You're viewing a single thread.
I don't think violence is the answer we really need to be getting everyone to vote! 2024 is going to be the most important election of our lives 😼
Violence is unironically an important part of any discussion with governing powers. The powers that be use violence to maintain their power - this is not actually inherently bad, but it does mean that from time to time the governing powers must be reminded that peaceful acquiescence to their use of violence is conditional. If they do not believe it is, then they will not respect any agreement with the people - such is the nature of all power imbalance in negotiations with institutions.
The lord's need to remember that money can't buy life
Thanks for being smart so I don't have to be.
My two cents: A common saying is that the state has a monopoly on voilence, but I see it more of as a concept of temporary outsorcing, and once in a while a government needs to be reminded of this.
This is so general as to be incoherent and meaningless.
Conditional on what? You don't offer anything. Why aren't elections enough? Nothing offered on this point.
The theory, if it can be called that, is what? Dumb memes glorifying political murder serve to remind those in power that violence is delegated to them by the people?
Or is political murder itself the reminder? You think killing politicians and government employees is going to moderate government violence? Now that is funny.
Take a deep breath. Calm down. There's no conversation to be had when you're creating points for yourself to argue against.
lol every point is taken from your comment.
My guy, if you're interested in having a serious conversation, I'm game, but that precludes having arguments with yourself or weird one-line remarks.
Not your guy, pal. And I mean if that were true, you would actually respond to my points instead of taking this strange position where my direct response to you is somehow just me arguing with myself.
but ok:
You didn't specify a state, country or territory that your meme is addressing. Do all countries have these sad little metaphorical guillotines? Even democracies?
When and why should the killing start? Because when someone is this unspecific about killing people, I'll be honest, it's pretty repellent to me. Think about all the different images and ideas this meme conjures in the mind of your upvoters. How many do you think have their own personal kill list?
You didn’t specify a state, country or territory that your meme is addressing. Do all countries have these sad little metaphorical guillotines? Even democracies?
Yes, absolutely. Especially democracies. Institutions of force don't acquiesce to the will of the voters out of the kindness of their hearts, they do so because they understand that there is a very real threat of violence if they don't. As the saying goes, the three boxes are the soapbox, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. This has been understood on a basic level for as long as democracy has existed.
When and why should the killing start?
Ideally, not at all. But it becomes necessary the more calcified and unreactive to popular opinion a society's institutions of power become, and institutions of power tend to become insulated from popular opinion when they hold disproportionate power compared to the masses. The more disproportionate their power, the less they heed the voices of the people and the more nakedly they pursue their own interests.
Because when someone is this unspecific about killing people, I’ll be honest, it’s pretty repellent to me. Think about all the different images and ideas this meme conjures in the mind of your upvoters. How many do you think have their own personal kill list?
If you think someone is about to begin a revolution because they saw someone post a crying guillotine on a political meme forum, then there were much deeper problems afoot than the hungriest little guillotine.
Implicit in your argument is that the outcome of political violence is always (or at least often) a net positive for the public. Not really buying that.
As the saying goes, the three boxes are the soapbox, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. This has been understood on a basic level for as long as democracy has existed.
It's four boxes, you have (unironically?) omitted juries. And democracy existed long before 19th century US politics.
If you think someone is about to begin a revolution because they saw someone post a crying guillotine on a political meme forum, then there were much deeper problems afoot than the hungriest little guillotine.
Because you didn't address it, my point remains. I am not saying someone is going to start a revolutions. I'm saying that things like your meme contribute to an environment that normalizes violence as a solution to political problems. None of the nuance of what you said above is connoted in the OP, and as with most memes, the majority of people upvote and keep scrolling.
You don't have any control over what "good political violence" means to the people for whom it is normalized. All you can control is the decision not to post the meme about how beheadings are good.
Implicit in your argument is that the outcome of political violence is always (or at least often) a net positive for the public.
How so? The argument posits that political violence or the threat of it is necessary in all interactions with institutions of power that are not just rolling over and taking what is given, not that all exercises of political violence or threats thereof are good.
It’s four boxes, you have (unironically?) omitted juries.
So I did, mea culpa.
Because you didn’t address it, my point remains. I am not saying someone is going to start a revolutions. I’m saying that things like your meme contribute to an environment that normalizes violence as a solution to political problems. None of the nuance of what you said above is connoted in the OP, and as with most memes, the majority of people upvote and keep scrolling.
I have a question: if someone makes a movie about the French Revolution, and that movie is clearly meant to have parallels in its narrative with modern class structures and issues, would that be contributing to an environment that normalizes violence?
I can rephrase, maybe wasn't clear. The word "necessary" implies a confidence in some desired outcome, and certainly that such an outcome would not make things even worse.
Like if something like this happened in America, what happens next? The Constitution is already in tatters at that point, do we try to put it back together? And where is America on the world stage then? France had few friends after the revolution.
I have a question: if someone makes a movie about the French Revolution, and that movie is clearly meant to have parallels in its narrative with modern class structures and issues, would that be contributing to an environment that normalizes violence?
I would welcome such a movie because it would probably have far more of a textual/historical basis, point of view and coherent philosophy than "I'm so hungry 😞".
Actually seeing a depiction of the violence carried out against French nobles would provoke way more critical thinking in viewers than a cartoon guillotine.
Would this film also contend with la Terreur? By all accounts most of the blood spilled by revolutionaries was that of "suspected" counter revolutionary spies, near 30K people. Lot of spies! Almost an unbelievable number.
Ugh that's a tired statement.
Yes, vote for the fascist or the liberal. Things will change this time, bro. I swear. Just one more election bro.
Yea vote or die ??? not sure what is confusing about that, we need them on our side or else we will be just like the CCP
Time for voting is over. You can't vote our way out of this. Unfortunately it is to late and definitely can't fix it under a two party system, especially when both parties are captured and serve the rich.
I also feel it is too late to come together and show the government, who is really in charge, because 46% of our country wants and likes the boot on their neck.
While both Amerucan political parties are deeply flawed and do not represent the needs of regular people, there are important differences between them. It is disingenuous to equate them.
Nah we definitely can vote our way out of it. It's just going to take way longer and we'd need to convince people who the real enemy is. But we'd need to do that with a violent revolution too. When a lot of people, who own a lot of guns are drinking the capitalist Kool aid, a revolution just ends up being poor people fighting other poor people. Then the elites win in the end anyways.
Don't get me wrong. I'm on board with the need to drastically change and if the guillotine is the way then cool but it's just not at the moment. Voting is the least effective form of civic engagement so it would take the longest and we're running out of time. If we can get leftists to run and win in lots of local government races then there is absolutely a path to change things from the ground up. Politicians, wealthy elite and corporations really really want you to think that you have no options. The options just involve hard work so a lot of people think that murdering the wealthy is the easy way out. I agree that it's a way but I'm skeptical that it's as easy or cut and dry as many leftists want us to think it is.
Mass violence is the ugliest and least reliable way of effecting change. But damn if a little Reign of Terror, as a treat, doesn't sound nice sometimes when I read the news.
Sounds like a personal problem. Try using a little more imagination.
Sounds like a personal problem. Try using a little more imagination.
... what?