You're viewing a single thread.
"So we're going to take up violent action then, right?"
"Oh, God, no, we're just going to sit here and sneer at those who are trying to change the system without violence, or without enough violence."
The problem with violent action is that, to have a chance to succeed, you need a critical mass of support. Not like 50% or anything, but enough that you can’t be easily quelled. The only way you build that support is by suggesting violent resistance to people who scoff at you and accuse you of being unserious until the last straw finally breaks their back and you don’t sound so ridiculous anymore.
Oh, like, idk, say... 3% of the population or something?
Crazy how fast one can start sounding just like the people they oppose, isn't it?
That being said, those sorts of people are well organized, international, willing to commit violence, dramatically outnumber any counter-groups, and have made serious and dramatic inroads into not just political discourse but into politics itself.
In terms of violent revolutionaries, there are a lot of them, they're well armed, they're fairly well-connected and organized, they've managed to recruit across all classes, especially the working classes, and they're definitely not leftist.
Drawing a parallel between violent revolution of oppressed people and virulently racist bigots because they also use percentages to decribe a thing is asinine. Fuck.off.
Probably shouldn't be doing the same thing that they're doing then huh
You cannot call them evil then do the exact same thing but YOU are just because YOU think so. They'll tell you that exact same thing.
In order to be doing the "same thing" I would have to be suggesting violence as a means to establish a white ethnostate, dipshit.
Something tells me they don't actually see that as a negative, which is why it had to be pointed out.
No u
did u know republicans also drink water and breath air? makes u think doesnt it
Evil people also eat food, just like you do. Is that why they're evil? Obviously not. The thing that makes them evil is their motives.
Fighting someone to help people and fighting someone to oppress someone are both fighting, but one is for good and one is for evil.
you're fucking clueless. this isn't about moral high grounds. this is about solutions that prevent untold amounts of suffering because the idiotic half of the population was allowed to operate unchecked.
Seems like you're the clueless one if you think I don't know that, but also violence is bad and wrong and you're bad and wrong for supporting it. You're just as bad as the rest.
😭
Violence is a top-tier solution for lower ranked cognition, where the notion of "hit thing" is a quality solution toward the final stages of attempted problem-solving. Fortunately, people in this situation tend to share the side effect of apathy, so managing to pull together enough "hit thing" people into an organised cohort rarely occurs, or fizzles shortly after take off.
Wrong.
Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
When all else fails violence is the final answer.
What do you do when someone is violently trying to knock down your door?
You call the police and they come and they ask the person to leave nicely.
He refuses and gets more aggressive, either they restraint him and drag him away or use some other method that involves violence.
I challenge you to show a real world example of ending oppression that was achieved by asking nicely when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
See that last stipulation is problematic. You are saying give an example but you are filtering out every possible example which would be when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table. Now granted im not saying you are wrong but in evaluating and thinking of an answer the problem of the logic with the when statement immediately pops up. Non violent protest leads to negotiation. bzzz. can't use it. As I said in another post violence will happen. One side can be nonviolent but I can't think of a case where they were nonviolent and violence was not done to them.
It's not problematic it's just devastating to your central thesis.
What do you do when someone is violently trying to knock down your door?
Well for starters, why have I put myself.in a situation where.this.is happening?But, secondly, I think this was a bad example you pulled anyway, as it was about defence toward immediate violence, rather than instigating it on social issues. In this case the aggressor in your example is the idiot instigating,.i.e. the very behaviour you're attempting to excuse. And it that's your stance, well; case in point.
I challenge you to show a real world example of ending oppression that was achieved by asking nicely when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
Asking nicely? It happens. But methods without violence? In most cases, the solution to stopping such threats is to cease empowering them, and we have many methods of how this is done in the real.world, daily. Violence creates reactive violence, creates a victim opportunity,.and instills animosity. Its solutions are temporary as nothing resolved the core issue, but it did inteoduce new ones.
So, what are you doing to cease empowerimg your "oppressors"—apart from buying into their systems, wearing their actions, and remaining seated in a place you think sucks? Mm-mm. There that apathy.
All As are Bs but not all Bs are As. Learned that in what, 1st grade? Kindergarten?
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
OTOH, here we are.
When "lower ranked cognition" people have established themselves as the rulers, you have to communicate in the only language they understand. They will not give up the power they're abusing otherwise.