(i lied)
Honestly, I think it’s OK to hold a bit of both beliefs and have that dissonance generate a sort of shame-tinged discomfort.
Violence should, by any rational and reasonable measure, be avoided. But that doesn’t mean that violence isn’t necessary at very specific points. To be more specific, the threat of violence can be a powerful equaliser when faced with aggressive, unrelenting abuse wrapped in denial.
We still shouldn’t glorify it, though. Snitches get stitches in this not related to current events context, because a show of force is sometimes* necessary to establish the veracity of said threat. But we shouldn’t forget that murder is murder, even when the murdered was a murderer.
Get out of here with your “nuance” and “reasonable, balanced” takes. We clown in this mf
Ok :-<
Please don’t actually get out of here though we appreciate you
I’m Commander Shepard, and this is my favourite community on Lemmy ;)
(Thank you!🤗)
Violence should be avoided, which is why our healthcare system needs to be replaced by a single payer universal system like the rest of the developed world. The current system is violence. social murder is violence.
100% agreed.
But we should also recognise when violence
a. Is bad
b. Is completely legal
And that this is, in fact, a bad thing. And we should question why such violence is legal.
… Even if you come out at the other end deciding that yes, this is how it should be. The only “wrong” thing is not thinking about it.
Exactly! Violence is literally just a thing that exists (I’d argue a sun swallowing a whole planet is pretty violent, for instance), the essence is in the how, when, and why!
When you say something like, violence should be avoided, I have no idea what you mean. Avoided by who? Avoided when? Certainly law enforcement has done a lot of horrible things, but if you think they ought to exist, then you are explicitly endorsing the use of violence.
Avoided by any living thing when it would be directed at or would affect any other living thing. I don’t care if you punch your fridge, for instance. I do care if said busted fridge would negatively affect someone else (i.e. someone else having to waste money buying a new one) or you punch something with a pulse. That punch better have a damned good reason, like being aimed at a Nazi. Or a cop. Or a Nazi cop. Oh, who am I kidding, that’s pleonastic.
Edit: to further clarify, while I do not agree with the police as an institution, I do think a system of accountability needs to exist, just like in any other game.
Oh I think many of the jokes are about him. Of course they’re about him. He got rich by killing people, he did it intentionally, all of his family and friends knew exactly what he was doing, and almost nobody respects him for it.
It’s kind of comical if you think how pathetically small the reward for information was. $10,000 and then now it’s up to $60,000. That’s how little his family wanted to track down his killer? That’s how little the government cares about who killed him? Jesus.
And UHC has already removed his profile from the website and is talking about a replacement. Part of me was like “I bet one of his colleagues arranged this so that they could take his job.” The jokes are all rooted in a shared (rightful) hatred towards the US healthcare system.
His wife seemed perfectly happy with the fact he was making millions. His family doesn’t get a pass on this. They all know what they’re doing.
Your wishes don’t come true from shooting stars, they come true from shooting tsars
Fuck yeah
No, you see, the state uses ‘force’ not violence! They’re totally different things because someone higher up in the hierarchy we made up said so!
it’s not violence if the weapon is money or restriction from life saving medicine or nutrition 😤
Violence isn’t the answer, at first. But if they won’t respect our peace,they should respect our piece.
All state violence is political violence.
The risk of your movement going violent is that it deters sympathists, and it makes the targets of your violence sympathetic.
If you don’t care because you already have strong enough public support then load the cannons. Send out your suicide bombers.
But then your movement will be regarded as one that uses force. Some people will see it as justified. Some won’t. But it also weakens the effect when the police are seen busting the heads of your protestors; some will think state force against your protestors is just that wouldn’t if your group was non-violent.
This is why Martin Luther King chose a strict code of nonviolence, footage of police dogs attacking the protestors made sympathists of bystanders and activists of sympathists.
Malcom X on the other hand believed white supremacist sentiment in the US was more pervasive than King felt, and the only choice was to defend their rights by force, because the white power factions would not recognize any less.
And this is true: they do not. It’s less of a problem when outright bigotry is not acceptable within the Overton window, but it’s definitely a problem when the supremacists have a strong following in the community; though usually they only attack when they outnumber you. Hence FBI under J. Edgar Hoover killed King (likely) and also the leaders of the Black Panthers.
“Murder is only bad because other people think it’s icky” --you
