Nonviolent Civil Resistance - The 3.5% Rule

[boatman61]

Wonder why one needs Rules on protesting about Rules..
Old men trying to maintain control..???

[MartinR]

This was very interesting information. I do not think in China they ever managed to even get 1% active participation.

But I guess that it means in many countries change would be possible if the population wisened up.

[transmitterdan]

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals - Cliff Notes version: I am right in whatever I believe and the ends justify the means so as to achieve whatever I desire.

[atlroofman]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Shouldn't this be a thread on Quora or similar? I fail to see what this has to do with sailing.

I agree, more sails and rudder talk and less politics and resistance talk. To much of that in the rest of life.

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals - Cliff Notes version: I am right in whatever I believe and the ends justify the means so as to achieve whatever I desire.

Sounds like basic Trump policy

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals - Cliff Notes version: I am right in whatever I believe and the ends justify the means so as to achieve whatever I desire.

Can any sane person, with an opinion/belief, not believe that they are right?


Alinsky notes the perennial question on whether, “the ends justify the means,” is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, “do these particular ends justify these particular means?”
So, in structuring a strategy in seeking a desired end, one should first frame their ideas of what they are willing to do, in order to achieve those ends in an ethical framework, so as to keep their means defensible to others and, to a greater extent, themselves.
Alinsky additionally lists 11 rules of "means and ends":
One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
In war, the end justifies almost any means.
Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
The ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Bread and Peace."

The general idea here is that purity about tactics is a luxury that only the already powerful can afford; that doesn't mean anything goes, but it does mean that the undesirability of a particular means has to be weighed against the gravity of the injustice being fought.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by MartinR

Sounds like basic Trump policy

Its the Great Corporate Revolution..
Cut out the middlemen..
Why dya think the Democrat and Republican politicians hate him so much.. he's threatening their rice bowls.

[Empty Pockets]

Who are we resisting?

[Group9]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Its the Great Corporate Revolution..
Cut out the middlemen..
Why dya think the Democrat and Republican politicians hate him so much.. he's threatening their rice bowls.

The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people by the Democrats and Republicans, has always been that there is any real difference in the people who control both parties, or in the things that really matter.

It's always still been pay to play, no matter who was elected, or in charge. And, yes, electing a billionaire as President, certainly seems to have thrown a major wrench into the works.

In many ways, it has been very entertaining to watch.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Can any sane person, with an opinion/belief, not believe that they are right?

Yes. They can sincerely believe they are "right," but at the same time not be so inflexible as to believe they may be wrong. It's generally referred to as having an open mind, and is not incompatible with holding strongly held opinions. Wasn't there a recent thread about this very theme which one of our more thoughtful CF members started?

Alinsky notes the perennial question on whether, “the ends justify the means,” is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, “do these particular ends justify these particular means?”

So long as those ends are consistent with a particular end of the political spectrum that is. Alinsky, like so many others wedded to ideology, is simply trying to objectify what is generally inherently subjective. As Dockhead pointed out, the civil rights movement ultimately succeeded (and continues to make progress) because a majority of Americans believed that the denial of basic equalities based on race was inherently wrong, and ending racial discrimination as close as one may get to a "universal truth." By contrast, 3.5% is a long way from a majority, no matter how much that 3.5% may sincerely believe in the righteousness of their cause (and how loud they may shout about it).

The general idea here is that purity about tactics is a luxury that only the already powerful can afford; that doesn't mean anything goes, but it does mean that the undesirability of a particular means has to be weighed against the gravity of the injustice being fought.

Another inherently subjective attempt at creating "objective analysis" that is used -- all too often in hindsight -- to justify humans' natural tendencies towards violent excesses against each other. It's the same, tired old justification some on the Left use to excuse the tragedy unfolding in Venezuela, when the reality is that corruption and incompetence are politically "neutral" and all too common human traits. It's just that autocratic forms of govt encourage these negative traits through their lack of accountability, and not necessarily because they deem themselves socialist, communist, fascist, or whatever. These systems of govt fail because of proven limitations human beings have at governing themselves; autocratic govts of whichever stripe only facilitate such human failings. Democracies have their shortcomings and are obviously not exempt from corruption & incompetence, but they have thus far proven to be better than others at being accountable to their people, and therefore more effective guarantors of individual freedoms.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Wonder why one needs Rules on protesting about Rules..
Old men trying to maintain control..???

Yes! Nothing new to see here . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The off topic forum is pretty lenient I suppose.
It’s certainly off topic

Works for me either way, but kind of odd when even some of the more civil (relatively speaking ) CC threads are closed based on the justification that they lack relevance to boating. But then plenty of lenience is granted prior to their closures, and it's certainly a reasonable justification given the "no politics" rule. It really doesn't matter to me either way, but it's obviously important to others or they wouldn't start these threads.

Originally Posted by SailOar

You have made 67 posts on the non-cruising New Joke Thread. Why don't you stick to the topics that suit you best and quit being a bully on threads that don't otherwise interest you.

My sense, and I think what the mods have made quite clear, is that their tolerance for off-topic political threads has little if anything to do with content, and is mostly about the lack of civility such threads seem to inevitably produce. For example, calling someone a "bully" for merely pointing out that this particular thread is not boating related, one of the very criteria that has been used to decide if threads stay open or not. If you'd really like these threads to stay open, then it seems pretty clear what needs to happen.

As for analogizing to the Joke threads . . . well . . . I haven't read them but sorta doubt they generate much controversy or ill will. The desire for humor is pretty universal, and for many quite desirable if not necessary. And unlike much of politics these days, it makes people smile & laugh.

[Singularity]

-all politics is local
-a good product sells itself
-a cruiser today free to roam about the globe without a mandated satellite-linked transponder on their boat probably doesn't see this kind of discussion to be relevant to their environment (local) and accordingly it's a tough sell to get buy-in (it's not a good product)

Originally Posted by Exile

...kind of odd when even some of the more civil...CC threads are closed based on the justification that they lack relevance to boating.

From my perspective the CC stuff is just abstract existential angst stuff that, as played out here, doesn't even promote critical thinking skills and whatnot. Like every type of anchoring thread, potty police thread, food overboard in a marina thread...the CC topic is a subject that ordinarily requires accounting for many (if not dozens/hundreds of variables) that must be accounted for to validate an observation while it's painfully apparent that some people don't process information in this manner (and/or to adequately substantiate an observation a "wall of text" is required that most people find off-putting). The CC discussions go nowhere; the justification for closure I think is besides the point.

What eternally frustrates me is the 100% universal acceptance of anti-government rhetoric on certain topics coming from the same people who demand the right to keep their head in the sand until the govt guy comes up and taps them on the back to inform them of the new policy that they don't like....

[Pelagic]

Interesting discussion despite a few trying to derail.....

It begs the question;

Is there an irony today in Civil disobedience in that it can be done more easily and incognito via the internet medium?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It’s research like this that begs for reminding people, correlation does not equal causation...

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed!

Ummm, no.

Too lazy to look up which logical fallacy(ies) is(are) in play here, but the research is nothing about correlation or causation; it is about the amount of effect a known cause has (or doesn't have) on an outcome.

Seems that either a particular set of personality traits or, perhaps, an agenda, or maybe both, is in evidence...

A couple of classic examples of does 'cause (not) equal correlation'.

Lead exposure and US crime rate.



Effects of income inequality on religiosity within a society.

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The off topic forum is pretty lenient I suppose.
It’s certainly off topic

Last I checked there were no 'rules' (yet) restricting, nay, even defining 'off-topic'...

Originally Posted by senormechanico

This thread is just itching to be closed. Stay tuned.

Certainly seems the same tired old whiners would like to see that...perhaps this (my) post will help grant their nefarious wish...

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Interesting discussion despite a few trying to derail.....
It begs the question;
Is there an irony today in Civil disobedience in that it can be done more easily and incognito via the internet medium?

Seems to me the effect is the opposite; because the internet is almost ubiquitous and anonymous, the 'protest' is muted and diluted from the false feeling that one has actually made a difference by twittering or facebooking or off-topicing, when it seems apparent that real change is brought about by (not literally, i.e. dead) 'bodies on the street'. Notwithstanding the recent, hopefully transient, effects of the 'twitterer-in-chief'...