Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

12

GrimWillow wrote (edited )

I'm ok with Raddle allowing/inciting/encouraging violence if it's used as a tool to defend or free the oppressed.

Who's afraid of Anarchist violence? Anarchists are strictly opposed to, and contend with, oppression from the fascists/monarchists/capitalists/state-socialists, so they'll use violence if necessary to do so until the victims are free and safe. If someone is attacking any non-oppressive group, I wouldn't call them Anarchists, even if they call themselves that. And they should be called out by Anarchists everywhere as another oppressor.

So really, there's nothing wrong with violence for liberation. Not even the capitalists/fascists/monarchists/state-socialists disagree with that; they just define "violence for liberation" in a way that justifies the dominion of their flavor of totalitarianism. The only group that doesn't are the Anarchists because the violence would be wielded by a horizontally organized group, rather than a vertical one.

6

selver wrote

Wasn't that a big factor in this site being created in the first place? Reddit admins banning people & subs for that?

4

Cheeks wrote

Well that depends on how you're defining violence. Should this be posted in f/shit_liberals_say? If so, read some Peter Gelderloos and get back to me. If not, please elaborate.

4

Copenhagen_Bram wrote

You know what, lemme change the title to "What are your opinions on Raddle allowing inciting/encouraging violence, and what kind of violence do you discuss?"

6

ziq wrote

What is your opinion on coddling fascists that want to kill people?

-4

Copenhagen_Bram wrote

Well, what can we do about Kim Jong Un? Could we just bomb Pyongyang?

5

Cheeks wrote

If by 'we' you mean the arbitrarily defined borders and cultural stereotyping that makes a 'nation' then you should take a hard look at your politics, if not, then i could possibly see bombing as an effective direct action tactic.

4

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Define we?

The world voted in a poll that the US is the greatest threat to world peace.

So in your theory we should support regime change in the US

http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

Why should I, as a non american, care about NK that has 0 military bases outside of its country and has never invaded or fought with anyone beside its neighbor vs the US that has 900 military bases around the world and spent 234 years of its 241 years of existence at war with one nation or another?

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I still have mixed feelings regarding violence. I do believe that it is a tool that should only be used when all others have been exhausted, but I do feel a need to point out that even Gandhi said that if you're ever in a situation where your choices are either violence or cowardice, choose violence. Both are sins, but cowardice is the far worse one.

I have about the same view. I will try every measure first, but often in life, it comes down to the least bad solution to a bad problem. Absolute morality (X is always wrong), falls apart pretty quickly.

Though I often thing when it comes to violence, the trap the Left most often falls into, is we keep assuming the strength of our unity, the rightness of our beliefs, will win over the Powers that be and they will be inspired to follow us. If we're nice enough and present our facts in the right manner, by golly, they'll admit we were right and decide to leave us alone.

The trouble with that is the underlying assumption is that those in power are merely misinformed, that if they knew better, they would behave differently. It never occurs to the proponents of this idea that those in power already know all this stuff, but do not care.

Also, when it comes to any form of resistance, always remember that the State has an endless amount of resources to throw at you. It cannot and will not relent. Another problem with leftist groups: too often, no one knows anything about strategy. However satisfying it is to smash windows or launch open attacks, those are the kind of tactics that produce little by way of results and are quickly routed. In a situation like that, really the only option available is asymmetric or guerilla warfare, or to put it another way, play smarter, not harder.

It will be a long, drawn-out fight and probably, we'd have to always fight in defense of the revolution, because again, it's very unlikely that those in power will recognize the rightness of our positions and back down.

3

Cheeks wrote

All of these comments and not one mention of the state simply and primarily being an institution with a monopoly on violence.

Fuck anyone's BS privileged stance on non-violence.

3

marx wrote

It's not violence if you're punching up. It's self-defense. There is no such thing as a peaceful hierarchy. Every hierarchy has violence behind it, even if that violence was over before you were born.

2

mofongo wrote

What is the revolution if not an act of violence against the current system? No matter how it's framed, it ultimately leads to takeover of factories, Banks, buildings and the over throw of the bourgeoisie.

So, yeah, I don't think we should coward ourselves into non violence when the abolishment of capitalism cannot be performed without violence.

1

Mance wrote

There are situations where I would use violence, but they are extremely rare. If I saw a woman getting raped, I would use violence to end the rape. If someone was abusing children, I would use violence to stop the abuse. ((but)) I would not use violence to stop a speech by someone I disagreed with, no matter how vile their speech. ((because)) I believe that it does no good to defeat fascists, only to replace them with your own fascist behaviour,

1

amongstclouds wrote

Violence never brings anything good to this world. Self-defense is beautiful though.

9

161 wrote

Violence never brings anything good to this world

absolutely not true

4

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Then please explain why. There is a marketable difference between violence and self-defense in my mind. One is based on coercion and the other is based on self-preservation, as well as voluntary action.

We don't choose violence to be inflicted upon us, but we can choose to counter violence against ourselves or those we care deeply about. This means using violence to counter violence -- but it's like a drug. History shows countless times that once the violence begins... it's tough to break the cycle.

Violence should never be glorified, no matter how 'justified' the violence might be, or else we become the oppressor, constantly clawing for more power to protect ourselves from the seeds of hate we planted through the injury of others.

These kinds of actions need to be full of conscious awareness. When using violence as a form of self-defense, one must constantly understand their actions, why they're committing them, and also be willing to handle the repercussions of their actions. We cannot escape the web of cause and effect.

4

161 wrote

A survivor who returns to her childhood home to kill her rapist father? That's not self defence, but that's perfectly legit. Heroic, even.

3

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I would still consider that to be self-defense, so yes.

The wounds that father inflicted didn't just go away the moment the act stopped. The pain she feels is real, no matter how long it has been, and retaliation is important.

It's a really complicated subject. I'm not a pacifist, but I am instead anti-violence. This doesn't mean I seek to stop all violence because that is impossible, but I think violence needs to be seen through a hypercritical lens. We should always know what we are doing and why.

2

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Violence hurts even those who commit violence. I was once going to school for psychology, with emphasis on understanding PTSD. Violence isn't just toxic because it hurts others, but it hurts all parties involved.

Even that woman could come to suffer from trauma after murdering her father, and then she is left with the pain of her abuse and the guilt of the actions she committed in response to her pain. Emotional responses are weird and unpredictable.

0

BloodyWallet wrote

Violent self-defense is violence. Not sure why you are insisting it isn't.

0

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I don't recall where I said that violent self-dense isn't violence. Did you even care to read or are you just reacting to a slightly more nuanced opinion?

-3

mikesum32 wrote

I think I'm in the minority, but I'm somewhat of a radical supporter of free speech. I do not believe in instigating violence against someone else who is using free speech against you. I think any physical attack from the right or left just hurts innocent people or push people away from your cause. I'm thinking of philosophy and ethics professor Eric Clanton hitting Sean Stiles with a bike lock without provocation, seemingly at random. I am, however, in full support of self-defense from physical attack.

-2

mikesum32 wrote

As for me personally, I was at what was supposed to be an anti Chick-fil-a, pro LGBT rally, but it had morphed into a Chick-fil-a appreciation day. I think the republicans organized it to counter the left wing protest. Unfortunately there were very few people that were there against Chick-fil-a, and a lot of angry supporters. I was called all kinds of names like faggot and thought a bigot or two was going to try and fight me, but nothing came of it.

One of the people in line at Chick-fil-a said her car was hit by sign, which was a complete fabrication, The police showed up and they told the two young women there not to kiss and not to shout about equal rights. I guess they were okay with all of us getting called faggots.

I didn't eat there until after my backwards state had marriage equality.

4

161 wrote

that counter-protest was organised by people talking in a hall somewhere. would you really have a problem with me and a few of my chumrades smashing the hall windows to disrupt the organising? we could've saved you a lot of trouble

0

mikesum32 wrote

Mike Huckabee popularized the idea for the appreciation day, and I don't think most of the customers there were even aware or at least didn't care about the anti-LGBT issues I bet they thought the gays showed to piss on their wholesome restaurant and Jeebus. The fact that my state is mostly Republican doesn't help much either. Right-winger are generally authoritarian and fall in lock-step with each other.

4

161 wrote

you do know Dem states are also right-wing and authoritarian, right? just checking