which takes off the HollyRome nostalgia goggles and examines the living standards of the common Romans to understand what it would mean to be a person like us living in a society like that.

>Oh please, fuck off with that blatant excuse for this kind of theft.
You don't understand art

>lol bullshit, they won out by getting the reigns of power and murdering anyone who seriously opposed them.
In other words, they did it by beating them at their own game.

>Oh look, lies and bullshit.
Want some cheese with that whine?

>No I wouldn't, because the Roman empire was one of the best things going before the modern era.
Holy nostalgia goggles, batman. I myself am a Roman Italian and I fucking love Roman history but that is taking things to a whole new level of absurdity. Have a little historical perspective.

>>No, it's a frank and realistic one which takes off the HollyRome nostalgia goggles and examines the living standards of the common Romans to understand what it would mean to be a person like us living in a society like that.

No it really isn't actually. Using commodus, a man who was actually hated for his bullshit as some sort of proof that the average roman approved of his actions is blatant bullshit.

>>You don't understand art
Theft is theft.

>>In other words, they did it by beating them at their own game.
No. Polytheist romans did in fact try and compromise with monotheist groups. The jews for example, the jews only really got violently repressed when they rebelled repeatedly and often killing large numbers of roman citizens in the process.

>Want some cheese with that whine?
Making a bullshit claim and then whining about me mocking you for it makes you the whiner actually. The roman army wasn't majority christian in constantine's time.

>>Holy nostalgia goggles, batman. I myself am a Roman Italian and I fucking love Roman history but that is taking things to a whole new level of absurdity. Have a little historical perspective.
I can compare any given roman caesar and realize pretty damn quick that the worst of their excesses are confined to the upper classes. You can't say the same for christian/muslim monarchs later.

You point out corrupt officials? I'll point out that's better then some random knight deciding to pillage your land and kill you because he wants your lord's lands.

Yeah, pretty much. Early Christians had the same hard-on for martyrdom that Islamic extremists do today, and for largely the same reasons.

Nope

>Nope
To which part of my statement?

So is it true MLK basically march places where he essentially would bait white authorities to send police to brutalize them?

>gandhi
>working
it did wonders for grass roots social change m8. The INA mutiny killed the raj.

Yes, it makes indecisive simpletons more sympathetic to your cause.

The BLM movement uncovered a lot of fucked up done by olice forces. Ever heard of Homan Centre the illegal detention centre where the Chicago Police illegally detained people and denied them their rights?

Zimbabwe turned to shit because of god awful economic policies not violence.

>No it really isn't actually. Using commodus, a man who was actually hated for his bullshit as some sort of proof that the average roman approved of his actions is blatant bullshit.
His was really more of a case of pissing off the wrong courtiers. The common people took delight in that sort of cruelty on a routine basis in the arena

>Theft is theft.
You don't understand the creative process.

>No. Polytheist romans did in fact try and compromise with monotheist groups.
And they were horrible at it. Roman compromise consisted of them agreeing not to
>. The jews for example
They made it a wasteland and called it peace

> The roman army wasn't majority christian in constantine's time.
Oh and that's why they were all cool with painting the Chii Rho on their shields, right?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great#Constantine_and_his_army_adopt_the_Greek_letters_for_Christ.27s_initials:_Chi_Rho
Do you really think that Constantine converted for any other reason than to earn the loyalty of the army? Jesus I'm a Christian and it's even obvious to me!

>I can compare any given roman caesar and realize pretty damn quick that the worst of their excesses are confined to the upper classes
Tell that to all the slaves crucified along the Appian Way who disagreed with you

>You point out corrupt officials? I'll point out that's better then some random knight deciding to pillage your land and kill you because he wants your lord's lands.
Medieval legal systems were vastly more refined and just than anything in the Roman model. You're just showing your ignorance of medieval history by saying shit like this.

>And they were horrible at it. Roman compromise consisted of them agreeing not to
murder you as long as you paid your taxes and kept the peace.

bump for answer

>His was really more of a case of pissing off the wrong courtiers. The common people took delight in that sort of cruelty on a routine basis in the arena
Most roman arena combats were not against cripples, this is another unsupportable statement.

>>You don't understand the creative process.
Make whatever excuses for them you please.

>>And they were horrible at it. Roman compromise consisted of them agreeing not to murder you as long as you paid your taxes and kept the peace
This is a perfectly acceptable arrangement for the time and is far preferable to the sort of treatment jews received in the middle ages.

>>Oh and that's why they were all cool with painting the Chii Rho on their shields, right?
They followed their commander's orders and the Chii Rho predates christendom.

>>Do you really think that Constantine converted for any other reason than to earn the loyalty of the army? Jesus I'm a Christian and it's even obvious to me!
Bullshit, his mother was a christian and he probably had certain sympathies to them.

>>Tell that to all the slaves crucified along the Appian Way who disagreed with you
In fairness I should have said typically confined to the upper classes. That said you are most likely referring to the aftermath of a revolt and frankly even today you can expect to have a messy death if you commit treason.

>>Medieval legal systems were vastly more refined and just than anything in the Roman model. You're just showing your ignorance of medieval history by saying shit like this.
For whom and where? A lot of the peasants lived just as I described.

Honestly? It was luck mostly. Remember that contrary to the opinions of Mario over here that Rome was still mostly pagan well into the late 4th and early 5th centuries. These beliefs only died out due to massive state suppression and violence.

>Ever heard of Homan Centre the illegal detention centre where the Chicago Police illegally detained people and denied them their rights?

That was uncovered by Alex Jones not BLM.

Oh and for anyone in this thread who thinks that Greco-Roman polytheism just died out on it's own...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire

>>Laws dating from the 350s prescribed the death penalty for those who performed or attended pagan sacrifices, and for the worshipping of idols

>>The anti-paganism policies of Theodosius I began in 381, following the first few years of his reign over the Eastern Empire. Theodosius reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice and haruspicy on pain of death. He pioneered the criminalisation of Magistrates who did not enforce the anti-pagan laws. He broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

>>Christians were good boys they didn't do anything polytheism died out on it's own herp derp
Lies and bullshit. Abrahamic religion was then and is now poison.

I'm the guy arguing for a frank and realistic view of the Roman Empire, of considering the bleakness and instability in their lives that drove their decision making processes and urging people to not idealize primitive societies

And the most honest and objective answer that I can give is that it was a messy, multi-century, multi-generations long process that starts from the lowest classes of their society and gradually worked its way to the top. 400 years is 16 generations of people.

The process really doesn't start exploding until Constantine decriminalizes Christianity in 312 and the council of Nicea unifies the Christian canon and codifies the Bible. Before that time, Christians confounded Romans through largely nonviolent means and the more that the Romans cracked the whip, the more exposure that people had to Christians dying for their beliefs. Bad publicity was better than no publicity and the more exposure this counter culture mystery cult was given, the more people started showing up for service. Considering that Christianity was a crime punishable by death in Roman society, the fact that as much as 10% of society was Christian at the moment of decriminalization speaks strongly to how compelling the Christian message would have seemed to a pagan.

This isn't without historical precedent either. Medieval Scandinavia experienced a similar phenomenon when Christianity was introduced. The archaeological record shows it happening in as quickly as a single generation in many villages.

And life would be flowers and sunshine if we all went back to being pagans, right?

And this post is bullshit too. Christianity came to be predominant because of subterfuge and murder.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire

Nice try putting words in my mouth, the polytheists of old were honest bastards. You christards pretend to be good and righteous while being just as bad if not worse in certain ways.

Fuck you and your stupid fucking cult.

No only moderately violent protests.
The Arab spring worked quite quickly in deposing long entrenched dictators, faster than years of war ever could.

Really? That is fucking hilarious.

Gandhi is overrated in the west.
In India people have a greater affinity for Bhagat Singh.

>The Arab spring worked quite quickly in deposing long entrenched dictators, faster than years of war ever could.

I hope you're joking..

No.
Revolution or bust. Otherwise you'll get half-measures that will backfire later on.

Case in point - welfare state.

nah. each state has it's own freedom fighters. Except northern indians. They pretty much sat on their ass and got a free country.

Yeah that occupy movement is going on quite well.
>Meanwhile in Baltimore.
baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-arrests-decline-20150613-story.html

Some regimes might have manged to slide back into power afterwards but the fact remains that 30 year dictators were overthrown in a relatively short time after the uprisings began.
Meanwhile in Syria Assad is still in power but likely to step down if the war ever comes to an end and the only reason why Gaddafi was overthrown was because China and Russia didn't veto the no fly zone in time.

My point is that the Arab Spring caused war. And even successful revolutions like Egypt just slid into counter-revolution loop, and gave wind to radical Islam.

It was in no way a clean, semi-violent revolution.

forgot pic

>violence
to cause physical harm or injury to people or property
>protesting
To speak out against something

Guess I don't see an oxymoron after all

>subterfuge and murder.
victi vincimus. The conquerers get conquered by the conquered. Their society collapsed into dust and nobody mourns the passing of their barbarous past.

>the polytheists of old were honest bastards.
In other words, they had no moral qualms about owning young children as sex slaves and flaunting them openly as status symbols.

> You christards
Now you're the one projecting. How do you know that I'm not an agnostic who recognizes the pragmatic benefit that the Christian religion had on Western civilization? Ancient Rome had no great centers of learning. Neither did Medieval China or India. The world's first universities were born in medieval Catholic Europe, arising naturally from the monasteries which were the only places in the west where anybody still bothered to write anything down. Had the Roman Empire endured in its pagan form then Europe probably would have more closely resembled India culturally, and like India would never have developed the academic tradition which was so crucial to its later success

The rise of the Christian religion was an ethics revolution, a new perception on how to organize societies more complex than simple mountain or river villages, one that relied on a tacit social agreement between the economic classes rather than naked barbarity and violence. The rise of the Christian religion corresponds with the transition of labor arrangement away from the slave owning societies of antiquity and towards the later feudal arrangements of the medieval period.

>Zimbabwe turned to shit because of god awful economic policies not violence.
That were instituted by a government that came to power by waging a violent civil war.

Yes, see: Velvet Revolution.

How is that horrible, again?
>Don't rock the boat and we'll leave you alone

>victi vincimus. The conquerers get conquered by the conquered. Their society collapsed into dust and nobody mourns the passing of their barbarous past.

Only for the last 1500 years or so.

>How is that horrible, again?
Let me use an anecdote to make my point: The Junii were an ancient but impoverished Roman aristocratic family until Marcus Brutus revived his family's fortune by engaging in behavior which we would describe as loan-sharking.

Their system was a horrendously dysfunctional and unstable mess. What little information we have about their economy suggests that it was prone to massive collapses, and after Augustus Caesar, long term deflation.

>Only for the last 1500 years or so.
Where it was revived as latter day romanticism by protestants looking to push an anti-Catholic agenda by painting the Roman Empire as a great and wonderful place until the Catholics showed up.

It was less peaceful protest and more those governments collapsing once the ussr was no longer willing to uphold them.

Previous peaceful movement were crushed brutally in Berlin , Hungary and Czechoslovakia

Honestly? No.

Liberal overlords have just conditioned people not to use force because they know it works unlike peaceful protesting.

It works in that it stirs up violent dissent when violently quelled. See: Murder of Gandhi, MLK, Bloody Sunday etc. If you ignore it, turns out it doesn't do anything. See: Occupy (insert shit here), literally every other protest.

>Previous peaceful movement were crushed brutally in Berlin
If you're referring to the Worker's Revolt in '54, it was hardly peaceful.

>Hungarian revolt.
>Peaceful
They hung up their own people on lampposts.