Necessitating Violence

[The balkens]

Considering that beureaucrats typically don't go around committing war crimes under orders, I don't know if that analogy is valid.


Where do you live, Saudi Arabia?

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

White eyes?

[Jolet]

Okay, cool. Violence is a tool to get messages out. Alright, let me pose to you this:

So, what about the guy who works in the bueraucracy of the executive? He's just doing his job, feeding his family, and his wife and kids. Next thing you know, he's in multiple pieces because someone who disagreed with the government's position on something or another decided to set off a truck bomb outside of his building. His wife just lost her husband, and those people just denied his kids the possibility of a childhood with their dad present. Multiply that instance by a few hundred, maybe. It's a significant civilian casualty count.

Nuremburg should be legal precedent that the bureaucrat's defense ("just doing the job") isn't adequate.

The group comes on later, claiming responsibility and spouting their rhetoric on the television. The newly widowed woman, trying desperately to put on a brave face in front of her kids, who she hasn't told yet about their dad, now sees that these people, and their ideology, as the thing what took away her husband.

Tell me, do you see this "tool" working terribly effectively? No matter what you do, if you use violence there will always, always always be collateral damage.

Are we having a conversation about the ethics of violence or the practicality of violence? Having both at the same time won't lead to any conclusions.

An uprising against the state will result in the death of innocent civilians just doing their job, which you defined above as inherently wrong in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Not rising against the state will result in the deaths of innocent civilians. Millions more.

More importantly, your hypothetical bureaucrat may or may not be innocent. You vaguely describe him as "just doing his job", but never specify what his job actually is.

The world is not as black and white as you seem to see it, my friend.

First, you accuse me of relativism, now you accuse me of absolutism.

Firstly.

Nuremburg should be legal precedent that the bureaucrat's defense ("just doing the job") isn't adequate.

What exactly was the Bureaucrat in question doing that was evil? Let's say he works for, I dunno, the IRS, or Fish and Wildlife or something that is hardly considered "evil", though the IRS certainly isn't ethical. That's a lawmaker issue, though I'm not diving down that rabbit hole. You seem to paint the entirety of the "state" as the same faceless entity, not even considering that it is in fact made up of individual people that maybe don't necessarily agree with their employer's stance or views, as the leadership changes every 2-4 years, but they still work there because it's a job. You have an issue with a state? It's probably because of whoever has been in charge for the last term or so of time. Trace your issues there.

Secondly.

Are we having a conversation about the ethics of violence or the practicality of violence? Having both at the same time won't lead to any conclusions.

You either need to clarify what you're asking, or not confuse the point, I'm not sure which. Either way, your answer to my assertion is insufficient.

Thirdly.

Not rising against the state will result in the deaths of innocent civilians. Millions more.

More importantly, your hypothetical bureaucrat may or may not be innocent. You vaguely describe him as "just doing his job", but never specify what his job actually is.

This was the rationale of Timothy McVeigh, a domestic terrorist who was one of the two masterminds of the Oklahoma City Bombing that killed 196 people, if memory serves. Civil servants, doing their jobs. Also, a nursery full of children about thirty feet away, but, as McVeigh reasoned, it was for the greater good, which seems to be your rationale as well. He thought of members of the state also as evil, which is what you apparently believe if your posts are any indication of that. Perhaps you should reexamine your views if they begin to fall in line with an infamous domestic terrorist.

Lastly.

First, you accuse me of relativism, now you accuse me of absolutism.

Absolutely. You were finding one evil to be lesser than another, and then you went on to say that the kiling of innocent civilians- who, by the way, in the case of the atomic bombs that I used were part of the Japanese war effort, and therefore by your definition not so "innocent"- as evil and never acceptable. You then you proceeded to paint everyone in the state as evil minions of an oppresive regime without nuance or gradation, consciously ignoring the fact that they, too, are civilians, and unlike the case of the atomic bombs weren't even actively involved in a war. They had even less reason to die than the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yet you're telling me that they somehow deserved to die simply because of their workplace. I accuse you of both because you have done both. And as it was two seperate instances concatenated with one another, both still stand.

I accuse you of relativism, hypocrisy, and absolutism, sir. And unless you can refute anything in that last paragraph, or further clarify in a way that actually makes sense and doesn't confuse the issue further, those charges will stand.

[Dinake]

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

White eyes?

Eyes belonging to a white person.

[The East Marches]

Considering that beureaucrats typically don't go around committing war crimes under orders, I don't know if that analogy is valid.


Where do you live, Saudi Arabia?

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

How very racist of you.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Considering that beureaucrats typically don't go around committing war crimes under orders, I don't know if that analogy is valid.


Where do you live, Saudi Arabia?

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

Well usually white eyes and a good straight line of sight are healthy. Unless you think bloodshot eyes and an incomplete line of sight are healthy.

In any case, it still takes racism to make an assumption

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

Well usually white eyes and a good straight line of sight are healthy. Unless you think bloodshot eyes and an incomplete line of sight are healthy.

In any case, it still takes racism to make an assumption

Accusing that statement of racism is like accusing an autism diagnosis as ableist.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Well usually white eyes and a good straight line of sight are healthy. Unless you think bloodshot eyes and an incomplete line of sight are healthy.

In any case, it still takes racism to make an assumption

Accusing that statement of racism is like accusing an autism diagnosis as ableist.

Don't throw around -ist things before making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

Except that saying the necessity of white eyes to be ignorant of state terrorism, one which I've never seen, even though I've lived in ghettos and the ilk, is racist.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Accusing that statement of racism is like accusing an autism diagnosis as ableist.

Don't throw around -ist things before making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

Except that saying the necessity of white eyes to be ignorant of state terrorism, one which I've never seen, even though I've lived in ghettos and the ilk, is racist.

Let me be more blunt — it takes excruciating privilege to think everyone is as privileged as you.

[The East Marches]

Don't throw around -ist things before making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

Except that saying the necessity of white eyes to be ignorant of state terrorism, one which I've never seen, even though I've lived in ghettos and the ilk, is racist.

Let me be more blunt — it takes excruciating privilege to think everyone is as privileged as you.

Oh boy, is there where we play who has less privilege game? Remember, the less "privilege" you have, the more weight your words are allowed to have.

Note: Offer not valid if you still disagree with the group line

[Jolet]

Let me be more blunt — it takes excruciating privilege to think everyone is as privileged as you.

Oh boy, is there where we play who has less privilege game? Remember, the less "privilege" you have, the more weight your words are allowed to have.

Note: Offer not valid if you still disagree with the group line

Sounds about right.

[The Emerald World]

Considering that beureaucrats typically don't go around committing war crimes under orders, I don't know if that analogy is valid.


Where do you live, Saudi Arabia?

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

First off, what I was saying is that the claim that "millions more will die if we don't turn to violence" doesn't hold water in the west. Sure, there is evidence of some prejudice in the American police force against blacks, I'm not going to deny that, but have you ever seen or heard of a police officer walking down the sidewalk and suddenly opening fire on every black person, woman, and LGBT person he sees? No, that'd be ridiculous.

Second, I am almost certain that no government in the west sponsors or advocates violence against blacks, women, LGBT people, or any minority. Prove me wrong, I dare you. Unless by "state violence", you mean war. Then your argument makes less sense.

And third, I'm not even white, but that's beside the point. Your statement is clearly stating that whites are ignorant and stupid, even though you've essentially said that discrimination is a major problem in the OP. Go throw your racist garbage somewhere else, you hypocrite.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

I'm not hungry, therefore world hunger does not exist.

[The Emerald World]

I'm not hungry, therefore world hunger does not exist.

What the hell are you going on about now? Do you think that I'm saying that since I'm not oppressed, nobody is? Just how ignorant do you think I am?

[The balkens]

I'm not hungry, therefore world hunger does not exist.

What the hell are you going on about now? Do you think that I'm saying that since I'm not oppressed, nobody is? Just how ignorant do you think I am?

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

slow down.

youre a white male.

[The Emerald World]

What the hell are you going on about now? Do you think that I'm saying that since I'm not oppressed, nobody is? Just how ignorant do you think I am?

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

slow down.

youre a white male.

Oh, man. I gotta check my privelege

Especially now that I'm apparently a trans-racial white guy

EDIT: This is my attempt at being facetious, Poe's law sucks

[The balkens]

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

slow down.

youre a white male.

Oh, man. I gotta check my privelege

Especially now that I'm apparently a trans-racial white guy

wut.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Don't throw around -ist things before making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

Except that saying the necessity of white eyes to be ignorant of state terrorism, one which I've never seen, even though I've lived in ghettos and the ilk, is racist.

Let me be more blunt — it takes excruciating privilege to think everyone is as privileged as you.

Don't do the privilege game please.

And if you're referring to me, I hope that my Latino heritage and my homosexuality make me a privileged man.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must go check my privilege before oppressing more people

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Let me be more blunt — it takes excruciating privilege to think everyone is as privileged as you.

Don't do the privilege game please.

And if you're referring to me, I hope that my Latino heritage and my homosexuality make me a privileged man.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must go check my privilege before oppressing more people

You're privileged enough to have the time to expend on a debate forum online. And no, criticizing your ethical appeal isn't a "privilege game." On the contrary, all you do in claiming that is reveal how insecure you are about your awareness that you're complicit in the suffering of others.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

You're privileged enough to have the time to expend on a debate forum online.

As are you but what are you doing about it other than complaining and debating on a forum online?

And no, criticizing your ethical appeal isn't a "privilege game."

Now you're reversing the whole argument as if I was criticizing my ethnicity, despite that I was specifically telling about how you've been rooting this on the necessity of "white eyes", or in essence, being white, which is not the case.

On the contrary, all you do in claiming that is reveal how insecure you are about your awareness that you're complicit in the suffering of others.

Stating the fact or claiming how you saying that the necessity of "white eyes" is in essence, racist? Or is this you're rhetoric at a fictional claim that I never made on criticizing your ethical appeal, which I will state again, never happened. That was actually a sarcastic comment to what you've said.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

You're privileged enough to have the time to expend on a debate forum online.

As are you but what are you doing about it other than complaining and debating on a forum online?

I never claimed a righteous cause. You're the only one who's done as much.

And no, criticizing your ethical appeal isn't a "privilege game."

Now you're reversing the whole argument as if I was criticizing my ethnicity, despite that I was specifically telling about how you've been rooting this on the necessity of "white eyes", or in essence, being white, which is not the case.

If I were attacking you specifically, which you feel like I am because you recognize your role in the problem, then this would be a valid criticism. Tragically for your argument I am critical of a society at large that permits oppression.

On the contrary, all you do in claiming that is reveal how insecure you are about your awareness that you're complicit in the suffering of others.

Stating the fact or claiming how you saying that the necessity of "white eyes" is in essence, racist? Or is this you're rhetoric at a fictional claim that I never made on criticizing your ethical appeal, which I will state again, never happened. That was actually a sarcastic comment to what you've said.

I noted that I'm criticizing your ethical appeal. But, you know, ding dong the author's dead.

[Costa Fierro]

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

Can you elaborate on "state violence"?

[Xadufell]

A great situation for this goes as follows: A white man asks a black man "Want to get some chicken?" To which the black man replies "Are you asking me because I'm black?" To which the white man replies "Are you asking me that because I'm white?"

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

As are you but what are you doing about it other than complaining and debating on a forum online?

I never claimed a righteous cause. You're the only one who's done as much.

You're privileged enough to have the time to expend on a debate forum online.

I've simply assumed what you're doing because of what you are doing as of now, which is typing on a forum debating with someone else online.

And no, criticizing your ethical appeal isn't a "privilege game."

If I were attacking you specifically, which you feel like I am because you recognize your role in the problem, then this would be a valid criticism. Tragically for your argument I am critical of a society at large that permits oppression.

You've been rooting this on the necessity of "white eyes", or in essence, being white, which is not the case. This hasn't changed.

I noted that I'm criticizing your ethical appeal. But, you know, ding dong the author's dead.

Still doesn't change that it was sarcasm in the first place

[The New Sea Territory]

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

First off, what I was saying is that the claim that "millions more will die if we don't turn to violence" doesn't hold water in the west.

The American government is the greatest terrorist organization in the world right now. It's violence affects millions, and its only a matter of time before we get tangled in another foreign conflict. The majority of the current situation in the Middle East, Central America and South America can be directly tied back to American foreign policy during the Cold War or the War on Terror, or the American War on Drugs.

These things have killed millions, and will continue to do so until stopped. The claim stands.

[The New Sea Territory]

It takes white eyes and a straight line of sight to think state violence doesn't happen in the West.

Can you elaborate on "state violence"?

It's kinda redundant. The state is violent, and that's all it will ever be.

But when Chomsky uses the term, he usually is referring to the terrorist actions of a state.