“Choose peace rather than confrontation. Except in cases where we cannot get, where we cannot proceed, or we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence.”
—Nelson Mandela, Gaza (1999)
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
—John F. Kennedy, Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress (1962)
To add:
“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” -Assata Shakur
Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and was “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and, thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy. -Peter Gelderloos
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” -MLK
I just don’t believe that when people are being unjustly oppressed that they should let someone else set rules for them by which they can come out from under that oppression. -Malcolm X
I haven’t seen a Flight of the Conchords reference in 13 years.
Any time violence is used, one fantasizes they are on the winning side
Huh? Does that imply a good reason?
Further, that’s not the point at all. The point is those CALLING/WISHING for violence are dreaming that their group will win, that their ideas will be forwarded.
yes, and it’s important that proper planning and strategy is implemented to actually win.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
Liberals: The Christo-fascists are violently taking over!
Also liberals: Give up your guns!
This liberal: Uh, no? I’ll keep my arms thank you very much.
“Liberals” aren’t saying “give up your guns.” The democratic presidential nominee and vice president are literally both gun owners, and the presidential nominee said she’d shoot a home intruder to death less than a week ago. They’re saying something more like “restrict future purchases of particularly dangerous guns and get reasonable rules, regulations, and licensing in place for them like we do for cars.”
But I understand that doesn’t make for a good dramatic post.
Exactly right. Honestly at this point I think the Dems should just drop gun control entirely as an issue.
Let me preface this next section with the fact that I’ve been largely supportive of common sense gun control laws and think they would be a net positive. But give me a minute because this is a slightly more nuance point (the danger of bringing nuance to gun issues in America is apparent to me)
Why? Let’s say they were successful and made it harder to purchase guns that we categorize as especially dangerous.
- This country is already awash in guns. Unlike other nations that have disarmed, there is no appetite for any kind of gun but back or gun seizure program, those dangerous guns will get into the hands of people that want to do dangerous things with them.
- The less dangerous guns are still quite dangerous. Humans are creative, bump stocks, self modification of less dangerous guns, having a couple loaded guns, all ways to make less dangerous guns equally dangerous.
- There are enough pro gun Americans and money in the gun industry that every change will have loopholes you could drive a semi truck through
So the cost benefit just makes no sense. As a political issue the cost is enormous and the realistic potential benefit is basically nothing. I wish we had a population that cared more about this, but from a pragmatic point of view we simply don’t.
I think it was sandy hook that really cemented this for me. If a grade school full of children gets shot up and the reaction from a significant portion of the population is apathy or to double down on gun rights, that’s not an issue you are winning.
Look, if school children need to die so I can larp in my Meal-Team 6 outfit with my Gravy Seals friends, that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to force them to make!
I don’t know any liberals asking for anyone to give up their guns, but saying so sure makes you appear heroic!
