|
Should it be legal for other people to assault you if they disagree with you? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
183 | 49.06% |
| No |
|
190 | 50.94% |
| Total: | 328 votes | ||
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:He got England out of India and freed people from a salt hoarding tyranny. I'd say that helped. I think you need to read about the partition of India. It had nothing to do with salt. It was an attempted genocide.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Trains left stations going to the north of India. They were stopped and every person was killed on the train. Hundreds of thousands died in the violence. Partition of India was attempted genocide. Ghandi, Mountbatain and the UK government were all complicit. Ghandi has blood on his hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
It still continues today in Kashmir. People are still getting killed. You could also mention Ghandi and his time enforcing apartheid as a lawyer in South Africa. General China fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Gandhi's hunger strikes were 1000% a threat of violence. They were basically "if I die because of this, the country is going to explode."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
But when he was in South Africa, the Indians were treated better than the blacks. And he used his skills as as a lawyer to preserve the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Gandhi's hunger strikes were 1000% a threat of violence. They were basically "if I die because of this, the country is going to explode." Also note that two of his most famous fasts were of the form "I'm going to starve myself until you idiots stop killing one another". e: I'm willing to admit that Gandhi has a mixed legacy in terms of results but there's no denying that the dude was pretty hardcore on the nonviolence thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:okay, so here's my uneducated opinion on why fascism cannot become a powerful force in america given the current social conditions Read the first few lines about how racial purity isn't palatable anymore and then my eyes glossed over the rest sorry They might not be as open about it as before but conservatives know exactly what they're doing when they support cops with fanatical enthusiasm, even when cops have been found to be extremely corrupt and discriminatory time and time again. They know exactly what they're doing when they create gerrymandered districts and implement voter ID laws that target minorities with laser accuracy It is no coincidence that the conservative level of approval of welfare programs depends heavily on whether they think minorities will be benefitting from said programs or not (70% of white women heavily oppose affirmative action yet they are their biggest beneficiaries lmao.) They don't need to form roving gangs of white supremacist murderers (though they can and have, look at Katrina) because they can just hide behind government policies and then accuse you of being a traitor/criminal/biased liberal if you resist the police or speak out against inequality or protest etc Their favorite line of attack lately has been "libs label everyone they don't like a nazi/fascist!" to discredit attacks against racist figures like the dapper nazi, Bannon and Milo The Ol Spicy Keychain fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:
He was also quite racist if you take a look at his career in South Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
He also really liked giving and receiving enemas
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Gandhi was also OK with violent resistance if you personally weren't capable of the discipline and mental fortitude demanded by his brand of non-violence, and also was of the opinion that people who claimed to be non-violent as an excuse to do nothing in the face of injustice were reprehensible cowards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Gandhi was also OK with violent resistance if you personally weren't capable of the discipline and mental fortitude demanded by his brand of non-violence, and also was of the opinion that people who claimed to be non-violent as an excuse to do nothing in the face of injustice were reprehensible cowards. I thought there also had to be no other option for him to be okay with violence? Like straight up self-defense I guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
I could mention his views on on Jewish genocide. Ghandi was a bit of a oval office as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
free basket of chips posted:I thought there also had to be no other option for him to be okay with violence? Like straight up self-defense I guess Well, to let the man speak for himself: quote:I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
That's an interesting quote. It does seem, though, that Gandhi is defending brave resistance because it is on the path to accepting one's death, and attacks cowardice specifically on the ground that the coward "harbors violence and hatred in his heart, and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself." My reading is that this means that he will allow violent self-sacrifice as a substitute for nonviolent self-sacrifice for those without the appropriate fortitude. It certainly wouldn't cover things like, say to pick an example at random, punching a guy on the street and running off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Ghandi was a quite lovely dude, but that doesn't even matter: the only reason why Ghandi's strategy of "non-violence" worked at all, is because there were other groups who were actually quite violent and a serious threat to the colonizers. Ghandi positioned himself as the "good cop" to their "bad cop", and by negotiating a compromise with his movement, the British Empire was able to cut out the more radical anticolonial elements in India.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
This is basically the same argument as given vis a vis the Civil Rights Movement upthread. My position is that applying that interpretation to ALL successful protest movements just reflects ideological priors that violence is the only way to accomplish things. I'm more familiar with the Civil Rights example, so I will engage with that part of the argument. Certainly an alternate explanation of what happened is that moderate America was exposed to the violence that the Southern racists inflicted upon peaceful protestors, and became sick to their stomach. This lead to political pressure for civil rights legislation which made tangible progress towards righting injustice (not complete progress, of course). Under this narrative any violence done by race riots or the like could easily be viewed as counterproductive to the cause of winning over hearts and minds. This is not to say that it's feasible to expect a mass movement of any substantial size to not have its violent elements. The vast majority of the protestors at Trump's inauguration were peaceful, and it was a small number that were torching limos, punching Nazis, etc. That any group of suitable size will have its extreme elements is part and parcel of human nature, but noting this fact doesn't say that such violence in resistance is necessarily justified morally or practically. VVVVVVV: I don't see the latter quote as undermining my point. The political success of the Civil Rights Movement was when the position of the white moderate changed from the stated "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action" to outright support for civil rights legislation. King supported direct action against oppression, but he did not support violent action. As to the former quote, the movement was not trying in futility to change the minds of Southern racist segregationists, it was trying to change the minds of broader America, so that the force of the federal government could be brought to bear to protect civil rights. FreeKillB fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them" -- Assata Shakur " I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them" This post did a lot more to sway me then anything else posted in the thread and I want you to know that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Nobody is asking for violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
free basket of chips posted:This post did a lot more to sway me then anything else posted in the thread and I want you to know that. I would suggest reading all of King's letter from birmingham jail, if you haven't already done so, as should everyone else reading this dumpster fire thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:I would suggest reading all of King's letter from birmingham jail, if you haven't already done so, as should everyone else reading this dumpster fire thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Patriotic americans, remember to replace the word "nazi" with "terrorist", then ask yourself "is it okay to punch this terrorist" and "should the people who (did more than) punch terrorists without legal authority to be arrested for their violence" Were the terrorists in question white?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Patriotic americans, remember to replace the word "nazi" with "terrorist", then ask yourself "is it okay to punch this terrorist" and "should the people who (did more than) punch terrorists without legal authority to be arrested for their violence" Yes and yes. Why is this in question again? *EDIT* I also feel that nazi punching falls under the doctrine of "disputatio stercore adepto ferire". citybeatnik fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:I would suggest reading all of King's letter from birmingham jail, if you haven't already done so, as should everyone else reading this dumpster fire thread. Here's a link, for everyone's convenience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:I guess the ACLU counts as Nazi collaborators then. The ACLU takes radical stances on free speech, which is fine, but I certainly don't agree with their decision in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
I wasn't saying the ACLU is above criticism, I was saying that calling them Nazi collaborators is hyperbole at best and slander/libel at worst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Were the terrorists in question white? Divide by zero error.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:I wasn't saying the ACLU is above criticism, I was saying that calling them Nazi collaborators is hyperbole at best and slander/libel at worst. The answer to social libertarianism is the same as the answer to economic liberatarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Yes and yes. Why is this in question again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:The people who are up in arms about a nazi being punched for "normalizing violence" typically aren't calling to bring US servicemen to justice for widespread crimes against iraqi and international laws, or for police brutality against unarmed minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:The people who are up in arms about a nazi being punched for "normalizing violence" typically aren't calling to bring US servicemen to justice for widespread crimes against iraqi and international laws, or for police brutality against unarmed minorities. Nope and nope. Bash a fash. You're also conflating private citizens punching a nazi with soldiers and law enforcement. Entirely different. If they want to bash the fash when they're out of uniform that's cool though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
General China stop being racist against Indians. And you people should stop attacking ACLU.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Non-violent civil disobedience only worked due to the implicit threat of violence that stood behind them. MLK was continuously called on to denounce the violent elements of the civil rights era, but refused to do so. The threat is that either you deal with us, the non-violent protesters, or you ignore us, and the non-violent become radicalized and violent, and you will have no peace. Choose. Could you expand on this, possibly offer somewhere to read up on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:What makes you say that? Abuses by US troops and by police are outrageous, and I would support corrective action, but that's not really germane to this thread. There's been plenty of time for corrective action, but it hasn't happened, which makes it seem de facto legal since they can get away with it. The political party in power nationally and in most states has actually sided against a group whose purpose is holding police accountable, instead deciding to sign laws aligned with the "blue lives matter" countermovement, and whose winning presidential candidate recommended nationwide stop-and-frisk and torture of enemy combatants. The time for those concerned to push for corrective action and restore trust in communities for officials to uphold justice and peace was about a year ago. I think it's germane to the thread because mainstream american society celebrates its uniformed heroes while dismissing or ignoring their violence against the "other" (groups that are largely not white christians). The taboo against questioning their actions (especially their racial blindspots) and lack of legal recourse against widespread authoritarian violence has imo allowed fascism to creep into the mainstream, since fascists feel there will be no repercussions against them acting similarly. It's also eroded any trust many people have in officials to protect vulnerable classes. When those officials who should be acting justly fail to do their job in a way that keeps the peace, non-official actors feel compelled to enact their own kind of justice, whether that be through gang violence, antifa, an insurgency (as was the case in destabilized iraq), paramilitary or whatever. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:There's been plenty of time for corrective action, but it hasn't happened, which makes it seem de facto legal since they can get away with it. Ah, you're sealioning and/or muddying the waters. Would you bash a fash? Y/N?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Ah, you're sealioning and/or muddying the waters. Are those some tvtropes terms? Go back to tvtropes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I think it's germane to the thread because mainstream american society celebrates its uniformed heroes while dismissing or ignoring their violence against the "other" (groups that are largely not white christians). The taboo against questioning their actions (especially their racial blindspots) and lack of legal recourse against widespread authoritarian violence has imo allowed fascism to creep into the mainstream, since fascists feel there will be no repercussions against them acting similarly. It's also eroded any trust many people have in officials to protect vulnerable classes. Since the thread has inspired me to re-read Letter from a Birmingham Jail, here's a relevant passage: "You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil." I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action." FreeKillB fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Are those some tvtropes terms? Not that I'm aware of. I'm disagreeing with them shifting the conversation away from "private citizen punches another private citizen in the face" to an entirely different issue regarding the military and law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Could you expand on this, possibly offer somewhere to read up on it. Ironically FreeKillB sort of beat me to it in part; FreeKillB posted:I will not disagree with this as a descriptive account of why the oppressed turn to violence. However, that does not mean that violent vigilante action is morally correct or effective as the means to oppose the oppressors. MLK did not believe violence was going to solve the problem. But he did not condemn them for turning to it in their despair. He even says, if their voices are not heard, if they are ignored, the nonviolent will turn to violence as a means to express these emotions as a mere fact of history. And though he does not mean it, the implicit threat is there, as a warning; Listen to us, or it will only get worse. As for fascists, non-violent protest relies on a shared system of values. Maybe not identical, but compatible. Fascism's system of values is incompatible with a free, democratic society. They have no qualms over executing you in the street, or sending you off to a camp for extermination. Granted, there is always a caveat; if you happen to live in a country that is merely militarily occupied by fascists who control your government through local collaborators, non-violent resistance is possible (thanks to your shared values). But by then things have gone so far south that it is less of a moral choice and more of a "everyone does their part" choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
OK, I guess our views don't really diverge that much on the theoretical level. However, I believe that despite Trump's election and America's partisan polarization, the vast majority of Americans share the same basic system of values. There is a danger of our shared democratic values being (further) eroded, sure, but I don't think we've crossed the event horizon to start planning armed revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:03
|
|