Necessitating Violence

[Kubra]

ain't gonna be no barricades bruv, they were outdated halfway before they stopped being used
At some point, soldiers learned to go around barricades, rather than arranging themselves in line formation in front of them, but folks didn't learn to just stop making em for a fuck long time
The only real innovation was the use of sandbags and stacked paving stones, the only materials that might hinder the path of a spitzer bullet in a meaningful fashion.

But... but... a las barricadas...

The fact that they were semi-useful in Barcelona is only a testament to the total disorganization of the factions fighting as part of the republicans. Move in one big gun, role it down the street, hilarity ensues.
Keep that in mind next time someone accuses the anarchists of being the big disorganized bunch in the conflict, the republicans weren't able to move in one measly artillery piece to put em down, that's even worse disorganization.

[United Furry Alliance]

It depends if the oppression is legit and you can't talk your way out of it.
You'll need numbers,equipment,sympathizers, etc the main point is do you have enough hard or soft power to overcome the opposition with out it being a Pyrrhic victory.
It depends on each situation but a good balance would be violence as a last resort.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

It depends if the oppression is legit and you can't talk your way out of it.
You'll need numbers,equipment,sympathizers, etc the main point is do you have enough hard or soft power to overcome the opposition with out it being a Pyrrhic victory.
It depends on each situation but a good balance would be violence as a last resort.

Numbers? It takes one to build a bomb. City Council doesn't stand a chance.

[Rhyfelnydd]

It depends if the oppression is legit and you can't talk your way out of it.
You'll need numbers,equipment,sympathizers, etc the main point is do you have enough hard or soft power to overcome the opposition with out it being a Pyrrhic victory.
It depends on each situation but a good balance would be violence as a last resort.

Numbers? It takes one to build a bomb. City Council doesn't stand a chance.

Because bombing city hall really helps your goal. Not like using these methods will turn the vast majority against you, including those who normally would support you or anything, and in fact will only be a detriment politically.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Numbers? It takes one to build a bomb. City Council doesn't stand a chance.

Because bombing city hall really helps your goal. Not like using these methods will turn the vast majority against you, including those who normally would support you or anything, and in fact will only be a detriment politically.

Maybe in the short term. But if you keep bombing City Hall, they'll eventually come to terms with the fact that they're doing something wrong. That's not to say everyone should be bombed into submission, but that it is a viable option.

[Rhyfelnydd]

Because bombing city hall really helps your goal. Not like using these methods will turn the vast majority against you, including those who normally would support you or anything, and in fact will only be a detriment politically.

Maybe in the short term. But if you keep bombing City Hall, they'll eventually come to terms with the fact that they're doing something wrong. That's not to say everyone should be bombed into submission, but that it is a viable option.

Or youll just keep creating more resentment each time fom everybody until you are villified by all other political factions and left to be on your own, which is the most practical and likely scenario, thus commiting political suicide. Even if the faction you are targeting is in the wrong, your methods of lethality, inevitably claiming the lives of people not remotely connected to the faction, will more than likely drive them away from your cause and into the arms of your target over you.

[Kubra]

aight if the cops ask I was never in this thead cuz this is going bad places
cmon guys pretty sure saying "we could always bomb city hall" breaks a forum rule or two

[Nasjonal Regjering Norge]

makes might.

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Only a gun with protection.

aight if the cops ask I was never in this thead cuz this is going bad places
cmon guys pretty sure saying "we could always bomb city hall" breaks a forum rule or two

It was bad the whole time, good thing you dumb teenagers don't know what vpns are dumb wannabe terrorists

[Kubra]

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Only a gun with protection.

aight if the cops ask I was never in this thead cuz this is going bad places
cmon guys pretty sure saying "we could always bomb city hall" breaks a forum rule or two

It was bad the whole time, good thing you dumb teenagers don't know what vpns are dumb wannabe terrorists

come at me bro 7 proxies
you find me i'll just stop stealing my neighbours wifi
I uh, probably should anyways

[Rhyfelnydd]

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Only a gun with protection.

aight if the cops ask I was never in this thead cuz this is going bad places
cmon guys pretty sure saying "we could always bomb city hall" breaks a forum rule or two

It was bad the whole time, good thing you dumb teenagers don't know what vpns are dumb wannabe terrorists

At this point im just assuming there is something lost in translation.

Yay personal attacks in addition to nonsense! Good show! Of course OPs stance is ludicrous but im sure you have no problem with right wing groups advocating the exact same thing.

[Meryuma]

I believe in responding proportionately, I guess. Violence is a fair response to violent hate groups and the like, if that's what's necessary to stop their activities. Violent and destructive tactics definitely shouldn't be fetishized but I'm not an absolute pacifist either.

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

Remember that whole Stonewall thing? It was a pretty big deal. Like, literally I've seen people talk about "pre-Stonewall" and "post-Stonewall" queer history.

[Nasjonal Regjering Norge]

Only a gun with protection.


It was bad the whole time, good thing you dumb teenagers don't know what vpns are dumb wannabe terrorists

come at me bro 7 proxies
you find me i'll just stop stealing my neighbours wifi
I uh, probably should anyways

Only a gun with protection.


It was bad the whole time, good thing you dumb teenagers don't know what vpns are dumb wannabe terrorists

At this point im just assuming there is something lost in translation.

Yay personal attacks in addition to nonsense! Good show! Of course OPs stance is ludicrous but im sure you have no problem with right wing groups advocating the exact same thing.

1. No personal attacks 2. No nonsense 3. I don't advocate something I don't understand - what was he talking bout? armed transexual revolution? eat the rich? I don't know. Sometimes you have to look at it from the perspective of the anointed.

[Rhyfelnydd]

come at me bro 7 proxies
you find me i'll just stop stealing my neighbours wifi
I uh, probably should anyways

At this point im just assuming there is something lost in translation.

Yay personal attacks in addition to nonsense! Good show! Of course OPs stance is ludicrous but im sure you have no problem with right wing groups advocating the exact same thing.

1. No personal attacks 2. No nonsense 3. I don't advocate something I don't understand - what was he talking bout? armed transexual revolution? eat the rich? I don't know. Sometimes you have to look at it from the perspective of the anointed.

1) pretty sure attacking the people themselves, i.e calling them "dumb" or "dumb terrorists", rather than attacking their stance and argument is the very definition of a personal attack. 2) nothing but nonsense actually, what with your armored bullets nonsense. 3) perhaps you should actually read the thread then, I surely do not know.

[Nasjonal Regjering Norge]

1. No personal attacks 2. No nonsense 3. I don't advocate something I don't understand - what was he talking bout? armed transexual revolution? eat the rich? I don't know. Sometimes you have to look at it from the perspective of the anointed.

1) pretty sure attacking the people themselves, i.e calling them "dumb" or "dumb terrorists", rather than attacking their stance and argument is the very definition of a personal attack. 2) nothing but nonsense actually, what with your armored bullets nonsense. 3) perhaps you should actually read the thread then, I surely do not know.

I'm offended.

[Minzerland]

Because bombing city hall really helps your goal. Not like using these methods will turn the vast majority against you, including those who normally would support you or anything, and in fact will only be a detriment politically.

Maybe in the short term. But if you keep bombing City Hall, they'll eventually come to terms with the fact that they're doing something wrong. That's not to say everyone should be bombed into submission, but that it is a viable option.

You're ready to intimidate someone of an opposing view and force them to bend to your will?

I don't think many people in the West think they're wrong just because they're being bombed by Muslims.

[Indira]

What do I think? I think it's probably one of the more stupid ideas to combat discrimination that I've ever heard. By all means STOP someone commiting violence, but...I see WAY too much potential for this to be misused to destroy the very fabric of modern civilisation.

[Rhyfelnydd]

1) pretty sure attacking the people themselves, i.e calling them "dumb" or "dumb terrorists", rather than attacking their stance and argument is the very definition of a personal attack. 2) nothing but nonsense actually, what with your armored bullets nonsense. 3) perhaps you should actually read the thread then, I surely do not know.

I'm offended.

What a crying shame.

[Nasjonal Regjering Norge]

I'm offended.

What a crying shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn3uVY6p1OM

[Thama]

Free Speech is your right to not be arrested for saying something. It is not and never was a right for people to attack, slander, or verbally abuse others - indeed verbal abuse is outright illegal in most of the western nations.

The problem is not the law, because the laws generally already protect everyone. Violence is not necessary. The law is simply not being upkept because the people in charge do not give a shit.
The solution is replacing the people in charge with sensible modern folk.

[The Grey Wolf]

armed transexual revolution? eat the rich? I don't know..

With the rise of the Faggot Party, Rainbowshirts march down the streets. Chief Faggot Grigio Lupollini was quoted saying "We will not stop until we've penetrated the enemy's rear and achieved national climax." she was later quoted saying "It may rather be expected that this will be a century of faggotry... a century of fabulousness."

[Nasjonal Regjering Norge]

armed transexual revolution? eat the rich? I don't know..

With the rise of the Faggot Party, Rainbowshirts march down the streets. Chief Faggot Grigio Lupollini was quoted saying "We will not stop until we've penetrated the enemy's rear and achieved national climax." she was later quoted saying "It may rather be expected that this will be a century of faggotry... a century of fabulousness."

[Rhyfelnydd]

What a crying shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn3uVY6p1OM

Cute.

[The New Sea Territory]

Numbers? It takes one to build a bomb. City Council doesn't stand a chance.

Because bombing city hall really helps your goal. Not like using these methods will turn the vast majority against you, including those who normally would support you or anything, and in fact will only be a detriment politically.

This ignores the other needs for violence. Violence is not necessarily about winning over support.

It could be about self-defense or intimidating the oppressors into making concessions.

[The New Sea Territory]

Free Speech is your right to not be arrested for saying something. It is not and never was a right for people to attack, slander, or verbally abuse others - indeed verbal abuse is outright illegal in most of the western nations.

You flipped it.

Free speech is your right not to be arrested for saying something, yes. It is not and never was a protection from other people. Those are completely different laws.

The problem is not the law, because the laws generally already protect everyone. Violence is not necessary. The law is simply not being upkept because the people in charge do not give a shit.
The solution is replacing the people in charge with sensible modern folk.

We've been replacing people for decades, and social advancement is moving at a snail's pace. Meanwhile, unarmed black youth are being killed by police and heterosexists harass LGBT+ on a daily basis.

[The New Sea Territory]

I believe in responding proportionately, I guess. Violence is a fair response to violent hate groups and the like, if that's what's necessary to stop their activities. Violent and destructive tactics definitely shouldn't be fetishized but I'm not an absolute pacifist either.

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

Remember that whole Stonewall thing? It was a pretty big deal. Like, literally I've seen people talk about "pre-Stonewall" and "post-Stonewall" queer history.

Shh! You're questioning his liberal, nonviolent whitewashing of egalitarian movements!