“Just turn the other cheek, be the bigger person, take the high road, and as long as you give everyone the benefit of the doubt good things will come to you”. All phrases used by abusers to manipulate people into taking abuse. After all if you keep being a good person and don’t retaliate you will be rewarded with an eternity of paradise and those who hurt will eternally suffer ::snickers with the collection plate::
Fascists only know one language, and that is violence. They firmly believe “Might makes right” and so, we must show them strength such that they fear to challenge us ever again.
Or do you mean we should protect fascists? Because no. That is not how we get and keep our rights. We get and keep our rights by negotiating, and political power, un fortunately, is stored in barrels. I think that’s how that saying goes.
I understand this statement in principle but unfortunately thats not how the world works. If you tolerate intolerance you will just end up opressed or dead.
Fascists don’t have any problems hurting and killing whoever they deem not worthy of living, they should be met with the same prejudice.
in fact, not punching a nazi when you have the opportunity is in itself a net negative, so we can say it’s immoral to not punch a nazi whenever possible.
I don’t think violently hurting people is a good idea.
A lot of people forget, due to the exceptionally stable nature of modern Western society, that society is built on violence. We, as citizens of a polity, subcontract out our violence to a central state. And this is, to at least some degree, a good thing - there’s a central entity which can be observed and judged and regulated, rather than a million people all trying to enforce and judge one another’s usage of violence as justified or unjustified.
But ultimately, such subcontracting of violence is conditional - as long as the central state represents our rights adequately, to at least some degree, people are willing to continue to surrender their own sovereign right to commit violence to it. Whenever the central state does not represent a citizen’s rights adequately, the citizen often withdraws that surrender of sovereignty - either in total or, more often, conditionally - to protect their own rights.
When you make a contract - even in something as small as buying an apple - you are relying on the threat of force from the state to back it - “We will forcibly remove property or freedom from you if you violate this contract.” Violence is a part of everyday life - what’s important is to act in such a way that minimizes the need for it. In the case of defense of LGBT rights, sometimes that means using violence as a means of deterrence against the violence of bigots that is insufficiently deterred by state action.
Pork barrel spending is a saying, I think you’re describing the Four boxes of liberty. Jury doesn’t seem to do a damn thing when they just get pardoned shortly after conviction, we are somewhere between jury and cartridge.
Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources…
How does that follow in any way?
That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
Violence is not the basic force driving life and decisions. It’s just one of the basic factors that helps to structure our society (and all societies).
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
I get what you’re going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I’ll drop a nuclear bomb, and let’s see which was more destructive.
Yes, it’s a shame fascists are so hell bent on doing that to us. But perhaps if they experience consequences, they may elect to do literally anything else with their life than harass queer people.
But I know I’m being too optimistic.
Some fascists would rather die than be better human beings… So it is only generous to oblige them.
I don’t think violently hurting people is a good idea.
“Just turn the other cheek, be the bigger person, take the high road, and as long as you give everyone the benefit of the doubt good things will come to you”. All phrases used by abusers to manipulate people into taking abuse. After all if you keep being a good person and don’t retaliate you will be rewarded with an eternity of paradise and those who hurt will eternally suffer ::snickers with the collection plate::
Tell that to the fascists.
I tell it to everybody, whether they are actively violent or not.
Fascists only know one language, and that is violence. They firmly believe “Might makes right” and so, we must show them strength such that they fear to challenge us ever again.
I agree, that’s why we need to violently harm those who would violently harm us, our loved ones and others like us and our loved ones.
Fascists arent people, so i agree.
Or do you mean we should protect fascists? Because no. That is not how we get and keep our rights. We get and keep our rights by negotiating, and political power, un fortunately, is stored in barrels. I think that’s how that saying goes.
I understand this statement in principle but unfortunately thats not how the world works. If you tolerate intolerance you will just end up opressed or dead. Fascists don’t have any problems hurting and killing whoever they deem not worthy of living, they should be met with the same prejudice.
This. Violence against fascists isn’t really violence, it’s enforcement of the societal End User License Agreement.
deleted by creator
I do
Unless they’re fascists. Because punching nazis is a net positive for the world
Punching Nazis is always self defence, since being a Nazi in public is an act of violence.
in fact, not punching a nazi when you have the opportunity is in itself a net negative, so we can say it’s immoral to not punch a nazi whenever possible.
They won’t think twice about violently hurting trans folk though so… Yeah
They might when folk gotta brick tho. :P
A lot of people forget, due to the exceptionally stable nature of modern Western society, that society is built on violence. We, as citizens of a polity, subcontract out our violence to a central state. And this is, to at least some degree, a good thing - there’s a central entity which can be observed and judged and regulated, rather than a million people all trying to enforce and judge one another’s usage of violence as justified or unjustified.
But ultimately, such subcontracting of violence is conditional - as long as the central state represents our rights adequately, to at least some degree, people are willing to continue to surrender their own sovereign right to commit violence to it. Whenever the central state does not represent a citizen’s rights adequately, the citizen often withdraws that surrender of sovereignty - either in total or, more often, conditionally - to protect their own rights.
When you make a contract - even in something as small as buying an apple - you are relying on the threat of force from the state to back it - “We will forcibly remove property or freedom from you if you violate this contract.” Violence is a part of everyday life - what’s important is to act in such a way that minimizes the need for it. In the case of defense of LGBT rights, sometimes that means using violence as a means of deterrence against the violence of bigots that is insufficiently deterred by state action.
Or, when the state threatens us, as it so often does.
As indicated at that first pride.
Gotta remind the complacent goons that oppression has consequences. 👍
Political power is, as they say (i think they say this) kept in barrels
And you should drop those barrels on cops.
Pork barrel spending is a saying, I think you’re describing the Four boxes of liberty. Jury doesn’t seem to do a damn thing when they just get pardoned shortly after conviction, we are somewhere between jury and cartridge.
No, im pretty sure political power is kept in barrels, and we take it out when we need to use it. Because it comes from there.
Oh shit, maybe we don’t just store it there, but we make it there? Like whiskey?
Old saying from… Korea, i wanna say? Maybe mongolia?
I don’t remember exactly, but damn i wonder if its tasty, like whiskey.
Fuck, this is an insanely good comment!
Fascinating perspective. What of the elderly, children, and the disabled?
Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
It’s not their theory. If someone explains basic theory of relativity to you, will you call it their theory?
What?
Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
How does that follow in any way?
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
Violence is not the basic force driving life and decisions. It’s just one of the basic factors that helps to structure our society (and all societies).
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
It’s not, though.
I get what you’re going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I’ll drop a nuclear bomb, and let’s see which was more destructive.
It’s a direct quote from Gandhi.
Gandhi was a very flawed man.
And Ghandi was a fucking idiot.
Well that sure is an opinion I haven’t heard before
Nazis arent people
Not for long if you have a brick handy anyway
It is an objectively good thing for the world when a violent bigot gets their head caved in.
Fascist lives don’t matter.
How do you think Pride managed to become a reality? With “thank you” cards?
“Thank you for respecting our identity :)” written on a brick.
Show it to friends, ‘show it’ to foes.
Yes, it’s a shame fascists are so hell bent on doing that to us. But perhaps if they experience consequences, they may elect to do literally anything else with their life than harass queer people.
But I know I’m being too optimistic.
Some fascists would rather die than be better human beings… So it is only generous to oblige them.
Unfortunately, showing a brick to a fascist’s face will likely just reinforce their bullshit. Still effective though.
Fascists are cowards. A brick to the face will keep most of them from putting themselves in situations conducive to future bricks to the face
I’d certainly hope so, but the idiots that I have the unfortunate necessity of dealing with are way too dense to make that connection.
I agree. But you have to defend yourself against people who are violent against you for not being up to their standards and beliefs.
But if you are attacked for being who you are, feel free to use words like “please stop, don’t do this” instead of a brick.
Yeah, you’re right. I really wish these fascists would stop trying to hurt people who did nothing to them.
Nah, Nazis don’t deserve respect or peace. See the paradox of tolerance.
When those people want me dead it’s mere self defense.
Fascist lives dont matter
Then the rest of us will handle it and accept thank-you’s later.
Fascists aren’t people.
Sounds like you’re fine with watching others get hurt as long as it isn’t you.
neither do i. good thing fascists aren’t people.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Crazy responses huh? If it makes you feel better, after they chase off any voices of reason, these type of people resort to eating eachother.
What is the voice of reason for fascists?