Are there limits to the usefulness of nonviolence?

[Mischief]

Could a mod move the last couple of posts from the racism in the U.S. thread over here?

 

[silva]

Like this one?
I look at guns the same way I see self defense in general
l don't think any less of predatory animals, and if ever felt threatened by any kind of animal I would do whatever it takes to defend myself. If I were to see a child being mauled by a dog I would do whatever it took to help them.
While I don't feel immediately threatened, the idea of keeping a firearm at my bedside, in the situation I am now in, does not conflict with my ethics in any way

 

[Mischief]

I agree pretty much with what your post, Silva.

I would broaden it for myself. I would use violence to protect an animal in my care from attack by another animal, including human animals.

I also think that there are situations that don't directly involve me or those in my care that justify violence. IMO, not doing whatever it takes to stop genocide or ethnic cleansing is not ethically justified.

 

[beancounter]

A quick OT thought - We have a president who supports Nazi's, yet has a Jewish son-in-law. Family dynamics in the Trump household must be very interesting... Of course, if Kushner is a soulless sell-out, it doesn't matter.

We have a president who clearly is indebted to White Supremacist/Neo Nazis/Alt Right. These people who strive to emulate the original Nazi's in every way, including using violence and ultimately genocide (if they ever got the chance). And Trump represents their best chance.

These people admire and only understand violence, and therefore non violence is useless against them. Has anyone ever had to deal with a schoolyard bully? Same thing...

 

[silva]

I agree pretty much with what your post, Silva.

I would broaden it for myself. I would use violence to protect an animal in my care from attack by another animal, including human animals.

I also think that there are situations that don't directly involve me or those in my care that justify violence. IMO, not doing whatever it takes to stop genocide or ethnic cleansing is not ethically justified.

Most definitely. I grew up in the 70's and our house, and car, were always locked. It had nothing to do with where you were, I was taught that anything could happen anywhere. I never understood people my age saying they never used to lock their doors or mistrust people.
I don't do a lot of things because I do have a certain paranoia. I would feel better if I carried a gun

 

[Wolfie]

Yes, there are limits. Some people don't respond to anything else. You can't reason with a psychopath.

 

[Blues]

Well I have been involved in some rather violent situations ( I use to be a pub bouncer ) I was strong, well trained, but on the second night I realized that my best weapon was calmness and using my mouth with the right words to defuse situations . I think there were only three situation where it all blew up and I went in screaming like some Dirty Harry character , o/k ,it worked , but when I self examined the situations latter I realized I could have handled it better . I still don't know how I got out of some full on situations with no marks on my body.
But in saying that, I was always locked and loaded defensive wise .

I look at the gay community with the unbelievable muck and violence that has come their way in their struggle to be accepted as human , but they never resorted to violence to those who opposed their goals .
The same with Martin Luther King .

So are there limits to the usefulness of nonviolence .....depends on the situation and the person .

 

[Spang]

To paraphrase Stokely Carmichael, nonviolence only works if your opponent has a conscience.

 

[Andy_T]

Bringing this thread back from the basement ...

The case against antifa

Over the weekend, activists descended on Berkeley, California, and attacked peaceful protesters. But it wasn’t far-right white supremacists leading the violence this time, as was the case in Charlottesville, Virginia, a few weeks ago. It was left-wing “antifa” (short for “anti-fascist”) counterprotesters who assaulted people.

During the 1960s, there were hundreds of riots across America in protest of police brutality and in support of civil rights. Experts say the riots were a major contributor to the rise of “law and order” and “tough on crime” policies that followed in the coming decades. These policies made police more aggressive and filled America’s prisons to levels never seen before in US history. In short, the perception of lawlessness led both Americans and their politicians to demand more stringent law enforcement.

Omar Wasow, a political scientist at Princeton University, noted as much in a recent study:

In presidential elections, proximity to black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines and likely tipped the 1968 election from [Democrat] Hubert Humphrey to [Republican] Richard Nixon.

Antifa risks feeding another conservative backlash.

Trump himself ran on a “law and order” and “tough on crime” platform. If Trump can credibly argue that there is a lot of chaos and violence out there, that could empower him to carry out a crackdown. And with that crackdown could come both greater support for Trump and the enactment of his policies. It’s an outcome that antifa doesn’t want — but antifa’s approach to protest could very well fuel it.

 

[FortyTwo]

Trump and co. will continue to be amoral, militaristic, disgusting. Not responding to fascism with every possible ounce of force just helps enable citizens who worship him and his ideological equivalents to do harm on a day to day basis.

I.E. stopping governmental violence is a different can of worms than stopping day to day street violence committed by nazis. The latter can be frightened out of demonstrating and screaming their hate, the former is surrounded by the secret service anyway.

 

[Spang]

 

[Andy_T]

I think what disproves the viability of violent tactics is the fact how people who behave violently (on many sides) are seen by the general public.

I had no qualms at all to call out Dump for his "on many sides" comment when the Charlottesville rallye happened, simply because violence was only instigated by one side.

I would have a much harder time to justify this video that was linked in the article above, showing a right-wing videographer getting beaten up with poles and kicked by antifa "protesters".

Don't know what would have happened to him, had not an African-American journalist placed himself on top of him to stop the aggression....

https://twitter.com/x/status/901912507010375681

So if they had killed or seriously wounded that guy, what would be the narrative then???
I definitely do not trust that they would have stopped beating up the guy out of the goodness of their hearts...

We are rightfully appalled by what happened to DeAndre Harris, not only because the racists beating him up did it out of contempt for people of colour, but also because a mob cornered and beat up a single man. So what about this?

 

[beancounter]

Un-instigated violence is not helpful to a cause, but violence in defense of ones self, or in the defense of others in your group is justified, and is the only way to get the group who started the fight to think twice the next time. Classic bully scenario...

Attacking someone who is pointing a camera at you is stupid and unjustified. Attacking someone who is pointing a gun or brandishing a knife at you is a different matter entirely.

 

[Spang]

I think what disproves the viability of violent tactics is the fact how people who behave violently (on many sides) are seen by the general public.

The primary goal of AntiFa is preventing genocide. If we allow Nazis to organize in public, if we allow them a platform, if we afford them free speech, it will lead to all kinds of violence. When that threat is neutralized, AntiFa can do other things, like disaster relief.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Atlantic: What do people think about the atlantic. I think it's good and also refreshingly lacking in left/right wing bias.

How to Distinguish Between Antifa, White Supremacists, and Black Lives Matter

 

[Andy_T]

Noam Chomsky argues Antifa is a 'major gift to the right'