Necessitating Violence

[Conserative Morality]

Sure, sure. But don't you have to show that there was or occurred a physical destruction?

Sure, but that doesn't require a particularly large number.

I could have swore they used percentages for the Yugoslav warcrimes trial to illustrate that the populations were devastated.

Can't say that I'm particularly informed on the intricacies of the ICC trials for the Yugoslav Wars.

I could say that "Christians are being massacred" and claim it meets that standard. I could drum up evidence of dead Christians but how would you measure whether a genocide actually occurred?

Again, it's not something that's measured. Absolute references don't exist in matters like this. I could say that black people in the US are discriminated against, but how does one measure discrimination?

I'm a bit tired tonight, perhaps you could explain what you mean by "values versus value"? I took it to mean the feelings versus statistics or morality rather than money way. I want to get this correct.

When we argue whether or not such-and-such will make the consumed volume in a container greater or smaller, that's value. It's something we can measure. Something tangible. Something that can't be fiddled with because it has no moral value or interpretation to it.

When we argue things like genocide, which necessarily involves abstract concepts like that of 'a people' or 'a culture', we ultimately aren't arguing value in the same, hard way - we're making arguments of values precisely because genocide has a moral component to it that a dispassionate discussion of the effects of numbers do not. Genocide, to continue this example, cannot be divorced from this moral valuation precisely because it is only through said moral valuation that genocide has any meaning at all.

[Imperial City-States]

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?

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.

Advocating Terrorism, classy. Many people in this world have spent the vast majority of their adult life killing terrorist and have become exceedingly good at it. Go ahead, try and use violence, see how that goes for you.

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?

By limiting free speech, you are limiting free thought, and when you limit the two, Democracy has died. I'd highly recommend you read George Orwell's 1984, while not specifically related to this topic, i feel that it would provide some insight.

[Northern Freikur]

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.

1. Is that really happening? Nope. At least not here in the Western and Western-ish civilization.

2. Isn't encouraging violence on NS disallowed?

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?

You went full Illuminati just then.

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?

Ok, since you refuse to listen to common sense, or anyone else's point of veiw, I'm not really going to debate this. Instead, I'll let everyone else do the talking for me.

[The East Marches]

Sure, but that doesn't require a particularly large number.

Can't say that I'm particularly informed on the intricacies of the ICC trials for the Yugoslav Wars.

Again, it's not something that's measured. Absolute references don't exist in matters like this. I could say that black people in the US are discriminated against, but how does one measure discrimination?

When we argue whether or not such-and-such will make the consumed volume in a container greater or smaller, that's value. It's something we can measure. Something tangible. Something that can't be fiddled with because it has no moral value or interpretation to it.

When we argue things like genocide, which necessarily involves abstract concepts like that of 'a people' or 'a culture', we ultimately aren't arguing value in the same, hard way - we're making arguments of values precisely because genocide has a moral component to it that a dispassionate discussion of the effects of numbers do not. Genocide, to continue this example, cannot be divorced from this moral valuation precisely because it is only through said moral valuation that genocide has any meaning at all.

I suppose the crux of the argument comes that I am uneasy about making abstract concepts that may have differing definitions. That is why I seek a form of "dispassionate discussion of the effects of numbers". Numbers can be quantifiable, they aren't subject to the emotions of people and most of all, they are verifiable. Its as you said "how does one measure discrimination?". I can't think of a solid way to do so that doesn't involve some form of ultimately human bias. I view numbers as a tool to help us achieve some form of an opinion with the least input of human emotion possible. While we can say "Genocide is bad", I think idea of "Genocide constitutes x, y and z" is a separate affair. I see it as explaining or defining what is, rather than if it is good or bad. I hope that makes sense, if it is confusing or came out like verbal diarrhea, please let me know.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

Could you provide some stats for this?

Sure can, thanks for asking.

Das Kapital.

...you new to this whole "joke" thing, bud?

Here's a tip: This one might work out better with, like, a communist of some sort? Or even better, an actual Marxist. Yeah. That would bring it closer to making sense.

You clearly didn't.

I said "violence isn't about winning people over" and you replied "ya know, violence won't win people over". You parroted the argument my post was responding to.

And how do you expect the government to make concessions when you're not winning people over? They have no incentive to do so.

If I've learned anything in life, it's that having a literal gun pointed at you is quite the incentive to do whatever the person behind said gun tells you.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

1. Is that really happening? Nope. At least not here in the Western and Western-ish civilization.

Either quit lying or stop being ignorant.

One in 12. That's the chances a trans person has for getting fucking murdered today.

2. Isn't encouraging violence on NS disallowed?

Where the fuck did you get this idea? How could we even discuss war/conflict/drone strikes/anything without one entire side earning walls of redtext?

Ok, since you refuse to listen to common sense, or anyone else's point of veiw, I'm not really going to debate this. Instead, I'll let everyone else do the talking for me.

It's called a fucking debate. If you're just going to pop in to say "I'm better than you because, and I won't even give you any reasons for that or anything else, because I'm better than you," why bother? Posts like this are petty and childish. Whining is made so much worse with a self-assured tone reminiscent of the popular kid in fourth grade.

[Northern Freikur]

1. Is that really happening? Nope. At least not here in the Western and Western-ish civilization.

Either quit lying or stop being ignorant.

One in 12. That's the chances a trans person has for getting ******* murdered today.

2. Isn't encouraging violence on NS disallowed?

Where the **** did you get this idea? How could we even discuss war/conflict/drone strikes/anything without one entire side earning walls of redtext?

Ok, since you refuse to listen to common sense, or anyone else's point of veiw, I'm not really going to debate this. Instead, I'll let everyone else do the talking for me.

It's called a ******* debate. If you're just going to pop in to say "I'm better than you because, and I won't even give you any reasons for that or anything else, because I'm better than you," why bother? Posts like this are petty and childish. Whining is made so much worse with a self-assured tone reminiscent of the popular kid in fourth grade.

1. You specified 1 group out of many listed, and i severely doubt your statistic.
2. This person directly advocated violence against the right wing and moderates.
3. So a person on nationstates can advocate for political genocide, but is barred from stating a harmless personal opinion? Where is the logic in this?

4. U flaming?

[Meryuma]

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.

Um, OK then.

[Northern Freikur]

Could you provide some stats for this?

Sure can, thanks for asking.

Das Kapital.

...you new to this whole "joke" thing, bud?

Here's a tip: This one might work out better with, like, a communist of some sort? Or even better, an actual Marxist. Yeah. That would bring it closer to making sense.

And how do you expect the government to make concessions when you're not winning people over? They have no incentive to do so.

If I've learned anything in life, it's that having a literal gun pointed at you is quite the incentive to do whatever the person behind said gun tells you.

A reputable source?

[The Nihilistic view]

One wonders how there are any trans people left to murder with a daily attrition rate of 8%.

[Northern Freikur]

One wonders how there are any trans people left to murder with a daily attrition rate of 8%.

Basically...

The math doesn't add up.

[Dagnia]

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 see someone has just had their first summer session class in the LGBT or Wymyn's or Gender Studies department (it doesn't matter which, anything ending in "Studies" is usually just a class in grievances and whiny, pedantic, pretentious verbiage). Ironically, the one group most likely to face violence- gay men- is the one they're making an effort to push out because they're not "oppressed enough" and are guilty of various mis-'s -phobias and -isms (the kind that typically take whatever meaning is most convenient for the accuser in that moment).

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?

And people say that the writing and communication skills of us engineers are bad. I'm not sure what anyone is supposed to get out of this word salad. The most intelligible thing was the bit about bigots defending rape, which is what you believe when you are a simple-minded twit who believes the professional wordsmiths and demagogues when they twist the words of their opponents. I guess it takes someone who has a modicum of writing talent to also have a grasp of what is demagoguery or not and you obviously have neither.

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.

This is probably the most intelligible paragraph in your post. Are you equating the law with violence? That's not terribly original, Gandhi advocated (non-violently) breaking unjust laws and got the second largest nation in the world its independence.

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?

I guess it's not right to react with violence when non-violence can accomplish so much. And why would you want to replace this "historic bloc"? Different sexual and gender orientations being tolerated and even accepted the way they are today is something that only happens in a few very short bright points of history. Even those non-western countries often held up as examples of being historically tolerant were only that way in a few points of their history and their tolerance seems to have a quirk. Enjoy what little we have now because we have no idea when the dark ages will come back.

What do you dare to think, NSG?

What dare I think? Is this an attempt at making your ideas look daring and original, or are you used to a safe space where you can spout the stupidest bullshit and cry about harassment to the administration when someone disagrees with you?

As to the actual arguments overall, I don't think there is a necessity for violence until they are hauling women, gays and transgender people into death camps. And if it comes to that, it's probably because we listened to people like you and actually became a threat people wanted to get rid of. The only places where women, LGBT people and minorities are slaughtered in the streets on a regular basis are places where hoards of immigrants flock from, to places where women, LGBT people and minorities are relatively safe. When someone points this out, that left has little tolerance for that person and they may get a visit from some ironically-named "anti-fascist" group.

[Northern Freikur]

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 see someone has just had their first summer session class in the LGBT or Wymyn's or Gender Studies department (it doesn't matter which, anything ending in "Studies" is usually just a class in grievances and whiny, pedantic, pretentious verbiage). Ironically, the one group most likely to face violence- gay men- is the one they're making an effort to push out because they're not "oppressed enough" and are guilty of various mis-'s -phobias and -isms (the kind that typically take whatever meaning is most convenient for the accuser in that moment).

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?

And people say that the writing and communication skills of us engineers are bad. I'm not sure what anyone is supposed to get out of this word salad. The most intelligible thing was the bit about bigots defending rape, which is what you believe when you are a simple-minded twit who believes the professional wordsmiths and demagogues when they twist the words of their opponents. I guess it takes someone who has a modicum of writing talent to also have a grasp of what is demagoguery or not and you obviously have neither.

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.

This is probably the most intelligible paragraph in your post. Are you equating the law with violence? That's not terribly original, Gandhi advocated (non-violently) breaking unjust laws and got the second largest nation in the world its independence.

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?

I guess it's not right to react with violence when non-violence can accomplish so much. And why would you want to replace this "historic bloc"? Different sexual and gender orientations being tolerated and even accepted the way they are today is something that only happens in a few very short bright points of history. Even those non-western countries often held up as examples of being historically tolerant were only that way in a few points of their history and their tolerance seems to have a quirk. Enjoy what little we have now because we have no idea when the dark ages will come back.

What do you dare to think, NSG?

What dare I think? Is this an attempt at making your ideas look daring and original, or are you used to a safe space where you can spout the stupidest bullshit and cry about harassment to the administration when someone disagrees with you?

As to the actual arguments overall, I don't think there is a necessity for violence until they are hauling women, gays and transgender people into death camps. And if it comes to that, it's probably because we listened to people like you and actually became a threat people wanted to get rid of. The only places where women, LGBT people and minorities are slaughtered in the streets on a regular basis are places where hoards of immigrants flock from, to places where women, LGBT people and minorities are relatively safe. When someone points this out, that left has little tolerance for that person and they may get a visit from some ironically-named "anti-fascist" group.

You, my friend, know how to do it.
Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

the one group ... effort to push out...

You ain't even trying to know what you're talking about

you are a simple-minded twit ... takes someone who has a modicum of writing talent...

I mean okay... do you have an argument...

That's not terribly original...

This one's the clincher, really devastated our argument

why would you want to replace this "historic bloc"?

Killin me Smalls

Is this

jfc http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom ... 31142.html

I don't think there is a necessity for violence until they are hauling women, gays and transgender people into death camps. And if it comes to that, it's probably because we listened to people like you and actually became a threat people wanted to get rid of.

Anyway that's a wrap on today's Bigotry and Bad Arguments. You can find more on his YouTube channel at

[Prussia-Steinbach]

This person directly advocated violence against the right wing and moderates.

I haven't seen her do so, but fully acknowledge I may have missed it. I will acquiesce if you can link me to an example.

That said, the opening post is fairly succinct. The defining sentence clearly seems to be: "Is it not right, then, to react to the causes and perpetrators of violence with violence?"

I don't think that's an overtly unreasonable opinion.

3. So a person on nationstates can advocate for political genocide, but is barred from stating a harmless personal opinion? Where is the logic in this?

...what?

U flaming?

U incapable of holding a reasonable discussion?

*sigh* In all seriousness, this snapping at each other is unnecessary.

A reputable source?

I'm sorry to break this to you, but most of the world doesn't classify Breitbart as such. I think your standards may be misaligned.

[SaintB]

You can't hold the moral high ground if you resort to the base tactics of the opposition.

Good isn't always nice and soft.

But by definition it's always morally right. Violence is a last ditch effort and not a means of leveling the playing field.

[Trumpostan]

Black Lives Matter and Liberals are two different things, at least proper liberals. I hope to think in an intellectual society you are one of the first eliminated

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

At least you admit that the KKK is a far-right/conservative group (as indeed it has always been).

My answer would be this: what's keeping you? What are you waiting for? Bring... it... on... and you will find out just who is actually on our side. The state, to start off with, and your illusions of masses of soldiers, law enforcement etc joining you are just that, illusions. A minority (5-10%) perhaps, but not much more).

I would love it if you guys started bringing it on, go ahead, give us an excuse. You sir, are no Mussolini, and even he wasn't all that when it came to prowess. It will be an asskicking for the ages, and it won't take four years like it did 1861-1865 when there was another group of right wing/conservatives who thought they could make war on the government and win. And that is exactly the reason why these 'far-right extremists' haven't brought it on, they know they will lose. You people are all talk, no action.

[The United Secular States]

Wow!
Is this still running!?
Would suspect that if the OP was from someone from a Centrist or Right political leaning it would have been shut down long ago as baiting, trolling, too divisive, or whatever!

[Tsadokion]

Violence will always be necessary in the pursuit of Third Rome.

[Aelex]

Violence will always be necessary in the pursuit of Third Rome.

In the pursuit of Moscow?!?

[Tsadokion]

Violence will always be necessary in the pursuit of Third Rome.

In the pursuit of Moscow?!?

Successor to ancient Rome & a principal point of Fascism.

[Mefpan]

In the pursuit of Moscow?!?

Successor to ancient Rome & a principal point of Fascism.

We can't have two Third Romes lying around at the same time, man. That's just confusing.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Wow!
Is this still running!?
Would suspect that if the OP was from someone from a Centrist or Right political leaning it would have been shut down long ago as baiting, trolling, too divisive, or whatever!

We've gotten used to conservatives advocating violence.

[Traditionalism]

Liberals talking about "violence"

Lol, good luck. We all know what happens in the end.

https://i.imgur.com/wpTQUJm.png

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Liberals talking about "violence"

Lol, good luck. We all know what happens in the end.

Lololol, people like Not a Bang and I aren't fucking liberals, bud.

Not gonna share gore, but I've literally never seen Nazis trying to break through a police line. The only reason there aren't many Nazi deaths at their rallies is because their cop buddies are there to protect them, from anti-fascists yelling for their blood.