Necessitating Violence

[Aelex]

Nonviolence is one of the greatest delusions of the 20th century, alongside fascism, Leninism and Reaganomics. The movements it inspired are, at best, wasted potential. At worst, their leaders are "Uncle Toms".

I don't think insurrectionary action will be "grand". I never claimed it to be.

They won't ever happen, any way. If you honestly think people are gonna do something more than merely rioting anytime soon, you're simply fooling yourself m8.

[Prosocial]

I'm not the one with deillusions of grandeur. That was some tasty bait and I couldn't resist biting.

Nonviolence is one of the greatest delusions of the 20th century, alongside fascism, Leninism and Reaganomics. The movements it inspired are, at best, wasted potential. At worst, their leaders are "Uncle Toms".

I don't think insurrectionary action will be "grand". I never claimed it to be.

Pathetic.

[Serconas]

As someone pointed out before, an "Aryan" society is benefial to "Aryans".
Genetic diversity is evolutionary advantagous, because the inidividuals with genes that are responsible for the formation of body parts and functions benifit said indivudals in their specific environment in such a way that they survive. All others don´t.
In todays human society that means not as much as it did some million years ago. That´s because we´re not as dependent on environmental factors as our ancestors around that time. Back then humans had sticks and stones to defend against predators. Now humans have firearms, body protections and machinery.

But back to the topic.
If someone uses violence against you, you´re allowed to respond with appropriate violence. That´s called self defense.
But, as an example, killing people from the Westboro Baptist Church, just because they stand at ComicCon and demonstrate with their signs is hardly self defense.

It's comic con, if you oppose that then life isn't really worth living.

I´ll never go to one. It´s thousands of kilometers away from were I live, it costs as shit ton of money to get there, a ticket costs a shit ton of money, everything there costs a shit ton of money, you´re waiting all day to even get in hall... the whole thing is just paying money for waiting while standing in a line.
Money I could use to get more comics and time I could use to read more comics.

And way to dodge what I wrote.

[The Two Jerseys]

Still waiting for a source that says women, LGBT people, and blacks are being "slaughtered in the streets" on a daily basis...

[Al Rayah]

Ever hear of Martin Luther King Jr? He made major advancements in civil liberties using pacifism and nonviolence.

[The Romulan Republic]

What you are talking about, ultimately, is fighting a civil war. Because others (not just the bigots, but the government as a whole and law abiding citizens, even those who otherwise sympathize with you) will not simply tolerate such violence. You cannot imagine the horror that that would entail, with no certainty that you would win or that what came after would be any better than what came before.

And free speech exists because it protects everyone, not just bigots. Set the precedent that peoples' rights can be taken away for being offensive, and no one's rights are safe. That precedent can be turned against you if your opponents get in power. Free speech, by its nature, must go both ways.

Though their is one point that I tend to draw the line big time, which is shit like threats, incitement of violence, etc.

And on that note... how the fuck has this thread got to eight pages without being shut down for, essentially, advocating terrorism?

You only serve to delegitimize the cause of the progressive Left by adopting the tactics and rhetoric of the racist militia types you oppose. For shame.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What you are talking about, ultimately, is fighting a civil war. Because others (not just the bigots, but the government as a whole and law abiding citizens, even those who otherwise sympathize with you) will not simply tolerate such violence. You cannot imagine the horror that that would entail, with no certainty that you would win or that what came after would be any better than what came before.

And free speech exists because it protects everyone, not just bigots. Set the precedent that peoples' rights can be taken away for being offensive, and no one's rights are safe. That precedent can be turned against you if your opponents get in power. Free speech, by its nature, must go both ways.

Though their is one point that I tend to draw the line big time, which is shit like threats, incitement of violence, etc.

And on that note... how the fuck has this thread got to eight pages without being shut down for, essentially, advocating terrorism?

You only serve to delegitimize the cause of the progressive Left by adopting the tactics and rhetoric of the racist militia types you oppose. For shame.

/thread.

[Herskerstad]

Yup, I was feeling that summer heat.

[MERIZoC]

Ever hear of Martin Luther King Jr? He made major advancements in civil liberties using pacifism and nonviolence.

Martin Luther King was one man. The civil rights movement was made of many men and women, plenty of whom used violence and without whom the movement could not have survived.

[Ganonsyoni]

Ever hear of Martin Luther King Jr? He made major advancements in civil liberties using pacifism and nonviolence.

Martin Luther King was one man. The civil rights movement was made of many men and women, plenty of whom used violence and without whom the movement could not have survived.

White moderates love to forget about Malcolm X and the Black Panther's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement or, if they know, belittle it.

[Dinake]

The left launching a campaign against violence and intimidation against anyone right of center on social issues simply won't work.
For one, most of the left truly does not believe violence should be used to shut down speech. So it would be the far left on it's own here- and not only is the right bigger than the far left, it's a whole lot better armed. And, because of the philosophies behind the two institutions, the right will react, en masse, and with deadly force- and do so far, far more effectively than the left would. The right is generally more willing to set aside ideological quibbles and take orders from their sworn enemies than the left is- it's why the nationalists won in Spain, for example. What's more, they'll probably have the government on their side this time.
This might actually be a good idea, if only because it would spell the end of the far left and the marginalization of the left in general.

[The Romulan Republic]

The left launching a campaign against violence and intimidation against anyone right of center on social issues simply won't work.
For one, most of the left truly does not believe violence should be used to shut down speech. So it would be the far left on it's own here- and not only is the right bigger than the far left, it's a whole lot better armed. And, because of the philosophies behind the two institutions, the right will react, en masse, and with deadly force- and do so far, far more effectively than the left would. The right is generally more willing to set aside ideological quibbles and take orders from their sworn enemies than the left is- it's why the nationalists won in Spain, for example. What's more, they'll probably have the government on their side this time.
This might actually be a good idea, if only because it would spell the end of the far left and the marginalization of the left in general.

Then you're no better than they are.

[Kernen]

Martin Luther King was one man. The civil rights movement was made of many men and women, plenty of whom used violence and without whom the movement could not have survived.

White moderates love to forget about Malcolm X and the Black Panther's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement or, if they know, belittle it.

But were the contributions that helped sustain the movement inherently violent? Or were their contributions that helped the movement nonviolent, while their violent endeavors hampered it?


On the whole, I think a left-motivated use of violence wouldn't be a good idea, as the right-wing paramilitary organizations of ill repute, like the various skinhead groups, are much better armed on the whole. Violence from the left would be responded with swift violence from the right, which seems to have much less compunction to resort to violence than most. Ideally, paramilitary or violent organizations on either side would stick to impassioned rhetoric than violence. Progress is being made, for all that it isn't rapid. Violence isn't necessary.

[Valaran]

Nope.

[Al Rayah]

Ever hear of Martin Luther King Jr? He made major advancements in civil liberties using pacifism and nonviolence.

Martin Luther King was one man. The civil rights movement was made of many men and women, plenty of whom used violence and without whom the movement could not have survived.

Did I say that the civil rights movement is thanks to the efforts of one person? Martin Luther King Jr. advanced civil rights with peace.

[The Snazzylands]

10/10 thread. Every post I read here is carefully crafted, quality content written by mentally stable individuals who have mastered critical thinking and complex problem-solving, developing clever and in depth analyses of contemporary society and coming up with out-of-the-box ideas on how to solve the issues we face today.
I only wish we could have more threads like these to show everyone that NSG isn't just a bunch of tryhard edgy teenagers LARPing about instigating violence against people who disagree with their identity politics.

[Risottia]

You do realize that the far-right extremists have militias, neo nazi skinhead groups, the KKK, biker gangs, veterans, law enforcement, etc.

What do your 'intellectuals' have? Wikipedia sources and hot coffee from starbucks? Lmao

Not all veterans share the same views as you, nor all law enforcement, nor all biker gangs, I've seen more new Nazi skinhead groups being scared out of towns than refugees moving into said towns

The left wing also has militias, when was the last time the right wing side pulled off something like the revolution in Russia in 1917

1922 Italy, 1933 Germany, 1936 Spain, 1973 Chile...

[Valaran]

10/10 thread. Every post I read here is carefully crafted, quality content written by mentally stable individuals who have mastered critical thinking and complex problem-solving, developing clever and in depth analyses of contemporary society and coming up with out-of-the-box ideas on how to solve the issues we face today.

Don't know about you, but that sounds hard. I'm lazy.

Also, this is a pretty highbrow thread compared to what awaits us in summer.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis, I'm starting to think it's necessary the left take a no tolerance approach — by that, I mean by using violence.

I'm wondering where you are referring. Russia? Cause that's not how it is in the U.S. unless the chip on your shoulder affects vision.

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech?

The fact that you are posting a minority opinion (I don't hear about militant LGBT activists, but I could be wrong) says volumes about free speech. Do with that what you will.

What argument is there, beyond a religious and occult idea of being "endowed by our creator" with the right to perpetuate injustice?

There's the chip on your shoulder. You use "religious" as a negative term to global refer to something that is not (at least globally) religious. Take a look at Eastern religions or liberal Christianity/Judaism/Islam.

Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment

Who the hell are you talking about?

— of course they will object to that assertion, because they themselves have a vested interest in protecting themselves as well as criminals (if any overlap exists)

Where is your argument?

— so is the right to violent expression, by association, not cause for alarm?

Of course it is. Question is, where?

Or perhaps it is that they are calling for more than mere expression. While, if this expression had no indirect effects, it might be acceptable, it instead causes irreparable harm that we would combat with violence if it occurred directly. When a legislator passes an order, that is not mere expression.

Is it not right, then, to react to the causes and perpetrators of violence with violence? Is the historic bloc is to be replaced, is it not necessary to act on it as it has acted on us?

You are sounding a lot like an LGBT Lenin or a gay Pope calling a crusade.

You seem to be addressing a demographic that you think is quite bigger than it actually is. Most people who oppose homosexuality aren't in favor of rape, assault, violence, or the like. So I honestly don't know where you are coming from on this other than attack the Westboro Baptists or start a revolution in Russia.

What do you dare to think, NSG?

Summer has started.

[Imperium Britannicum]

Martin Luther King was one man. The civil rights movement was made of many men and women, plenty of whom used violence and without whom the movement could not have survived.

White moderates love to forget about Malcolm X and the Black Panther's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement or, if they know, belittle it.

Malcolm X and groups like the Black Panthers only served as reasons not to give Black people rights.

[MERIZoC]

Martin Luther King was one man. The civil rights movement was made of many men and women, plenty of whom used violence and without whom the movement could not have survived.

Did I say that the civil rights movement is thanks to the efforts of one person? Martin Luther King Jr. advanced civil rights with peace.

And others advanced it with self defense.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Ever hear of Martin Luther King Jr? He made major advancements in civil liberties using pacifism and nonviolence.

And he got a bullet to the head for his trouble.

[MERIZoC]

White moderates love to forget about Malcolm X and the Black Panther's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement or, if they know, belittle it.

Malcolm X and groups like the Black Panthers only served as reasons not to give Black people rights.

That says more about you than them lol

[Aelex]

And others advanced it with self defense.

Revolutionnary France's style self-defense.

[Valaran]

White moderates love to forget about Malcolm X and the Black Panther's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement or, if they know, belittle it.

Malcolm X and groups like the Black Panthers only served as reasons not to give Black people rights.

Not valid reasons though.