• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 months ago

    The united states, every four years.

    The only reason that particular transfer of power is not called a revolution is because it isn’t violent. It’s kind of in the definition of the word. Peaceful transfers of power exist though.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      511 months ago

      That isn’t a revolution that’s an election.

      They don’t, power comes from violence. Please effectively exert authority without using violence, id love an example.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        What counts as violence? Does a parent disciplining their child by taking their dessert away count as violence?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yes

          behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            Do you propose, then, that everyone should be allowed to do as they please with absolutely zero rules?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Forgive me for assuming you considered violence to be bad.

                Since we’ve presupposed that all authority must in some way stem from the threat of violence, a hatred for violence cannot exist without a hatred for authority.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    This thread started because you asked someone to name a single nonviolent revolution. Such a thing cannot possibly exist, especially considering your inexplicably broad definition of that word.

                    You cannot seriously equate shooting someone with taking a child’s dessert away, simply because you consider them both to be violence. Considering this I’m a bit confused as to your point.