I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across.
I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
In that case, I suppose you also oppose the Civil Rights Movement, considering it too was often violent and had a significant amount of property damage.
But their methods were a result of their material conditions, and resulted in the liberation of Black Americans from segregation. Do you not equally take fault with the white moderates who opposed ending segregation and used disapproval of their methods as rhetoric?
Unfortunately, when protests get extreme, there is inevitably some level of violence, whether that be to people or property. It is the responsibility of the state to prevent it from getting this bad. People don’t just think “hmm, today I will do some violence,” violence erupts as a consequence.
Not what I said. If protests last long enough and are founded on unsustainable material conditions, the State has failed and protests will become Riots. “Riots are the voice of the unheard,” after all.
If you think peacefully asking people to stop being pieces of shit works, then you learned a completely whitewashed version of the Civil Rights Movement. MLK led marches and tried to maintain peace, but alongside the militant Black Panthers there was genuine revolutionary pressure that forced the state to act.
I shank them with a rusty scrap of metal to the neck
One of these is obviously worse. Yes, both are violence. Yet to simply try and paint them as such would show you’re either not arguing in good faith, or, as respectfully as possible, your brain hasn’t fully developed.
But let’s mix it up. I slap someone. But I, a man that’s 6’2" and does physical labor, slapped an infant for crying. Seems a little worse than it did at first, huh?
I am being attacked by a random person who is trying to murder me, and in a panic, I grab something, and attack him with it. Turns out it was a rusty piece of metal. Now we have hints of self defense.
Once again, still violence, but both were to different degrees, and the context changed both of them.
One is an attempt to overthrow democracy and install a fascist theocratic dictatorship.
The other is protesting directly against that. While you may not agree with their methods, which is frankly childish and placing the responsibility for our social climate in the laps of the oppressed, you cannot in good faith smile smugly and say “same”.
I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across. I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
In that case, I suppose you also oppose the Civil Rights Movement, considering it too was often violent and had a significant amount of property damage.
I would oppose their methods, not the movement (ideology, cause call it what you want)
But their methods were a result of their material conditions, and resulted in the liberation of Black Americans from segregation. Do you not equally take fault with the white moderates who opposed ending segregation and used disapproval of their methods as rhetoric?
Unfortunately, when protests get extreme, there is inevitably some level of violence, whether that be to people or property. It is the responsibility of the state to prevent it from getting this bad. People don’t just think “hmm, today I will do some violence,” violence erupts as a consequence.
violence is inevitable, oh joy
Not what I said. If protests last long enough and are founded on unsustainable material conditions, the State has failed and protests will become Riots. “Riots are the voice of the unheard,” after all.
If you think peacefully asking people to stop being pieces of shit works, then you learned a completely whitewashed version of the Civil Rights Movement. MLK led marches and tried to maintain peace, but alongside the militant Black Panthers there was genuine revolutionary pressure that forced the state to act.
Even that’s a terrible view, politics aside.
I slap someone.
I shank them with a rusty scrap of metal to the neck
One of these is obviously worse. Yes, both are violence. Yet to simply try and paint them as such would show you’re either not arguing in good faith, or, as respectfully as possible, your brain hasn’t fully developed.
But let’s mix it up. I slap someone. But I, a man that’s 6’2" and does physical labor, slapped an infant for crying. Seems a little worse than it did at first, huh?
I am being attacked by a random person who is trying to murder me, and in a panic, I grab something, and attack him with it. Turns out it was a rusty piece of metal. Now we have hints of self defense.
Once again, still violence, but both were to different degrees, and the context changed both of them.
Why can’t the oppressed peacefully get their rights from their oppressors?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
so, you condemn the boston tea party, right?
what’s your favorite successful social movement from history that didn’t use any vandalism to get a message across?
I do. Oh violence worked in the past ( and we all know how good the past was) sol let’s do it now too, in the 21st century.
Cooperate wants you to find the difference:
One is an attempt to overthrow democracy and install a fascist theocratic dictatorship. The other is protesting directly against that. While you may not agree with their methods, which is frankly childish and placing the responsibility for our social climate in the laps of the oppressed, you cannot in good faith smile smugly and say “same”.