Necessitating Violence

[Galloism]

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.

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

[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.

Then you're no better than they are.

Meh, I don't think force is an inherent evil. I oppose the left wing plan because of the values they're trying to enforce, not because of the method of enforcing them.

[Herskerstad]

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.

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

That's nice Galloism, but in presenting a counter narrative and clearly abusing your free speech means now we have to introduce your kneecaps to a bat . . .

[Geilinor]

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.

King had the right approach on that, he used peaceful methods but he did not stop others from going their separate ways.

[Galloism]

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

That's nice Galloism, but in presenting a counter narrative and clearly abusing your free speech means now we have to introduce your kneecaps to a bat . . .

But but... they're facts. They're just facts.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

That's nice Galloism, but in presenting a counter narrative and clearly abusing your free speech means now we have to introduce your kneecaps to a bat . . .

But but... they're facts. They're just facts.

Facts are the minions of the religious patriarchy!

[Washington Resistance Army]

Now that's just silly.

[Ifreann]

Murdering millions of people because of their political opinions sounds like a pretty bad plan, OP.

[The Romulan Republic]

Then you're no better than they are.

Meh, I don't think force is an inherent evil. I oppose the left wing plan because of the values they're trying to enforce, not because of the method of enforcing them.

Translation= killing people who disagree with you is okay as long as I'm doing it.

Disgusting.

[Diopolis]

Meh, I don't think force is an inherent evil. I oppose the left wing plan because of the values they're trying to enforce, not because of the method of enforcing them.

Translation= killing people who disagree with you is okay as long as I'm doing it.

Disgusting.

No, forcibly suppressing opposing viewpoints is potentially ok, as long as it's within proportion(this is why I'm a much bigger fan of Franco than of Pinochet), and the opposing viewpoints are truly a threat.

[Costa Fierro]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis

And, pray tell, what country would this hyperbolic statement fit?

I'm starting to think it's necessary the left take a no tolerance approach — by that, I mean by using violence.

I'm all for self-defence when it's necessary but I get the subtle feeling you aren't talking about self defence but rather, preemptive violence targeting perceived "enemies".

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech?

Yes, when it isn't being abused by people to spread hate or to incite violence and when it isn't being limited by people who are professionally offended.

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

What "perpetual injustice" are you referring to? Are you seriously suggesting that society condone violence against people with whom you share different opinions with? Because that would be rather problematic and would be a backwards step with regards to civil rights and liberties.

Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment — 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) — so is the right to violent expression, by association, not cause for alarm?

Bigots are in the minority of people in most countries and, save for a few states in the union, have no real influence on public policy. Although I am more interested in what you consider to be "bigotry".

If anything, the cause for alarm is coming from your idea that people should be able to use violence to suppress people who have different opinions. If anything that is much, much more concerning than some random whackjob going on about rape or harassment. I, for one, don't want to be the target of such violence when I argue that men are subject to higher murder rates than women are.

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.

When a legislator passes legislation, then it becomes a problem and direct action should be taken against it, although said action should not be violent in nature. However, if someone says it as an opinion or as an expression, then what gives you the right to commit an act of violence against them?

Is it not right, then, to react to the causes and perpetrators of violence with violence?

You can fight fire with fire, sure. But that doesn't mean you won't get burned in the process, or lose control of your own fire.

Is the historic bloc is to be replaced, is it not necessary to act on it as it has acted on us?

Because perpetuating a cycle of violence only causes more problems than it solves. Is the statement "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" incorrect?

What do you dare to think, NSG?

I don't dare to think, because I know this exercise in psuedo-intellectualism for the advocation of the most inherently unintellectual acts against individuals is more indicative of your inability to engage in a civilised debate and your perverse ideas that suppressing opinions you disagree with is just and that this entire argument is morally unjustifiable.

[Arcipelago]

With that kind of logic where does your right not to get murdered come from. All morality is circular, however most is based on what is good for us individually and as a group.

[The Romulan Republic]

Translation= killing people who disagree with you is okay as long as I'm doing it.

Disgusting.

No, forcibly suppressing opposing viewpoints is potentially ok, as long as it's within proportion(this is why I'm a much bigger fan of Franco than of Pinochet), and the opposing viewpoints are truly a threat.

That you use Franco as an example tells me everything I need to know.

Of course literal fascists think violence against their opponents is okay. Those of us who believe in concepts like "liberty", "equality", "justice", and "accountability" disagree.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

No, forcibly suppressing opposing viewpoints is potentially ok, as long as it's within proportion(this is why I'm a much bigger fan of Franco than of Pinochet), and the opposing viewpoints are truly a threat.

That you use Franco as an example tells me everything I need to know.

Of course literal fascists think violence against their opponents is okay. Those of us who believe in concepts like "liberty", "equality", "justice", and "accountability" disagree.

Although that means we have fascists and authoritarians blowing smoke. How is that for irony?

[House Liuther]

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.

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech? What argument is there, beyond a religious and occult idea of being "endowed by our creator" with the right to perpetuate injustice? Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment — 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) — so is the right to violent expression, by association, not cause for alarm?

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?

What do you dare to think, NSG?

1. "Slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis."
Women and LGBT people are rarely attacked for just being a woman or LGBT. The prime killer of people of color are people of their own race or of another colored race.

"Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment"
2. NOBODY in the first world defends rape, murder, or harassment. What an ignorant thing to say. Not even the people who commit it defend their actions, they just don't care either way.

I'm going to guess that you frequent the New York Times, Young Turks and Huffington Post?

[Frenline Delpha]

Translation= killing people who disagree with you is okay as long as I'm doing it.

Disgusting.

No, forcibly suppressing opposing viewpoints is potentially ok, as long as it's within proportion(this is why I'm a much bigger fan of Franco than of Pinochet), and the opposing viewpoints are truly a threat.

All hail Hitler!

[Lady Scylla]

If the other guys are elk mated and change is forced, improvements of conditions will eventually arrive

How?

How is using violence going to end subtle discrimination in the workforce?

How is killing a klan member going to change the fact that cops are slightly more likely to resort to violence if the perp is Black?

How will mobs of LGBT people setting fires and overturning cars change public opinion about them in a positive way?

This strategy cannot help you. It's never helped anyone.

It's helped in select situations, but not without harm and suffering. Given the dynamics of revolution, it can go a few ways: Uprisings started by radicals never establish a stable state in the place of what they tore down, and eventually collapse. Often by imploding due to internalized disputes. Moderates usually take over, or there's a return to a shaky status quo thereafter, followed by a slow evolution into something better.

Moderate started revolutions can succeed, but the process is slow and creates a lot of public resentment, even within their own faction and they may succumb to the radical factions that have splintered off. The process repeats as above, however, and the radical state implodes later.

When either Moderate or Radical started uprisings fail, the original body will most likely strengthen and enact more oppressive policies and more harshly crackdown on separatists. This may fuel public exhaustion with the original body that could spawn a second wave of rebellion that might succeed, or the original body will slowly start to shift to appropriately respond to public grievances.

Radical movements aren't good for the long-term, and typically fail after seizing power. They're more popular because people want action right then. However, this enthusiasm quickly burns out. If the rebellion succeeds, you've a state worse off because of the damaged infrastructure and break-down in society and the public may turn on the radicals for being unable to fulfil their promises. Food-riots and other uprisings because of the destroyed infrastructure often invoke a harsh response by the new power and suddenly the previously oppressed become the oppressors.

Moderates aren't very popular during the initial flash-period because they're more likely to promote a transitional change from the old state to the new. This process is typically slow, and means change like people want won't come quickly. They're also more likely to try and counter-balance old state supporters and compromise to help keep this transition stable, often upsetting the public. If their support base is large enough, and Moderates act quick enough, they can keep radical groups from breaking off and attempting a take-over.

At the end of the day, however, radical revolts do more harm than good and notably because of the aftermath. Infrastructure has collapsed, public services are inoperable, basic utilities are unavailable and many are shell-shocked. Outside of the piles of dead, anything short of martial law by the 'new state' will result in aftershock revolts which either way generates more suffering than is necessary. The resulting post-revolutionary period is characterised by a broken society, insurgency and crackdowns, and shortages. Normalcy won't return for 15-20 years thereafter if not longer.

[MERIZoC]

And others advanced it with self defense.

Revolutionnary France's style self-defense.

I must have missed the thousands of executions carried out by the black panthers? Do you even know that what shit comes out of your mouth?

[House Liuther]

And others advanced it with self defense.

Revolutionary France's style self-defense.

You do realize that Revolutionary France was belligerent, and not self-defensive? They promised to overthrow monarchies and replace them with democracies. The only reason why other monarchies wanted to start a war with Revolutionary France was because of fear of future wars and threats to their security.

I don't see how that relates to the civil rights movement.

[Goldwater Coast]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis,

There are pogroms going on and I didn't know about it? Has the race war already started? I'm so out of the loop!

But seriously, provide examples of how these groups of people are "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.

On who exactly? Or is advocating violence upon specific groups of people against site rules, so you're just gonna keep it vague?

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech?

This is kind of a non sequitur. Also, odd question. Are you asking if it's a bad thing or just amoral?

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

I feel like this is another non sequitur... What does any of this have to do with necessitating violence?

Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment — 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) — so is the right to violent expression, by association, not cause for alarm?

I don't think there is a "right to violent expression." Could you clarify what you mean here?

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.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to shut them down violently. How far is this reaction violence gonna go? To a few specific people or everyone who isn't a leftist who agrees with you?

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?

If you were taking about self defense then I agree. But against people who aren't directly doing anything? No. You fight ignorance with logic, not violence.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Wonderful fucking idea. Yeah guys, lets use violence, because its totally worked in the past. Totally. Like that MLK guy? Excellent general.

Oh wait, no, wrong. Violence just makes everything worse. The most successful anti-oppression movements have been nonviolent. So, no, its not time for violence.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Unless someone is specifically advocating for violence against a specific group, or is willfully and maliciously slandering an individual, they have every right to say whatever they want regarding any subject, no matter how offensive or distasteful it may be, and to do so without being met with violence. That is the cornerstone of a free and fair society, and if you attack that then everything else will come down with it. Remember that, at least here in the developed world, the bigots and racists and the like are on the losing side of history. Why give them fuel to burn now, when we're winning?

[New Edom]

The problem here is that there is a point of view among some progressives that Western Civilization is inherently evil and oppressive towards others, so that there is essentially nothing good about it. Where someone like myself sees progress, they just see avoidance of 'real' problems. All efforts towards equality are presented as a form of veiled tyranny. All efforts towards improving the economy to help ordinary people are seen as corrupt; all efforts towards fairnes and justice are seen as stacking the odds. So the point of view of the OP makes sense--if you see things that way. And so of course there is no common ground. It is a natural progress of thought, to think that violence is necesary because what is faced is so evil. I don' think information will sway this point of view, because it is all too easy for a zealot to see anything that contradicts their ideas as lies perpetuated by evil tyrants.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

That's nice Galloism, but in presenting a counter narrative and clearly abusing your free speech means now we have to introduce your kneecaps to a bat . . .

A bat? Gallo has a lightsaber!

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

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.

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

The majority of felons are also men. Are men now dirty criminals?

When determining whether a group is "at risk" for violence, you can't just look at the murder rate. You have to look at the motives, and then shave off any crime against that group where the motive wasn't hate.