|
Categorically rejecting political violence also means rejecting military force, including resistance to insurrection. What is actually meant is "fascists are integratable into liberal democratic politics, so there's never any reason to use violence against them domestically." Which is questionable.
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Categorically rejecting political violence also means rejecting military force, including resistance to insurrection. What is actually meant is "fascists are integratable into liberal democratic politics, so there's never any reason to use violence against them domestically." Which is questionable. No it doesn't you dumb slippery sloping gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
doverhog posted:To help your sanity, if it was a factor, I was making fun of "antifa" political violence being acceptable. All political violence is wrong, be the target right wing or not. Well, no it's fine to be violent against people whose entire purpose is going around threatening and attacking immigrants. Like that's barely even political violence any more that's self defence.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:No it doesn't you dumb slippery sloping gently caress. Because really, no amount of stabbing nazi's in the street will stop the rise of neo-conservatism. There is no causation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:As a jurist I agree but for me the line is drawn by the principle of proportionality and subsidiarity. The issue is that these principles don't work in certain states. You can't count on the legal system to provide an equitable solution. Throwing rocks is a symptom If we are talking a breakdown of democracy, of the legal system, and if nazis are actually taking over the government, then it is your moral duty to resist however you can. That wasn't what I was talking about. A democracy can and will use violence through police and military to protect the interests of it's voters. The political violence I was talking about is targeted at the democracy under which the terrorists live. They opt to ignore the legal democratic avenues available to them to effect change, and go for violence instead. That is categorically wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
I mean generally I think antifash organize because the allegedly democratic government doesn't give much of a buggery about fascists attacking immigrants because they don't give a buggery about immigrants in general any further than they have to. A truly democratic government may protect all its citizens from violence but we don't live under one so citizen militia opposing gangs of violent neonazis are good.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:No it doesn't you dumb slippery sloping gently caress. War is the continuation of politics by other means. It is never not political violence.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:War is the continuation of politics by other means. It is never not political violence. Oh by the might of your pedantic semantics am I defeated! Get the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
doverhog posted:If we are talking a breakdown of democracy, of the legal system, and if nazis are actually taking over the government, then it is your moral duty to resist however you can. That wasn't what I was talking about. So political violence that supports your preferred political system is A-OK, but going out and protecting people from literal loving nazis is reprehensible. Cool.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Fascism is always the sweetest when you get to be part of it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Dear Bore, I wanna respond to you, but request you first explain how you got that out of what I said.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Oh by the might of your pedantic semantics am I defeated! Get the gently caress out. If you don't care about objective reality, just delete your subjective perceptions of everything that annoys you and be happy.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Oh by the might of your pedantic semantics am I defeated! Get the gently caress out. He's quoting von clausewitz and not clarifying an obvious statement. I agree with him
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:He's quoting von clausewitz and not clarifying an obvious statement. I agree with him I'm aware. It's still incredibly stupid and retarded to think that denouncing street violence against political opponents has anything to do with maintaining armed forces.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:I'm aware. It's still incredibly stupid and retarded to think that denouncing street violence against political opponents has anything to do with maintaining armed forces. People should use the right word, not its second cousin. This quote is from Mark Twain, and is about the importance of saying what is actually meant. Such as admitting that you believe fascism can be incorporated into liberalism, so that discussion over the real point of contention can happen.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
You should be more charitable in your reading imho. Look, I don't choose to throw rocks at fascists either prima facie. But ask yourself what you are left with when the justice system fails you. When there is no legal remedy. When they beat you and walk free afterwards. In this scenario, what do you present to the victim?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/736228953329917953 #justbrexitthangs
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Now, just to infuriate all the people who insist that glorious Europa is distinct from tawdry America, the second and third KKK are a good example of how liberal democracies can blatantly and gigantically fail to defend against, if not specifically fascist, fascistesque political organizations. Not only did you have local and state organizations either becoming infiltrated by the KKK or actively supporting the KKK, you also had a federal government unwilling to do much of anything against them. Clearly, what black, Jewish, Catholic, feminist, etc. people should have done is relied on the court system to deal with the KKK murdering and terrorizing them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
The bash the fash meme is a learning tool and litmus test for left radicalism. Radicals know through and through what proportionality means and we know what justice means. An important point of divergence can be found by asking: justice for whom? Should fascism have a place in a decent society? Even if it means that it serves to terrorize groups structurally, especially in these times of right wing consolidation? Most importantly however, even if you have doubts about the application of human rights framework onto the previous question (as any honest reasonable man would have) is the question: do you equate all ideologies and all forms of violence? Does evil exist or are there just equally valid points of view?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Dear Bore, I wanna respond to you, but request you first explain how you got that out of what I said. Well, it follows directly from your approval of the cops and military going out and doing violence to support your preferred political system. Which would be political violence, you see. This makes it a bit odd that you claim to disapprove of all forms of political violence in one post just to approve of it in the next. Makes you look either confused about reality or kinda unprincipled.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Are you advocating for societal problems to be solved by private individuals organizing into gangs to wage war upon each other? Hell sign me up I got a sweet hammer that fits into a sweater sleeve. Those nazi fuckers are gonna pay.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Are you advocating for societal problems to be solved by private individuals organizing into gangs to wage war upon each other? Hell sign me up I got a sweet hammer that fits into a sweater sleeve. Those nazi fuckers are gonna pay. This is one weak-rear end gotcha attempt, and besides that didn't you just claim to want to respond to me after I explained some very simple concepts? I'm starting to lean towards the "unprincipled" explanation, tbh.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Are you advocating for societal problems to be solved by private individuals organizing into gangs to wage war upon each other? Hell sign me up I got a sweet hammer that fits into a sweater sleeve. Those nazi fuckers are gonna pay. No, I actually agree with someone as conservative as Posner that ordered states executing proportional and subsidiary violence after providing a fair trial is preferable to ius talionis and mob violence. Which is why I have qualified, for now, at the very least that we are dealing sky a situation in which 'the legal system fails you'. Could you respond to what I am writing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Well, it follows directly from your approval of the cops and military going out and doing violence to support your preferred political system. Which would be political violence, you see. Is my preferred political system democracy? Yes, I can tell you, it is. That means cops patrol the streets and stop left or right wing gangs from killing people. Also means the army protects us against Russia. Simple stuff but telling you anyway, to make sure you get it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Cops kill black kids left and right.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Cops kill black kids left and right. The centre ones are alright.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Most importantly however, even if you have doubts about the application of human rights framework onto the previous question (as any honest reasonable man would have) is the question: do you equate all ideologies and all forms of violence? Does evil exist or are there just equally valid points of view? Evil is a red herring. A society must decide what it's goals are, and then work towards them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Is my preferred political system democracy? Yes, I can tell you, it is. That means cops patrol the streets and stop left or right wing gangs from killing people. Also means the army protects us against Russia. Simple stuff but telling you anyway, to make sure you get it. Indeed, and thus you're approving of the violence that is necessary to keep your preferred political system functioning, which is political violence. You might not what to acknowledge this because that wouldn't let you take the lazy-rear end intellectual shortcut of tarring everybody else who accepts political violence with the same brush, but it's true nonetheless. Basically you're doing that thing where you claim to be absolutely against X, but conveniently turning a blind eye to X when it benefits you, which is dishonest and dumb, and shits up every attempt at an actual discussion on the subject. So I'd appreciate it if you stopped.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Are you advocating for societal problems to be solved by private individuals organizing into gangs to wage war upon each other? Hell sign me up I got a sweet hammer that fits into a sweater sleeve. Those nazi fuckers are gonna pay. Perhaps there is some middle ground between Mad Max and Only The State Can Be Just? doverhog posted:Is my preferred political system democracy? Yes, I can tell you, it is. That means cops patrol the streets and stop left or right wing gangs from killing people. Also means the army protects us against Russia. Simple stuff but telling you anyway, to make sure you get it. Which means you support political violence when it is used to maintain your preferred political system. There's nothing really wrong with that viewpoint necessarily but it does contradict with an admonishment against all political violence.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
I still think you are misunderstanding what I meant, or are pretending to have done so. Are you categorically saying, violent political dissent is good? Tell me in detail what it is you want me to stop doing, and seriously I'll consider it. When I use the term political violence I mean civilians using violence with no democratic mandate. doverhog fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I still think you are misunderstanding what I meant, or are pretending to have done so. Are you categorically saying, violent political dissent is good? Tell me in detail what it is you want me to stop doing, and seriously I'll consider it. Well I personally am saying that violence is justifiable. Sometimes for what you might call political reasons. Again there are positions between "political violence is good" and "political violence is bad"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Indeed, and thus you're approving of the violence that is necessary to keep your preferred political system functioning, which is political violence. You might not what to acknowledge this because that wouldn't let you take the lazy-rear end intellectual shortcut of tarring everybody else who accepts political violence with the same brush, but it's true nonetheless. OwlFancier posted:Perhaps there is some middle ground between Mad Max and Only The State Can Be Just? Here's the problem, that logic only makes sense if you're an anarchist and thus equivocate the two. The both of you do realize that you're operating off anarchist assumptions right...? Doverhog is being very consistent here, he's okay with violence but only when it's bound by law and democratic decision-making on a society scale. Antifa-style vigilantism is neither of those.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I still think you are misunderstanding what I meant, or are pretending to have done so. Are you categorically saying, violent political dissent is good? Tell me in detail what it is you want me to stop doing, and seriously I'll consider it. In no particular order I want you to stop pretending that the massive amount of political violence exercised by the state in your preferred political system isn't political violence, stop pretending that all sides except yours are equally bad by default, stop with your weak-rear end gotcha attempts and and maybe even educate yourself about why antifa exist and what they actually do. This all should be pretty obvious, but here we are. EDIT: MiddleOne posted:Here's the problem, that logic only makes sense if you're an anarchist and thus equivocate the two. The both of you do realize that you're operating off anarchist assumptions right...? Doverhog is being very consistent here, he's okay with violence but only when it's bound by law and democratic decision-making on a society scale. Antifa-style vigilantism is neither of those. No, I'm not, and no he isn't. Political violence is violence employed to achieve a political goal. When the state claims the monopoly of force and exercises it to sustain itself, it engages in political violence. So when somebody comes in and loudly proclaims that all political violence is wrong they better be some kind of committed pacifist, or they're bullshitting hard. This goes double when they the immediately reveal that they're OK with political violence that supports their preferred political system. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Here's the problem, that logic only makes sense if you're an anarchist and thus equivocate the two. The both of you do realize that you're operating off anarchist assumptions right...? Doverhog is being very consistent here, he's okay with violence but only when it's bound by law and democratic decision-making on a society scale. Antifa-style vigilantism is neither of those. But in actual practice, the forces of law and order are often fairly ineffectual against, say, anti-immigrant violence, leaving aside whether liberal democracies really can be said to have "democratic decision-making on a society scale". So, should the conclusion be that such violence go unopposed and thus be normalized and the people who practice it be emboldened because there's potentially a silent majority of support for them?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Here's the problem, that logic only makes sense if you're an anarchist and thus equivocate the two. The both of you do realize that you're operating off anarchist assumptions right...? Doverhog is being very consistent here, he's okay with violence but only when it's bound by law and democratic decision-making on a society scale. And I am OK with violence when it serves the cause of justice or the betterment of humanity as a whole. Which means I am, as a rule, OK with violent self defence, either collective or individual, which means I am OK with organizing a state to mete out legally established justice, and also the direct self defence of individuals against immediate threats. So, organizing a police force to catch and prosecute criminals is OK. So is going around beating up gangs of nazis who are trying to start race wars and murder/assault people for being too foreign.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
When I use the term political violence I mean civilians using violence with no democratic mandate. I purposefully did not talk about the sides at all, only about the violence. Antifa is fine, if they are protecting stuff. If they attack people that is no longer fine.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Maybe fascists should stop being violent fuckers if they want to not get rightfully beat up? If all the fascists stuck to a Kraft durch Freude method of living then maybe people wouldn't want to punch them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
doverhog posted:When I use the term political violence I mean civilians using violence with no democratic mandate. What constitutes a democratic mandate? If it's simply consenting to governmental actions, uh-oh, now the various attempts to assassinate Hitler by German resistance movements were morally wrong because they were engaging in "political violence", as, after all, the vast majority of people consented to the Nazi government.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
doverhog posted:When I use the term political violence I mean civilians using violence with no democratic mandate. Attacking nazis is protecting stuff. It's like when someone goes around waving a gun and saying they're going to shoot all the loving immigrants, the police would come and beat them up and take them away before they start killing people. But the police don't always do that for some reason when it's a gang of white supremacists with a flag so people have to go and do their job for them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
That's fine, but just admit it's acting outside of a democratic mandate and is in fact devolving society into political groups engaging each other with weapons rather than arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:52
|
|