Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a Ring and he eats fish for an Age.
There are two very different types of “peaceful” protest. Self-immolation or self-starvation are one thing. They’re mostly about demonstrating how strongly you feel, or holding yourself hostage. The other form, marching in the streets or striking, etc., is way more common, and there’s a large body of work on it. (Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, wrote commonly about it.) The latter type is actually quite intentionally coercive: you won’t kill the powers that be, but you will try to make them fall by not cooperating with them. (Remember, to run things, you need people to actually do as they’re told.) Some people argue that it’s actually more effective than violent action — though I’m not entirely convinced about that. Anyway, don’t conflate the two ideas — they’re very different.
On an unrelated note, you people make me LOL.
If you did it because you were obviously a crazy man, that definitely takes away from the impact.
Most people expect human decency to kick in…
Well, yes. That’s why nonviolent protests worked during the Civil Rights movement but would have failed miserably against the Nazis or Stalin. It’s often made into a moral issue, but it’s at least as much a practical one; non-violent tactics against genuinely uncaring killers are ineffective and suicidal. It works best against people who have a self image of being the “good guys” but who aren’t; if they use violent tactics against non-violent people it humiliates them, while violent tactics let them convince themselves they are only retaliating or keeping the peace.
Yes, I fully understand that, but my remark was intended to gently point out what an example of sheer odious bile the post I was quoting was.
I think there’s a difference: If you’re not careful, your “self-immolation” could set fire to an entire city block.
That is, fire is inherently dangerous.
That’s really quite sad. The man was dedicated if nothing else, and I hadn’t heard anything at all about it until now. So no, I’d have to say it’s not very effective. He’d have done much better driving a gaudily-painted bus around the country.
Not if you had plans for the rest of the day.
ETA: specific to the US, I’m having some trouble visualizing an issue that could justify any form of suicide, much less burning onesself to death, but maybe that’s just because I’m a somewhat dispassionate person. Capital punishment, maybe?
I don’t know why you think the burning monk had no impact on the ending of the war in Viet Nam.
No one who saw that footage could forget it. For a Buddhist monk, for whom all life is sacred, to do so, publicly, on film was extremely powerful, in fact.
It didn’t end the war the next day, you’re right, but it raised a fair bit of consciousness about how wrong American foreign policy was, at the time. I dare you to watch the whole thing, start to finish, and still dismiss it as ineffective.
This bloke, however, hasn’t raised any noticeable consciousness.
Not sure if this would have changed anything for him or not but the Supreme Court just ruled that the state must find an ability to pay child support before jailing someone for not paying it.
Most of these seem to be delusions of grandeur. Their heads are filled with martyrdom and leaving a legacy that will mark them in history for all time, etc.
That is, unless there is no delusion, and you’re someone who holds renowned respect. Even then, I don’t think that sort of self-inflicted martyrdom is a “good idea” if you (or your loved ones) are under no imminent duress. The circumstances have to be very particular and radical for such a thing to make any difference, and even then, there are zero guarantees. If the idea is to sway hearts and minds, then setting yourself on fire must make a point in and of itself.
Personally, I’d just go with a flashy powerpoint presentation.
I view hunger strikes as akin to hostage-taking. That the hostage is yourself is not relevant; the point is that you are threatening to kill someone if you don’t get your way.
It’s a better idea if you set yourself on fire, then run into the building.
Or strap a bomb to your waist.
I don’t know about that, seems to me we elect politicians to run things and they’ve done nothing but sell votes to stay in office and seem hell bent to burn it down in front of us.
Berny Madoff is in jail for fiduciary malfeasance but politicians have run up a 14 trillion dollar debt.
Set a fish on fire and you have a tasty Cajun treat.
I recall that when Jimmy Carter signed some treaty to give the Panama Canal back to Panama, some stud set himself on fire, crying “They must not sign.”
Don’t remember his name, he died, and they signed.
Back when the Vietnamese monk set himself on fire, people had loftier views of ascetics, and the monk burning himself was a cool video, so, it would, naturally, get attention.
Hilarious ad on this page: “Self-regulating heating cables from the worldwide leading supplier!”
Best wishes,
hh