One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?
As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it’s time for the last resort is too late. You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.
You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power.
Except such thinking was how we got the Nazis in the first place. Hitler co-opted unions and parties who were extremised by such responses, and these were the basis of the Nazi party.
No the reason why we got the Nazis in the first place is because liberal institutions allowed them to exist and participate. It was mainly the fault of the German social democratic party.
Violence is how to prevent them. For anything you can criticize the Soviet Union for, any fascist movement there would have been squashed with extreme prejudice. Just like anyone even close to fascism ideologically was terrorised.
Ah yes, because violence people who think differently to you has never led to extremism and said violence being returned to you…apart from the many, many times that it has.
Seriously, if you think that initiating violence against right wingers is going to lead to anything except right wing extremists using violence on everyone else, you really need to look at your history books again.
You’re the one who needs to read some history books if you think violence isn’t the solution. It’s the only solution that works. Fascists using violence back isn’t a counter-argument. That’s only logical and part of the equation.
But better than for just on the aspect of fascism, I’d really recommend Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorrel, before you condemn violence to be a last resort and inferior to pacifism or civil debate.
And sure, shoot at the fucker that’s a threat to you. That’s no justification to shoot at persons 2 and 3 that had similar belief systems but wasn’t shooting at you.
The last resort according to whom? It’s no law of nature or physics.
The last resort according to basic self preservation.
The other side have guns too. What do you think they’re gonna do when you start killing their people?
One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.
Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?
And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.
Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.
As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it’s time for the last resort is too late. You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.
Except such thinking was how we got the Nazis in the first place. Hitler co-opted unions and parties who were extremised by such responses, and these were the basis of the Nazi party.
No the reason why we got the Nazis in the first place is because liberal institutions allowed them to exist and participate. It was mainly the fault of the German social democratic party.
Violence is how to prevent them. For anything you can criticize the Soviet Union for, any fascist movement there would have been squashed with extreme prejudice. Just like anyone even close to fascism ideologically was terrorised.
Ah yes, because violence people who think differently to you has never led to extremism and said violence being returned to you…apart from the many, many times that it has.
Seriously, if you think that initiating violence against right wingers is going to lead to anything except right wing extremists using violence on everyone else, you really need to look at your history books again.
“think differently than you” is very different to “i think you and everyone like you should die because of your skin colour and/or gender”
You’re the one who needs to read some history books if you think violence isn’t the solution. It’s the only solution that works. Fascists using violence back isn’t a counter-argument. That’s only logical and part of the equation.
But better than for just on the aspect of fascism, I’d really recommend Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorrel, before you condemn violence to be a last resort and inferior to pacifism or civil debate.
they’re already shooting. that’s why we’re mad in the first place.
And sure, shoot at the fucker that’s a threat to you. That’s no justification to shoot at persons 2 and 3 that had similar belief systems but wasn’t shooting at you.
The right is already directly and indirectly killing innocent people.
Oh, the entire right wing is killing people? So how much blood is on the hands of the elderly couple down the road that go to church every Sunday?
Such rhetoric is not only incredibly immature and lacking of insight, it encourages the extremism that leads to violence. Grow up.
The right as in the political right wing in the context of Spain.
Ohhh okay. So, the political right wing of Spain, which is far less prone to political violence than that of, say, America?
Do you not understand how introducing violence to that equation is an even worse idea?
Violence is already in the equation. Do you want there to be no response to the attacks on marginalized groups?
The guy people keep partly citing when they bring up the “paradox of tolerance”, for example.