Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

So what you're saying is, stab the bankers......at the right time?

[SalmonGod]

Maybe?... If we saw a resurgence of union action or some other massive outbreak of political will to alter society's structure in a way that lessened the privilege of the wealthy elite, and they responded with mass brutality, assassinations, and guile to protect their dominance (as has happened in the past)... would you disagree?

I guess what I'm saying above all is I don't believe in absolutes.  To assume that a particular course of action is never justified or constructive, regardless of circumstances, doesn't work for me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Any sufficiently popular revolution makes violence irrelevant. If a large enough portion of people just stop and demand societal alteration, no amount of money or power can turn it back. You might say that's impossible, but it's no more impossible then getting a sufficient number of people to overthrow society by force.

Despite everything, we exist in a civil society and have gotten results from that. I believe that winning the argument is possible.

[i2amroy]

Any sufficiently popular revolution makes violence irrelevant. If a large enough portion of people just stop and demand societal alteration, no amount of money or power can turn it back. You might say that's impossible, but it's no more impossible then getting a sufficient number of people to overthrow society by force.

Despite everything, we exist in a civil society and have gotten results from that. I believe that winning the argument is possible.

Heck, Gandhi did it!

[SalmonGod]

Any sufficiently popular revolution makes violence irrelevant. If a large enough portion of people just stop and demand societal alteration, no amount of money or power can turn it back. You might say that's impossible, but it's no more impossible then getting a sufficient number of people to overthrow society by force.

Despite everything, we exist in a civil society and have gotten results from that. I believe that winning the argument is possible.

I totally agree.  But I also don't think whether or not this is possible is the totality of things to take into consideration.  Penguinofhonor did a pretty good job on this point.  If we want an existing situation to change because it causes misery and death, then we shouldn't discount strategies for bringing about change on the basis that they cause misery and death.  That's a good reason to explore all possible options as much as possible.  But the nature of such a situation is that any option, including waiting for the right opportunity to do things in the best possible way, unavoidable involves deciding for yourself the direction, volume, and gravity of misery and death you'd rather have.

And sometimes there are deadlines... like the environment...

Heck, Gandhi did it!

I've seen it argued that Ghandi's pacifism has been pretty heavily flanderized, and that there was really a lot more to the struggle for Indian independence than that.  Just like MLK's civil disobedience didn't single-handedly win over the civil rights era, but you won't hear about that unless you dig a bit.

[Lord Shonus]

Both Gandhi and King owed much of the success of their civil disobedience campaigns to the rising tide of violence that preceded them. When a full scale war -that looks to be an extremely dirty one- seems about to break out, someone willing to risk their lives without violence -someone who won't fight on philosophical grounds, but has courage enough to gain the respect of even the most warlike of men- becomes a very attractive way out.

[SalmonGod]

Going to jump on the NC political comedy bandwagon.

NC Republican Senate candidate who supports anti-gay legislation has been outed as a former drag queen - Miss Mona Sinclair.

[Angle]

Both Gandhi and King owed much of the success of their civil disobedience campaigns to the rising tide of violence that preceded them. When a full scale war -that looks to be an extremely dirty one- seems about to break out, someone willing to risk their lives without violence -someone who won't fight on philosophical grounds, but has courage enough to gain the respect of even the most warlike of men- becomes a very attractive way out.

Yup. I'll also note, MLK and probably also Ghandi used widespread economic violence as an important part of their campaigns, through the use of boycotts.

[Sensei]

economic violence

vi·o·lence
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

I refuse the dignify the term 'economic violence'. That kind of notion, where you re-brand an existing word with extremely strong connotations, doesn't sit well with me at all. Reminds of the over-use of the word "bullying" because people want to justify extreme measures against whatever behavior they don't like that week.

On that note, I do find it hilarious that one of google's definitions for the word requires it to be 'unlawful'.

[Frumple]

Uh, it's still force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Just (sometimes) less immediate than a fist to the face. Using your resources to disenfranchise, make homeless/poor/etc., and so on, is definitely in the same sort of category hiring a couple of chums to break someone's kneecaps, and oft times considerably more effective at causing harm. The existing word with strong connotations is used because the connotations in question are exactly what's happening with the situation being considered.

[Zangi]

Didn't people try to kill MLK and Ghandi?  You got a lot of shit to deal with, being leader of an organization that is clearly antagonistic to the power base, peaceful or not. 
Also, damned good legal support that needs to be on top of all the hurdles that can be thrown...

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Are we discussing revolution to overthrowing the wealthy? Cause I'm sure none of the candidates will be running on that platform.

[Sensei]

Didn't people try to kill MLK and Ghandi?

People DID kill MLK and Ghandi. MLK was shot from another building while in his hotel room, and Ghandi had a guy just run up and unload a pistol in his chest.

[misko27]

Uh, it's still force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Just (sometimes) less immediate than a fist to the face. Using your resources to disenfranchise, make homeless/poor/etc., and so on, is definitely in the same sort of category hiring a couple of chums to break someone's kneecaps, and oft times considerably more effective at causing harm. The existing word with strong connotations is used because the connotations in question are exactly what's happening with the situation being considered.

I disagree. Machiavelli, I choose you!

Therefore, you must know that there are two modes of fighting: one in accordance with the laws, the other with force. The first is proper to man, the second to beasts. But because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second...

Violence means physical force. Fighting with laws is not violence, although it is a type of conflict. I don't agree with trying to redefine violence just because there are things worse then violence that people can do to each other that doesn't fall under violence. When you say violence, people think "crush, kill, destroy". Using it any other way is just confusing. Why not use a more general word to define your thing?

I've actually already had arguments with people about ideological redefining of violence. My complaint here is the same there: It doesn't matter how much worse something is then violence, violence doesn't mean "do bad things to people", it means "the use of force to do bad things". Maybe you are trying to make the point that violence is not as bad as other things, and that's fine.

[Frumple]

We fundamentally disagree on what falls under the scope of force, then. Force within and outside the law is no different, t'me, and driving someone into the dirt with money or emotional abuse is straight equivalent in nature to just breaking their legs and shoving their face to the ground. "Conflict" is entirely too tame a word for what's being talked about, and not nearly descriptive enough of the intent or the outcomes.