Necessitating Violence

[The Grey Wolf]

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.

"All it will ever be." roads, welfare, and constitutional rights are all violent and bad.

[The New Sea Territory]

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.

"All it will ever be." roads, welfare, and constitutional rights are all violent and bad.

All these things come after the state's violence, and they do not justify the need for it.

[Bhikkustan]

"All it will ever be." roads, welfare, and constitutional rights are all violent and bad.

All these things come after the state's violence, and they do not justify the need for it.

The same state that provides you with a lot. I swear 90% of you hippy anarchists would come crying back if you were placed in an anarchist state.

[The Grey Wolf]

"All it will ever be." roads, welfare, and constitutional rights are all violent and bad.

All these things come after the state's violence, and they do not justify the need for it.

Violence is inherent in just about every community's assertion of it's right to exist, some more than others (let's be honest, Nordic democracies are probably less violent than prospective anarchist communities). But they are essential parts of the state, and are not violent, disproving your assertion that the state is only ever violent.

How will anarchism deal with important issues such as vigilantism, age of consent, etc.?

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

How will anarchism deal with important issues such as vigilantism, age of consent, etc.?

Well, if vigilantism can be considered an issue, pursuant to the general, question of this thread...

[Costa Fierro]

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

In your opinion.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

And exactly what does that have to do with gays and black people shooting at the po-po because The Man is "oppressing" them?

[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.

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.

Work on your reading comprehension because nowhere in what I said do I imply that it's a protection from being verbally abused by others. I was saying that does not grant the right to abuse, not that it grants protection from it.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

TIL bureaucrats doing their jobs are war criminals.

[Traditionalism]

I really hope the liberals and commies try to stir something up. Gives us just the justification we need.

[The New Sea Territory]

I really hope the liberals and commies try to stir something up. Gives us just the justification we need.

There are millions of us and a few thousand of you. Whatever you want justified won't end well.

[Traditionalism]

I really hope the liberals and commies try to stir something up. Gives us just the justification we need.

There are millions of us and a few thousand of you. Whatever you want justified won't end well.

Yes I'm sure the feminists and trans people make rlly rlly gud fighters

give me a break. You people resort to protesting, whining, complaining, reporting, etc. We're organized, trained, and most of us are active duty or veterans. What are you? Starbucks regulars?

[The New Sea Territory]

There are millions of us and a few thousand of you. Whatever you want justified won't end well.

Yes I'm sure the feminists and trans people make rlly rlly gud fighters

give me a break. You people resort to protesting, whining, complaining, reporting, etc. We're organized, trained, and most of us are active duty or veterans. What are you? Starbucks regulars?

[Conserative Morality]

Yes I'm sure the feminists and trans people make rlly rlly gud fighters

give me a break. You people resort to protesting, whining, complaining, reporting, etc. We're organized, trained, and most of us are active duty or veterans. What are you? Starbucks regulars?

Most of my friends are both extremely liberal and left-leaning.

All of my friends are also either in the military, considering going into the military, or have been rejected by the military after trying to enlist.

Politics is no indication of training or organization.

[Traditionalism]

Yes I'm sure the feminists and trans people make rlly rlly gud fighters

give me a break. You people resort to protesting, whining, complaining, reporting, etc. We're organized, trained, and most of us are active duty or veterans. What are you? Starbucks regulars?

Most of my friends are both extremely liberal and left-leaning.

All of my friends are also either in the military, considering going into the military, or have been rejected by the military after trying to enlist.

Politics is no indication of training or organization.

Yeah all of my friends are space ninjas too, good point.

[Traditionalism]

Yes I'm sure the feminists and trans people make rlly rlly gud fighters

give me a break. You people resort to protesting, whining, complaining, reporting, etc. We're organized, trained, and most of us are active duty or veterans. What are you? Starbucks regulars?

Uh, good point? Millions of disgruntled effeminate scarf wearing hipsters and trans people. *shivers*

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah all of my friends are space ninjas too, good point.

We live in a shitty and poor area. It's the only way out for a lot of us. I really don't see what's so astounding about a group of people being involved or interested in military service when about one in ten Americans serves at one point or another in their life. Consider that we're all young, able-bodied people? It's even more likely.

[Luminesa]

Most of my friends are both extremely liberal and left-leaning.

All of my friends are also either in the military, considering going into the military, or have been rejected by the military after trying to enlist.

Politics is no indication of training or organization.

Yeah all of my friends are space ninjas too, good point.

Ummm...you can be a Democrat or a Republican (or neither, or Libertarian, or whatever you wanna be) and be in the armed forces. That part doesn't matter.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Uh, good point? Millions of disgruntled effeminate scarf wearing hipsters and trans people. *shivers*

This is the exact ideology that is demanding a violent response. See how quickly it will dissipate once their Klan meetings are bombed. The difference between the left and the right is that the left has an incentive to keep fighting. The right will stop the moment their actions are reciprocated against them. But to be safe, they ought to be reciprocated ten times.

[Vorond]

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.

[citation needed]

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech?

Let's see...do you want me to respect your (imho utterly idiotic) opinion even though I do not agree with it? Or should I try and outlaw it? Or simply react with violence to it?

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

Have you ever heard of the concept of the rule of law?

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?

Hum, what is this "violent expression" supposed to be? Is it violence? Then it is already illegal, problem solved. Is it classical expression as in the sense of the law? Then why are you so enraged about it? Please clarify that one.

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.

Could we narrow this down a little? Which expression causes what harm?

When a legislator passes an order, that is not mere expression.

No, that is called the democratic process. Feel free to use all lawful methods at your discretion to go against it.

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?

I think you have not named or specified just what "violence" you are even talking about...and were it not for this boards rules about accusing someone of trolling I'd be sorely tempted to post a certain meme involving Phillip J. Fry.

[The balkens]

Uh, good point? Millions of disgruntled effeminate scarf wearing hipsters and trans people. *shivers*

This is the exact ideology that is demanding a violent response. See how quickly it will dissipate once their Klan meetings are bombed. The difference between the left and the right is that the left has an incentive to keep fighting. The right will stop the moment their actions are reciprocated against them. But to be safe, they ought to be reciprocated ten times.

are you calling people to be killed?

[Traditionalism]

Uh, good point? Millions of disgruntled effeminate scarf wearing hipsters and trans people. *shivers*

This is the exact ideology that is demanding a violent response. See how quickly it will dissipate once their Klan meetings are bombed. The difference between the left and the right is that the left has an incentive to keep fighting. The right will stop the moment their actions are reciprocated against them. But to be safe, they ought to be reciprocated ten times.

Fuck the klan, I don't care about those degenerate racial anomalies.

You fight for material purposes. We fight for a higher calling and purpose, we fight for the Cosmic Order and Eternal Truths.

Go ahead and try something, I can't fucking wait.

[Galloism]

the Cosmic Order and Eternal Truths.

Hey, that was the name of my orgy club in ancient rome.

I'm suing for trademark infringement.

[Traditionalism]

Yeah all of my friends are space ninjas too, good point.

Ummm...you can be a Democrat or a Republican (or neither, or Libertarian, or whatever you wanna be) and be in the armed forces. That part doesn't matter.

I don't care about democrats or republicans. My point is that most lefties are infact averse to anything martial or violent.

[Traditionalism]

Yeah all of my friends are space ninjas too, good point.

We live in a shitty and poor area. It's the only way out for a lot of us. I really don't see what's so astounding about a group of people being involved or interested in military service when about one in ten Americans serves at one point or another in their life. Consider that we're all young, able-bodied people? It's even more likely.

That's precisely why you'll fail. "its the only way out"

Materialists will always lose.