Assuming your justification in condoning violence is correct. How much, and what type of violence is permissible, and who can/should be targeted?
Leaders?
Vocal supporters?
Non-vocal supporters?
Someone one not quite enough on my side?
So for the anti-violent resistance people, how do you feel about Stonewall?
Protest is the tool that gives voice to the marginalized when all they can no longer stand the injustice of the institutions built to suppress them.
Violence is what happens when that fails as they have no other recourse.
I believe I made myself clear.
Eventually.
Protest is the tool that gives voice to the marginalized when all they can no longer stand the injustice of the institutions built to suppress them.
Violence is what happens when that fails as they have no other recourse.
I'm not sure if that's true. Is Stonewall and the LGBT movement in the US an example of the converse? A violent initial movement when pressures reach a tipping point, which then galvanizes the marginalized and their allies to form larger and more organized peaceful groups, while at the same time giving exposure which incentivizes the majority to work with those peaceful groups?
That narrative seems to match the time table of India's Independence better too (the Bombay riots were in 1930).
I think in order to definitively make a decision on which order those came in would be to examine membership of pro-marginalized groups before and after a riot or more violent event. If the memberships are lowish and steady-ish prior to the event then that makes the narrative of "violent events galvanize activist groups" if the memberships are growing and then plateau before the violent act, and don't start growing again after the violent act, then that lends credence to "violent acts occur after peaceful movements have failed to produce results".
I am positive that you could find examples that support either theory, I'm not sure if there is data to support a general statement, or which hypothesis that data would support.
Would that have happened without violence?
And either way, do we not look back at Stonewall as a monumentally important moment? Why is that? Why is it praised and not condemned?
Stonewall is also just one of several pressure valve releases due to the similar anti-gay legislation and universal hatred of its era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...
I think the standard should be very high indeed to enact violence against somebody engaging in protected speech
In this sense, "protected" means "shielded from the sort of anti-hate laws most civilized nations have."
Protest is the tool that gives voice to the marginalized when all they can no longer stand the injustice of the institutions built to suppress them.
Violence is what happens when that fails as they have no other recourse.
I think we can all agree that violence in the name of self defense can be acceptable.
The problem (as has been mentioned here already) is when, if ever, is preemptive violence acceptable?
Let me offer this as an example:
Sally works for Chevron as an entry level petroleum engineer (recently graduated). Xavier strongly feels that global climate change is an immediate threat and that one way to address it is to stop mining all hydrocarbons.
Is Xavier justified in acting in a violent fashion (lets go with punch in the face) of Sally to send some kind of warning to Chevron to close up shop?
Is that really comparable to the current aggression trans people face in the US?
I think we can all agree that violence in the name of self defense can be acceptable.
The problem (as has been mentioned here already) is when, if ever, is preemptive violence acceptable?
Let me offer this as an example:
Sally works for Chevron as an entry level petroleum engineer (recently graduated). Xavier strongly feels that global climate change is an immediate threat and that one way to address it is to stop mining all hydrocarbons.
Is Xavier justified in acting in a violent fashion (lets go with punch in the face) of Sally to send some kind of warning to Chevron to close up shop?
I'm not sure that's quite the equivalent example for this discussion, though.
We're not talking about something abstract like someone who believes in climate change punching someone who works at or is affiliated with Chevron.
We're talking about people's incredibly personal reactions to things that will have a massive, direct, and lasting impact on their life or the lives of their loved ones.
I mean is it pre-emptive violence to accost someone who has said they want to tear your family apart? Someone who wants to drag your mother, father, grandmother, or cousin out of their homes and send them away? And someone who not just wants to, but is tremendously excited (and proud) that there's a chance they can make that happen?
Is it pre-emptive violence to push back against someone who is calling you and everyone who looks like you a criminal or worse? And blaming you for why they aren't as happy, successful, and wealthy as they think they should be (which will somehow all magically happen once you disappear)?
Is it pre-emptive violence to stand up against someone who says that you're a pervert, that you're mentally ill, that your very existence somehow endangers their children?
Is it pre-emptive violence to let someone who now feels emboldened by their political leader to do and say horrible things that their behavior is still morally wrong and deeply un-American?
Or is it self-defense?
Or is it American society drawing a line and asking each of us "which side do you want to be on?"
And I ask all of the above knowing full well that many Trump supporters honestly and deeply believe that they're doing the right thing for themselves, their families, and the future of America. And, frankly, that's the most heartbreaking thing about this election cycle.
Is that really comparable to the current aggression trans people face in the US?
Well, given that in the more dire climate change scenarios millions if not billions could die I would say that it is a serious issue.
The tread is about activism and violence, I am wondering if there is a line being drawn that violence for one kind of activism is ok while for another it is not.
Alternatively, is activism even the right word? When does an issue move from activism to self defense, and when does self defense warrant a first strike?
Truth or fiction?
"The best defense is a good offense."
I urge anybody who is interested in understanding my strong denunciation of agitation / physical violence enacted against people who support a politician to listen to the latest Common Sense by Dan Carlin entitled "Disengaging the Lizard Brain."
I listened to this on my way home from work just now. It was really good. Unfortunately these are things I've thought about for a long time. And my conclusion has long been that the answer is that America can't get along. That participating in the Republic at the size it is now is hard to do without reducing complexity. So break apart the country, etc. and people can move in with their tribes. But that's another thread.
It was a good listen, though.
It doesn't sway me on my earlier point in the other thread that while I find violence repulsive I don't know what my ceiling for violence would be if my people were being murdered for being who they are. Unfortunately the African American community also has to ask themselves similar questions of how much they're willing to tolerate before truly fighting back. It turns out they can tolerate a lot, sadly.
This whole thing has just made me really sad and I don't have a great answer for people who live constantly under the threat of violence.
I cannot describe how happy I am to see this topic get its own thread. Having just recently caught up to present in the Presidential thread, i was greatly disheartened that the Myth of Redemptive Violence is still alive and thriving in the country that best utilized non-violent resistance a mere 50 years ago. The challenge of non-violent resistance is to employ it effectively to reconcile and challenge the enemy the people with whom you disagree. While it is an old idea that is often conveniently ignored ("turning the other cheek" and "loving your neighbor"), the challenge of loving "your enemy" as yourself and doing everything in your power to reconcile with them is one of the most beautiful pursuits and pivotal advancements of humankind.
I'm on mobile today and for the days to come but I'd would love to talk further about the practice of non-violence. This Note 4 on a bumpy bus is about to make me throw up...eek.
For personal context: I grew up in a religiously open household that went to Methodist Church but talked openly about Mennonite beliefs at home. (As you wiki it, Mennonites don't all forsake electricity:-) ) For what it's worth, I'm currently active duty US military.
This whole thing has just made me really sad and I don't have a great answer for people who live constantly under the threat of violence.
I think the time for answers is past. We're past ideology and into identity. You do what you can to make the world a better place, and you save your call-outs for people who enjoy a similar (or greater without getting into Oppression Olympics issues) amount of privilege as you do. (edit) If you want to tell someone that has the same lived experience that you do that violence is not the answer, then I think you can. Someone with less? Try trust:
You trust that there are enough people in less privileged groups that will say the same things you would--you trust that there are people just as smart and well-informed and moral as you among those groups that you don't need to throw your voice into the mix.
If (edit) the violence gets serious enough that you feel you cannot trust things to work out without your criticism, then at least do it from a place of criticism of something that actually happened. Don't do it based on a fear of a slippery slope or commitment to an abstract liberal principle.
edit: eh, again like in the previous thread, something important to telling my story, but maybe not relevant enough for the thread.
Non violent resistance only works if the opposition recognizes you as human.
But does violent resistance convince more people on the fence about whether you are human that you aren't?
The Israel-Palestine conflict comes to mind. If violent resistance had never been used, would the Israelis still have been able to justify creating more and more and more settlements to protect the settlements they had already taken to protect the settlements they had already taken?
I think that the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most useful ones to look at in this context because of the enormous power disparity between Israel and Palestine. In the 1960s White America could definitely be scared that Black America could hurt them. The population overall was probably what, 10% black? And in the most affected areas of the South the fraction of black Americans must frequently have gotten up to over 40%.
Any weakening of cultural mores against violence almost has to be bad for trans people. We don't know exactly how many there are, but the estimates are 0.3 to 0.5% of US population. I just don't see violence being effective in this scenario, regardless of the morality.
Maybe not the best example, since the Israel/Palestine conflict more or less began with Israeli death squads murdering Palestinians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killin...
Non violent resistance only works if the opposition recognizes you as human.
Sounds like your mind's actually made up.
I cannot describe how happy I am to see this topic get its own thread. Having just recently caught up to present in the Presidential thread, i was greatly disheartened that the Myth of Redemptive Violence is still alive and thriving in the country that best utilized non-violent resistance a mere 50 years ago. The challenge of non-violent resistance is to employ it effectively to reconcile and challenge the enemy the people with whom you disagree. While it is an old idea that is often conveniently ignored ("turning the other cheek" and "loving your neighbor"), the challenge of loving "your enemy" as yourself and doing everything in your power to reconcile with them is one of the most beautiful pursuits and pivotal advancements of humankind.
It's a rose colored lens if we think that the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's was non-violent and that non-violent peaceful protest was the only thing that worked. Talking to many of my friends GrandParents they all felt that what finally got some things done was the continuing threat and escalation of violence from the oppressed. Theres a reason the Black Panthers were so feared and quickly dealt with.. White America was scared to death of a militant uprising.. that is why the Nation of Islam was so feared as well.
Pages