The population has been made isolated at the community level. There are very few local groups doing any reaction at all to this.
And violent reactions which are successful are a group action; it’s very seldom an individual, in any era of history, changed the politics by themselves.
And as long as there are no impromptu gatherings of significant frequency, there will be very little violence.
The internet is not a replacement for community driven change which powers all social and political movements, peaceful or not.
The turning point, if there is one, will be lots of local meetings by the thousands , and not until then. No matter how violent or passive the individuals be
The only country in the whole world with thousands of school shootings annually thinks violence is wrong? The country where the police force is trained to view themselves as an occupying force and civilians are enemy combatants is averse to violence? The country who’s leader is currently cheerleading multiple genocides is peaceful?!?!1?
Can you even define “violence?” Because this country personifies it.
The country’s political classes are violent. The people are trained to be nonviolent. This gives the state a monopoly on violence, which cements their control. Americans will be free when they stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence.
You’re right. Right after we stop driving our cars though protestors and shooting people through closed and locked doors we can “stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence.”
“America’s is nonviolent” is probably gonna go down as the singular stupidest thing i read all year. 'grats.
certain kinds of violence are glorified, because that which is forbidden is coveted.
Certain kinds of violence are acceptable, because it targets groups that are considered lesser.
Ask anyone if “is violence sometimes ok?” and you’ll always get a loud and resounding “no”, and it’s so obviously a lie. You can even get them tripped up in the lie if you ask “what if someone is breaking into your home?” or other questions in which someone else is committing violence first. They’ll begrudgingly admit that sometimes violence is ok, but that’s different! If the person is open minded enough, you might even get to more nuanced scenarios than that, but good luck.
We have the largest military spending in the world, and we call it “defense”.
Superman and Batman are two of the most iconic characters in fiction, and they Do Not Kill. It’s a big deal if they break that rule, or that piece of media is kinda trash, that happens too. I like to call them “defenders of the status quo”, because the companies that own them (not just them but also other characters that serve the same purpose) won’t ever let them make things better. If they ever try, that’s portrayed as a bad thing. We’re told through these media that the real world as it is, is as good as it gets. The real world sucks ass, the bad guys won, and they’re not even cool bad guys.
I think I lost the plot somewhere in there. Time for another drink!
There is still a lot of violent potential in all this population, it just needs to be nurtured by a working grassroots movement. And that is broken. Just like you can drive a car with a working motor, that has a busted axle; you cannot lead violent people to do things if there is no place to hook up or meet in person.
This applies to the people who oppose you as much as you, and I mean anyone. So, the current situation is sort of a stabilizing force at the moment
You just claimed all violence is wrong, in reply to why people are choosing “nonviolence” which is a liberal propagandized view because the entire system is predicated on very active violence, just not in front of the consumers.
Also odd to call all animals wrong for “choosing” violence, I’m not certain how you define it, but colloquially violence is either inherently part of how nature works or a choice that is within some human defined morality that cannot be blanket applied to other animals.
For fucks sake. It’s not propaganda to think violence isn’t the answer to political problems. Have you never heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right?” If not, learn it, if so, them tire being willfully obtuse.
And you know damn well I didn’t mean “animals” to imply actual animals. It’s a term. How about you replace “animals” with “losers,” or “assholes” instead.
Lastly, I tend to avoid arguing with smug and arrogant people that try and rub pseudo-intellectual bullshit all over everything. So…
It’s propaganda to think that violence isnt a last resort. I hope you never in a position to need self-defense because you seem to not believe in it.
Why would I assume otherwise? I would never call another group of people “animals,” that’s dehumanizing. Why would I assume someone who is nonviolence is okay with equating other people to animals, is kindness and respect not a core belief of nonviolence?
Quick to call others smug and arrogant because you can’t have a dialogue.
I hope you break out of your cognitive dissonance chamber one day.
If one thinks violence is the only way to solve your problems. They are no more than an animal. This is my belief. I won’t apologize because you disagree. Evolution has allowed us to solve our problems without the need to kill people.
Oh and…
This isn’t cognitive dissonance. I know it’s a nice sounding big word that makes you sound smart, but it doesn’t apply here. My actions and my belief are perfectly aligned, so… Maybe learn what it means before you toss that one around, mmmkay?
Here, I know it’s confusing if you haven’t read about what the “whatabout” logical fallacy means, so I’ll post it for you here.
“the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.”
Unfortunately, you are objectively wrong about this. Feel free to try and change the meaning, if you want, but currently that is not what a “whatabout” is. In this case, calling it a “whatabout” is being used to deflect from facts that you cannot reckon with because they challenge your beliefs.
I hope you’re able to take this information in and accept it. Good luck. Pacifism is virtuous.
You know, in a way, depending on perspective, you’re right. However the way I see it is-
Instead of actually arguing against my point, you’re using another completely unrelated point to prove it wrong. Meaning that allied wartime forces were not engaging in acts of violence because they couldn’t solve their disputes. They were doing their job.
One could argue that the military commanders were guilty of this- and I’d see the logic in that argument, but…
In my opinion, ALL things can be resolved without violence. Only, the problem with that is, people generally don’t like the option to solve things peacefully because it usually requires either compromise or hard work. And since we’re an all-or-nothing society now, peaceful compromise is just too much effort.
So yeah. Maybe your right that it’s not what whataboutism, but it’s definitely a false eloquence-
A false equivalence fallacy involves treating multiple situations or viewpoints as equivalent despite their significant differences. This sometimes results from faulty reasoning, but it is often used deliberately to lead an audience to a desired conclusion.
…which in my perspective, is far worse. Because in your example, you’re insulting the men and women who served to protect us by using them to illustrate the idea that they’re incapable of solving their issues without violence.
I hope you’re able to take this information and accept it. Good luck. Violence is animalistic.
The population has been made isolated at the community level. There are very few local groups doing any reaction at all to this.
And violent reactions which are successful are a group action; it’s very seldom an individual, in any era of history, changed the politics by themselves.
And as long as there are no impromptu gatherings of significant frequency, there will be very little violence.
The internet is not a replacement for community driven change which powers all social and political movements, peaceful or not.
The turning point, if there is one, will be lots of local meetings by the thousands , and not until then. No matter how violent or passive the individuals be
Americans won’t form violent groups because they’re trapped in the mind prison of nonviolence. They think violence is wrong.
What are you smoking?
The only country in the whole world with thousands of school shootings annually thinks violence is wrong? The country where the police force is trained to view themselves as an occupying force and civilians are enemy combatants is averse to violence? The country who’s leader is currently cheerleading multiple genocides is peaceful?!?!1?
Can you even define “violence?” Because this country personifies it.
The country’s political classes are violent. The people are trained to be nonviolent. This gives the state a monopoly on violence, which cements their control. Americans will be free when they stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence.
You’re right. Right after we stop driving our cars though protestors and shooting people through closed and locked doors we can “stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence.”
“America’s is nonviolent” is probably gonna go down as the singular stupidest thing i read all year. 'grats.
it’s more nuanced than that.
certain kinds of violence are glorified, because that which is forbidden is coveted.
Certain kinds of violence are acceptable, because it targets groups that are considered lesser.
Ask anyone if “is violence sometimes ok?” and you’ll always get a loud and resounding “no”, and it’s so obviously a lie. You can even get them tripped up in the lie if you ask “what if someone is breaking into your home?” or other questions in which someone else is committing violence first. They’ll begrudgingly admit that sometimes violence is ok, but that’s different! If the person is open minded enough, you might even get to more nuanced scenarios than that, but good luck.
We have the largest military spending in the world, and we call it “defense”.
Superman and Batman are two of the most iconic characters in fiction, and they Do Not Kill. It’s a big deal if they break that rule, or that piece of media is kinda trash, that happens too. I like to call them “defenders of the status quo”, because the companies that own them (not just them but also other characters that serve the same purpose) won’t ever let them make things better. If they ever try, that’s portrayed as a bad thing. We’re told through these media that the real world as it is, is as good as it gets. The real world sucks ass, the bad guys won, and they’re not even cool bad guys.
I think I lost the plot somewhere in there. Time for another drink!
There is still a lot of violent potential in all this population, it just needs to be nurtured by a working grassroots movement. And that is broken. Just like you can drive a car with a working motor, that has a busted axle; you cannot lead violent people to do things if there is no place to hook up or meet in person.
This applies to the people who oppose you as much as you, and I mean anyone. So, the current situation is sort of a stabilizing force at the moment
It’s because it IS wrong. Animals resort to violence when they don’t get their way.
Don’t kid yourself, you’re pro-violence if you’re okay with how the system is now.
Where in what I said did you interpret that I was okay with how the system is?
You just claimed all violence is wrong, in reply to why people are choosing “nonviolence” which is a liberal propagandized view because the entire system is predicated on very active violence, just not in front of the consumers.
Also odd to call all animals wrong for “choosing” violence, I’m not certain how you define it, but colloquially violence is either inherently part of how nature works or a choice that is within some human defined morality that cannot be blanket applied to other animals.
“LiBruL pROpAgAnDa!”
For fucks sake. It’s not propaganda to think violence isn’t the answer to political problems. Have you never heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right?” If not, learn it, if so, them tire being willfully obtuse.
And you know damn well I didn’t mean “animals” to imply actual animals. It’s a term. How about you replace “animals” with “losers,” or “assholes” instead.
Lastly, I tend to avoid arguing with smug and arrogant people that try and rub pseudo-intellectual bullshit all over everything. So…
Have a day.
It’s propaganda to think that violence isnt a last resort. I hope you never in a position to need self-defense because you seem to not believe in it.
Why would I assume otherwise? I would never call another group of people “animals,” that’s dehumanizing. Why would I assume someone who is nonviolence is okay with equating other people to animals, is kindness and respect not a core belief of nonviolence?
Quick to call others smug and arrogant because you can’t have a dialogue.
I hope you break out of your cognitive dissonance chamber one day.
If one thinks violence is the only way to solve your problems. They are no more than an animal. This is my belief. I won’t apologize because you disagree. Evolution has allowed us to solve our problems without the need to kill people.
Oh and…
This isn’t cognitive dissonance. I know it’s a nice sounding big word that makes you sound smart, but it doesn’t apply here. My actions and my belief are perfectly aligned, so… Maybe learn what it means before you toss that one around, mmmkay?
The allied soldiers who killed the nazi soldiers are… doing something wrong?
🤔
Nice whatabout. Not entertaining it.
That’s not what a whatabout is.
“Animals resort to violence”
“Whatabout allies soldiers?”
Yes it is.
Here, I know it’s confusing if you haven’t read about what the “whatabout” logical fallacy means, so I’ll post it for you here.
“the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.”
Unfortunately, you are objectively wrong about this. Feel free to try and change the meaning, if you want, but currently that is not what a “whatabout” is. In this case, calling it a “whatabout” is being used to deflect from facts that you cannot reckon with because they challenge your beliefs.
I hope you’re able to take this information in and accept it. Good luck. Pacifism is virtuous.
You know, in a way, depending on perspective, you’re right. However the way I see it is-
Instead of actually arguing against my point, you’re using another completely unrelated point to prove it wrong. Meaning that allied wartime forces were not engaging in acts of violence because they couldn’t solve their disputes. They were doing their job.
One could argue that the military commanders were guilty of this- and I’d see the logic in that argument, but…
In my opinion, ALL things can be resolved without violence. Only, the problem with that is, people generally don’t like the option to solve things peacefully because it usually requires either compromise or hard work. And since we’re an all-or-nothing society now, peaceful compromise is just too much effort.
So yeah. Maybe your right that it’s not what whataboutism, but it’s definitely a false eloquence-
A false equivalence fallacy involves treating multiple situations or viewpoints as equivalent despite their significant differences. This sometimes results from faulty reasoning, but it is often used deliberately to lead an audience to a desired conclusion.
…which in my perspective, is far worse. Because in your example, you’re insulting the men and women who served to protect us by using them to illustrate the idea that they’re incapable of solving their issues without violence.
I hope you’re able to take this information and accept it. Good luck. Violence is animalistic.
BULLSHIT
Profound! As was the last time you said the exact same thing.