Necessitating Violence

[Geilinor]

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.



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!

That didn't change public opinion, it was only in the past 20 years that things really changed.

[The New Sea Territory]

I want people to have a fighting chance. I'd rather it be a two-sided war than a one-sided orgy of murder and oppression.

Genuinely one of the most pitiful strawmen I've ever seen.

What good will come from it, honestly? In a dystopia, sure maybe it's good. In the west, the only thing it does is get people killed.

What good will come from it? I can't say exactly.

All I know is that no good is coming from being passive right now.

[Zoice]

What good will come from it, honestly? In a dystopia, sure maybe it's good. In the west, the only thing it does is get people killed.

What good will come from it? I can't say exactly.

All I know is that no good is coming from being passive right now.

If a cop (in the US or another western country) aims a gun at you, the literally best thing you can do is be passive. Anything else will get you or someone else injured or killed. Sometimes you'll get killed anyway, but I doubt that it would be any better if you resisted.

[The New Sea Territory]

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

That didn't change public opinion, it was only in the past 20 years that things really changed.

This again...Liberals only seem to care about public opinion. We're not a marketing department.

Define "really" changed, because legal equality means nothing when LGBT+ people are still the target of hate crimes.

[The New Sea Territory]

What good will come from it? I can't say exactly.

All I know is that no good is coming from being passive right now.

If a cop (in the US or another western country) aims a gun at you, the literally best thing you can do is be passive. Anything else will get you or someone else injured or killed. Sometimes you'll get killed anyway, but I doubt that it would be any better if you resisted.

Passive people are still shot by police. There is no "best" thing to do when around police.

The response is to arm communities, not individuals. One guy with a gun against the police means nothing. An armed, politically conscious community will make cops think twice about shooting an unarmed black youth.

[Zoice]

If a cop (in the US or another western country) aims a gun at you, the literally best thing you can do is be passive. Anything else will get you or someone else injured or killed. Sometimes you'll get killed anyway, but I doubt that it would be any better if you resisted.

Passive people are still shot by police. There is no "best" thing to do when around police.

The response is to arm communities, not individuals. One guy with a gun against the police means nothing. An armed, politically conscious community will make cops think twice about shooting an unarmed black youth.

So you're encouraging more Waco's?

[The New Sea Territory]

Passive people are still shot by police. There is no "best" thing to do when around police.

The response is to arm communities, not individuals. One guy with a gun against the police means nothing. An armed, politically conscious community will make cops think twice about shooting an unarmed black youth.

So you're encouraging more Waco's?

How loaded.

No, I'm not encouraging more cults. I'm encouraging more things like the Huey P. Newton Gun Club.

[Zoice]

So you're encouraging more Waco's?

How loaded.

No, I'm not encouraging more cults. I'm encouraging more things like the Huey P. Newton Gun Club.

That's a bad idea. Bringing guns into the situation immediately escalates it to a life-or-death scenario. You shouldn't be doing that if you don't have to, ie. if you aren't in immediate danger.

[Costa Fierro]

What good will come from it? I can't say exactly.

You know exactly what will come of it.

Passive people are still shot by police. There is no "best" thing to do when around police.

Maybe where you live. Where I live, the police do not routinely carry firearms.

The response is to arm communities, not individuals.

And thus create even more tension between communities and the government, both state and federal. I've already explained to you, causing an arms race between civilians and the state will not end the cycle of violence.

One guy with a gun against the police means nothing. An armed, politically conscious community will make cops think twice about shooting an unarmed black youth.

An armed, politically conscious community will be branded as a terrorist organization. The United States already has enough domestic terrorists to fill the cells of Guantanamo Bay.

The whole reason this shit happens is because the United States lets deranged, trigger happy lunatics become cops because they couldn't go and shoot Arabs in the army.

[Costa Fierro]

So you're encouraging more Waco's?

I'd go so far as to say more political organizations that would end up being classified as "terrorist groups". Which means more direct state action and much more stricter laws and violations of personal freedom.

[Kubra]

How loaded.

No, I'm not encouraging more cults. I'm encouraging more things like the Huey P. Newton Gun Club.

That's a bad idea. Bringing guns into the situation immediately escalates it to a life-or-death scenario. You shouldn't be doing that if you don't have to, ie. if you aren't in immediate danger.

Not really
The panthers were really into strutting around with their gunz, but it was more peacocking than, y'know, what you imagine it to be. Not that that's a problem, there's something to be said for demonstrating ones arms, it's got a real sergio leone feel to it.

[The New Sea Territory]

What good will come from it? I can't say exactly.

You know exactly what will come of it.

Violence? Yes, but that's not specific. I was referring to specifically what would happen...which I don't know.

Passive people are still shot by police. There is no "best" thing to do when around police.

Maybe where you live. Where I live, the police do not routinely carry firearms.

Perhaps they don't shoot passive people, but the US isn't disarming cops anytime soon, so that's an unreasonable way to respond to police violence. It doesn't deal with the immediate event.

The response is to arm communities, not individuals.

And thus create even more tension between communities and the government, both state and federal. I've already explained to you, causing an arms race between civilians and the state will not end the cycle of violence.

The Cycle of Violence™ has been ongoing since the dawn of mankind. Gandhi worship and holding the "moral high ground" won't be breaking it anytime soon.

An armed, politically conscious community will be branded as a terrorist organization.

Unless they are the NRA.

The United States already has enough domestic terrorists to fill the cells of Guantanamo Bay.

The whole reason this shit happens is because the United States lets deranged, trigger happy lunatics become cops because they couldn't go and shoot Arabs in the army.

Yeah, that and the Drug War.

[The New Sea Territory]

How loaded.

No, I'm not encouraging more cults. I'm encouraging more things like the Huey P. Newton Gun Club.

That's a bad idea. Bringing guns into the situation immediately escalates it to a life-or-death scenario. You shouldn't be doing that if you don't have to, ie. if you aren't in immediate danger.

So long as a police officer (an armed agent of the state) is nearby, people are in immediate danger.

[United Marxist Nations]

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

That didn't change public opinion, it was only in the past 20 years that things really changed.

While I agree that NST is being a bit edgy, I will speak up to defend him because he is right about the cult of nonviolence that has formed in mainstream liberalism.

I will say loud and clear: Most movements, with very little exception, have achieved their goals through non-violence, if they have not had the possibility of violence in the event of a protracted struggle posing a threat to the current state of affairs that the force opposing the movement was not willing to risk.

This is seen in not only the American Civil Rights movement, but also, of course, in the Indian Independence movement, which saw military mutinies, riots, and bombing in a period in which Britain was not capable of providing substantial resistance, and so acquiesced to avoid military confrontation that it could not win.

[The Two Jerseys]

That's a bad idea. Bringing guns into the situation immediately escalates it to a life-or-death scenario. You shouldn't be doing that if you don't have to, ie. if you aren't in immediate danger.

So long as a police officer (an armed agent of the state) is nearby, people are in immediate danger.

Yes, because one of these days, the cop who stops traffic so I can cross the street to go to work every morning is just going to pull his gun and empty his magazine into me just for shits and giggles.

[Kubra]

So you're encouraging more Waco's?

I'd go so far as to say more political organizations that would end up being classified as "terrorist groups". Which means more direct state action and much more stricter laws and violations of personal freedom.

Back in the heyday of good ol' homegrown american terrorism (the 60's and 70's, though to be fair basically no one was dealing with homegrown terrorism well, at least we weren't the french (and lucky I'm a canadian, we sucked at it!)) legislation curtailing personal freedom was surprisingly thin for the time, especially for place coming hot off mcarthyism and with a good chunk of its bombers and bank robbers being some shade of red. But then again, 30-30 and 10 inch carbon steel bayonets were still valid riot control devices right up to kent state, and a little after.
I guess back then folks weren't so averse to violence, either in service or the law or against it. I mean, for real, I don't know, it's an oddity to me.

[Zoice]

That's a bad idea. Bringing guns into the situation immediately escalates it to a life-or-death scenario. You shouldn't be doing that if you don't have to, ie. if you aren't in immediate danger.

Not really
The panthers were really into strutting around with their gunz, but it was more peacocking than, y'know, what you imagine it to be. Not that that's a problem, there's something to be said for demonstrating ones arms, it's got a real sergio leone feel to it.

Buy a fast red car and cheat on your wife, if you need to compensate for your lack of endowment.

That's a bad idea. Bringing guns into the situation immediately escalates it to a life-or-death scenario. You shouldn't be doing that if you don't have to, ie. if you aren't in immediate danger.

So long as a police officer (an armed agent of the state) is nearby, people are in immediate danger.

I can use this logic for anything. "So long as a person (unreliable and armed) is nearby, people are in immediate danger. So start firing."

There are problems with police brutality, but there are ways to deal with it that are much better than throwing more guns into the mix.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

Some people don't seem to understand the simple truth that every single day, cops beat, torture, kidnap and murder us to ensure their masters' privilege, then proceed to expect our obedience. As long as oppressive institutions like the state and police exist, so will our vengeance. Fighting back is self defense.

[The New Sea Territory]

So long as a police officer (an armed agent of the state) is nearby, people are in immediate danger.

Yes, because one of these days, the cop who stops traffic so I can cross the street to go to work every morning is just going to pull his gun and empty his magazine into me just for shits and giggles.

Clearly, that's what I was saying!

[Kubra]

Not really
The panthers were really into strutting around with their gunz, but it was more peacocking than, y'know, what you imagine it to be. Not that that's a problem, there's something to be said for demonstrating ones arms, it's got a real sergio leone feel to it.

Buy a fast red car and cheat on your wife, if you need to compensate for your lack of endowment.

Well a car is a bit expensive, while a moist nugget in decent enough condition will run me maybe $150 these days

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not really
The panthers were really into strutting around with their gunz, but it was more peacocking than, y'know, what you imagine it to be. Not that that's a problem, there's something to be said for demonstrating ones arms, it's got a real sergio leone feel to it.

Buy a fast red car and cheat on your wife, if you need to compensate for your lack of endowment.

did you seriously just say that in response to black people fighting for basic fucking civil rights

[The Grey Wolf]

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.

If you bomb buildings, you won't win people over for your cause. You'll likely need the police to keep you from getting lynched.

[The balkens]

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.

Some people don't seem to understand the simple truth that every single day, cops beat, torture, kidnap and murder us to ensure their masters' privilege, then proceed to expect our obedience. As long as oppressive institutions like the state and police exist, so will our vengeance. Fighting back is self defense.

Heh.

keep holding your breath.

[The New Sea Territory]

So long as a police officer (an armed agent of the state) is nearby, people are in immediate danger.

I can use this logic for anything. "So long as a person (unreliable and armed) is nearby, people are in immediate danger. So start firing."

There are problems with police brutality, but there are ways to deal with it that are much better than throwing more guns into the mix.

And how many of these ways dismantle the fundamental social structures that allow it to happen, rather than just addressing the symptoms?

[Kubra]

Buy a fast red car and cheat on your wife, if you need to compensate for your lack of endowment.

did you seriously just say that in response to black people fighting for basic fucking civil rights

Ah, well, he probably misunderstood what I meant by "peacocking"
what was important was not shooting a gun, using it in combat and such, but demonstrating an armed presence, of marching and patrolling with a gun.