Also, to be clear, I have no qualms with those who don’t want to engage in violence. But there is a difference between that and disparaging those who do choose to use it against powerful oppressors, and there is a huge double standard where people tend to laud the violence of those in the past against oppressors while always condemning it in the present. There is also a huge amount of ignorance of the power of violence (see: people solely crediting MLK for civil rights gains in the 60s while ignoring that he was very much seem as a compromise by the government compared to the more militant movements that were threatening to storm the capitol, or the fact that the modern queer rights movements started with multiple riots against the police) and not considering that the defining feature of a state is holding a monopoly on it. Part of why I’m posting this stuff is to try to get people to understand (and hopefully get them to get others to understand) that.

AttackChimp wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:34 pm

rsmurphy wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:23 pm

AttackChimp wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:56 pm

Yup. That shit needs to end.

How? Voting?
-

Yes.

AttackChimp wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:37 pm

Hex wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:28 pm I don’t want any suffering beyond what would be necessary for liberation.

Okay. Should we march them into trains so they can be relocated to camps where the girls get a flower?

You aren't the only one who can evoke this shit. You write checks you can't cash.

Talking shit about a dead man on his fucking site? To make a point about how violence should be used?

No, I don’t want death camps. I want systemic change so that few people can’t hold massive amounts of power over others’ lives.

I don’t think it’s “talking shit” about someone to acknowledge they had flawed beliefs and grew from them. And my point was that simply bringing an opinion one person who was not directly targeted by those issues had at one time on that, an opinion that also evolved over time (like the things I pointed out) to be different, isn’t a good argument. That was the entire reason I brought them up and I wouldn’t have otherwise if I was presented with, say, an actual line of reasoning Steve gave instead of the argument being basically “Steve said this in a song”.

I’m not interested in arguing with people who don’t have the reading/logic comprehension to understand things like that anymore so I’m just going to save us both time and energy and block you now

Hex wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:42 pm or the fact that the modern queer rights movements started with multiple riots against the police)

I was there. I got my ass kicked in TSP, by cops with black tape over their badges. It was the other way around. The cops beat us. To be clear, not stomewall (I'm not that old).

Hex wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:47 pm I’m not interested in arguing with people who don’t have the reading/logic comprehension to understand things like that anymore so I’m just going to save us both time and energy and block you now

Why not just not block me and be an adult? You aren't the only one out there, even though it feels exactly like that now.

Violence is never an answer. I'm sorry you feel differently.

AttackChimp wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:51 pm Violence is never an answer.

We earned civil rights because of violence.

rsmurphy wrote:

AttackChimp wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:51 pm Violence is never an answer.

We earned civil rights because of violence.

Amen.


If I see one more lame post “Steve wrote a song about how I am right,” I’m going to set fire to a record store.

ChudFusk wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:32 pm If I see one more lame post “Steve wrote a song about how I am right,” I’m going to set fire to a record store.

That wasn't my point. You're right though.

rsmurphy wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:19 pm

AttackChimp wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:51 pm Violence is never an answer.

We earned civil rights because of violence.

There was a lot of violence, but arguably police violence and domestic terrorism became so repugnant and modern media became so omnipresent that public opinion turned.

Anyone who thinks that MLK or Gandhi chose nonviolence for reasons other than it was the most effective tactic available to them under the circumstances at the time is woefully misguided. Saul Alinsky laid this out in pretty clear and irrefutable terms and it's obvious that most of the forum hasn't read a lick of his work.

The so-called left's greatest weakness is its compulsive need to feel shame. Right wingers wanna call you intolerant because you don't wanna take their shit? Stop making excuses and embrace the label. Yeah we're intolerant. So what? The right wants to say "so much for the nonviolent left" when you fight back? Tell them that you decided they were right all along and that maybe violence is the answer. Take away their ability to use your own need to feel ashamed as a weapon that lets them control the narrative. Ultimately, there's more of us, and they're terrified. This is why they're so desperate to use violence in the first place.

ErickC wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 4:21 pm Anyone who thinks that MLK or Gandhi chose nonviolence for reasons other than it was the most effective tactic available to them under the circumstances at the time is woefully misguided. Saul Alinsky laid this out in pretty clear and irrefutable terms and it's obvious that most of the forum hasn't read a lick of his work.

Oh, shit yeah it was tactical. The whole story kids learn at school, Rosa Parks, police beatings, arrests. They planned everything. It was easy to make the perfect villain out of, well a fucking villain. I haven't read "a lick of his work" but I can see what you're talking about.