This is meant to be an ethical debate about the use of violence for achieving political or social justice goals. It can include discussion of current events as well as historical cases. As per the GWJ Code of Conduct, this thread is not about advocating violence.
I’m creating this thread as an offshoot of the George Floyd protest thread. Several posters mentioned how the Tulsa Massacre in the 1920s helped reshape America for ill, with the suggestion that using similar methods today could result in a good outcome for PoC in America.
Its a good question that I think is worth it’s own thread.
Let me first state that my default position is that life is sacred and violence should only be used as a last resort in self defense. I’ve seen too many instances both in my own military career and as an amateur historian where mindless violence solved nothing.
But I’m willing to admit I may be wrong on this. The Haitian Revolution and Civil War were both incredibly violent but ended slavery. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the march of fascism and likely saved millions of lives. Saying that Martin Luther King Jr would have been as effective without Malcolm X as a foil is probably revisionist history.
And if we want to look at the ultimate “ends justify the means” argument, we should look at the Mongol and Roman empires. Both engaged in mass brutality and yet created peaceful and prosperous conditions within their borders. It’s said that during the reign of the Mongols, a young girl carrying a bag of gold could walk the entire Silk Road and feel perfectly safe. While I don’t think any modern person would approve of those methods, I think we can all marvel at those results.
Which leaves me to some questions I’m willing to debate.
Should violence always be a last resort, or is there a good argument to be made that’s a useful political and social tool?
Are all lives sacred, or do some lives have relative or even negative value? (I can see the argument that say Ted Bundy was a negative value life and the world is a better place now that he’s not in it).
If everything is relative, is it moral to accept these many casualties or property damage to create this or that outcome? For example, air campaigns worked great during World War 2 and Kosovo but failed to win in Vietnam.
And finally, is there something to be said for embracing revenge? If your enemy has used rape, torture, child murder, etc. does that make it more morally acceptable to engage in the same?
At any rate, I thought this might be a useful place to debate both current and historical examples of violence.
I think the disagreement is more on whether or not PoC are at their justified last resort. I mean, cops are still killing them indiscriminately (and mostly getting away with it), instigating riots whenever they attempt to peacefully protest, and white supremacists have joined in on the action because they know the police are on their side. How much more should they be expected to endure before we start seeing it as self defense?
The Konami Code taught me everything I need to know about sex.
to anyone that's okay with uncompensated property damage (personal property, not corporate) but doesn't live somewhere they are in danger of suffering such a loss, you can always sell your property and donate the proceeds to projects you think will fight racism.
maybe that's not the same thing as the destruction itself because the symbolism of the destruction is essential, but it's just something to keep in mind that the sacrifice is the same. You'll even have time to get anything important out.
I think "last resort" changes meanings as you look at larger scopes. For the vast majority of individuals at the protests (for example), they are not in mortal danger at any given moment. If this could conceivably be considered a tipping point after which is considered (even more explicit) open season on PoC, one could argue that it is the last resort for the group on a societal scale.
If you rule like Megatron, you're going to raise Starscream.
I think the real answer is that the forces in charge will literally allow the country to get to the point where it’s burned down rather than address systematic racism.
Aint nothing new about the world order..it's been playing since the day they put George Washington on a quarter
Delivering Truth while the 10% deliver lies.
My son is black. And if anyone ever asked me how many stores I would burn down if it would mean he won’t be killed by the police, the answer is all of them.
PSN: UpToIsomorphism
oilypenguin: That is a terrible joke and I'd ask you to be ashamed of yourself but you've been around here long enough that I know you'll be proud of it.
detroit20: UptoIsomorphism has it right.
I do think the protestors need to buy guns , train in shooting guns, and use those guns to violently defend themselves when needed. So far only one side has shown strength in arms. The fascist getting appropriately shot in Portland I think will send a message that liberals will defend themselves when assaulted.
In terms of burning stuff down. It’s just stuff. You can always buy more.
SallyNasty: Docjoe is a man of erudition and enlightenment, worthy of praise and respect!
On the contrary, I think it’s only going to make things worse. We showed them the weekend of the 22nd that the Left can and will defend themselves even though we were outnumbered, and this weekend they came in even larger numbers, and instead of facing us in the streets they just cruised around in trucks trying to run over protestors and indiscriminately dispensing violence against both protestors and bystanders. Now I fear they’re going to escalate things even further.
Protestors arming themselves will also only encourage them to escalate, and would likely encourage the cops to escalate as well. The last thing this movement needs is hundreds of people amped up on adrenaline waiting for an excuse to shoot someone.
EDIT: just discovered that they’re already planning another rally for this upcoming weekend.
”History is a long series of surprises that seem inevitable in retrospect.“
The MAGA crowd is going to continue to escalate because they've convinced themselves--and are being told by the president--that the fate of white people in America and America itself is at risk.
Because of that there is no non-violent resolution to this conflict short of protesters backing completely down and accepting the status quo.
The Root's Michael Harriot published an excellent Twitter thread earlier this summer that detailed how the civil rights movement wasn't exactly as non-violent as most of us were taught, how Black people had to defend themselves, and how that violence--and the threat it continuing--was what finally convinced politicians to pay attention.
More people are going to get hurt and die from these protests because humanity has proven time and time again that no significant social change happens without violence as the people who have power *really* don't like giving any of it up.
Ima going to go to shalam baskey now
I’m clearly not against political violence, I just don’t think bringing guns into things is a smart move right now.
”History is a long series of surprises that seem inevitable in retrospect.“
Guns are never the smart move.
But the other side has already brought guns into things and shown that they are perfectly willing to use them.
Ima going to go to shalam baskey now
Portland is sort of stuck in a precarious position right now between cops looking for every opportunity to brutalize people and white supremacist-led MAGAs coming in from surrounding areas causing havoc with the implied permission of the cops. If the protestors do anything as bold as publicly arming themselves this will very quickly turn into a bloodbath.
”History is a long series of surprises that seem inevitable in retrospect.“
Protestors bringing guns just gives them the excuse they're looking for. It's also a hell of a lot easier for them to justify killing armed protestors. When they defend people like Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting unarmed protestors or even unarmed rioters, they alienate a lot of people (none that are already on their side, but the people who aren't paying close attention or deliberately don't follow the news). If the protestors had guns, they're more likely to believe that the victims posed an actual threat and buy the bullsh*t self defense arguments.
The Konami Code taught me everything I need to know about sex.
Well, only if you have the money to buy more stuff!
Given how economically precarious life in America is right now, I think I'd rather lose my life than my stuff. One is just a slow version of the other.
It will be the 2nd or 3rd wave of fighters that substantially up the violence.
Gun fire is rough but the first parade or funeral procession that gets ambushed by explosives will be a decent eye opener for everyone.
The MAGA crowd loves their big pick ups. All those things are are huge targets for a molotov or pipe bomb.
Edit: so to put this in context, I believe we're on the cusp of asymmetric violence not seen in the US in a few hundred years.
And it's not left-wing / right-wing to me. To me, it's about people who choose violence versus those who do not.
The tools of violence will change as the tactical situation changes.
Anyone who posted in this thread is a racist.*
*Except me. - Certis
I think the gun toting MAGA crowd are basically cowards who like to dress up as tough guys. I think that if they learn that the other side has guns and is not afraid to use them, they will be a lot less likely to want to march around with their assault rifles.
Or maybe it will just speed up the start of the Civil War that we seem to be inevitably headed for.
SallyNasty: Docjoe is a man of erudition and enlightenment, worthy of praise and respect!
I suspect/like to think/hope that if it comes to both sides carrying, the protesters will be grudgingly engaged but fully committed, while the MAGAts will bluster and break at sustained contact. I hope.
Still a lot of people getting hurt, I recognize that, but I fully expect the folks on the right side of history to have more persistence in this fight.
If you rule like Megatron, you're going to raise Starscream.
When it comes down to those who are fighting for an idea vs those who are fighting for each other (I'm talking the primary motivator), the former can be more brutal, but the latter tend to have a lot more endurance.
"I basically do what Lou says." -- Yonder
"My love is for Lou." -- LiquidMantis
"LouZiffer is a gentleman, a rogue, and a fantastic lover." -- Vector
"You could yoink it for a Sig." -- Demosthenes
As soon as the protesters start carrying weapons, they give up any moral high ground they may have occupied. And as we've seen from other incidents in the country, there is very little that the American public fears more than armed black men.
As soon as they've got guns, authorities can claim they're not peaceful protestors anymore. The knives, both literal and figurative, come out.
I think it’s wrong to think of them as cowards. Not that they aren’t, but it’s more nuanced than that. They (the ones out counter protesting at least) have bought into a warped, archaic idea of masculinity and don’t know how to face defeat without escalating because conceding defeat goes against the very idea of who they are. They are the “true men” who will save america from the enemy leftists who are paradoxically both so weak they ask for safe spaces and so powerful they are destroying cities.
We saw this in action over the last two weeks, they came to portland to bully protestors into backing down and got steamrolled by protesters who’ve been streetfighting cops and federal paramilitary for three months. Rather than admitting defeat they returned the following weekend in even greater numbers and vastly escalated the violence. If protestors start publicly arming themselves they aren’t going to back down, they’ll just return with the intention of being the ones to shoot first. They know the cops have their back and that they’ll be hailed as heroes among conservatives on the national stage. Rittenhouse has been publicly praised by basically every conservative figurehead including the President and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised by conservative crowdfunding for him.
”History is a long series of surprises that seem inevitable in retrospect.“
It's also not a good idea to think of them as a uniform group. 95% of them are exactly as described, and will run away screaming if faced with stiff resistance. But some of them are soldiers, veterans. We've got at least one ex-SEAL stalking around the Portland crowd.
I don't really have a great answer on how to get rid of these idiots. I'm not so sure that just ignoring them is the answer. We sort of did that a few months back, and rather than get bored, they started invading ciderhouses and harassing random people on the streets.
My thoughts on the latest round of invaders is that we need to pop some tires.
Lone actors like the pipe-bomb guy aren’t my primary concern, it’s the hate groups steering the Portland counterprotestors. They do act as a uniform group and have a proven history of seeking and provoking violence. What’s happening here isn’t just a bunch of miscellaneous Trump stans coming to Portland to show up the libs, it’s a movement being directed by reactionary white nationalist and christian identitarians to use Portland to further their own goals.
”History is a long series of surprises that seem inevitable in retrospect.“
I just finished listening to the most recent episode of It’s Going Down’s podcast and it coincidentally dovetails into this discussion, talking about how Republicans are trying to normalize violence as a political strategy.
”History is a long series of surprises that seem inevitable in retrospect.“