# When is political violence appropriate? When is it necessary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038 "2017-06-15T16:57:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/21 "2017-06-16T01:07:36Z")
The point where violence is acceptable for a cause is the point where it no longer does more harm than good. It is in the best interest of peaceful democracy to push the idea that violence actually hurts your cause. That way neither side will jump to violence as a way to win a debate. And, let me be clear, that doesn’t work. Violence doesn’t help you win a debate. It can be used to fight injustice, but it will cause you to lose a debate, so, if debate is still a possible way to deal with things, it’s not a good idea to jump to violence. That’s why a guy shooting a bunch of Republican Congresspeople is a fucking idiot, and actually harms the cause. But I also know that the Black Panthers did help with the Civil Rights movement. Because of what I said above, that’s not the story we want to tell people. But they did help. And so I do have to wonder if Antifa is setting themselves up in a similar way. The threat of violence can help level a playing field. I hope not, but I can see some parallels. One thing I am sure of is that there was a fundamental shift with Trump’s popularity and election. It does actually change things. The fact that the alt-right finally found a candidate to get behind very much changes things. That said candidate won really changes things. We can’t keep assuming that the old tactics, which didn’t prevent this from happening, will work this time. I do know one personal change I’ve made. This was the nail in the coffin for my idea that people are generally good, just with some of them flawed. For a while, I held onto that with an exception for less than 1% of people. But I can’t do that anymore. I do think there is a significant minority (perhaps at 20% of Americans) that is irredeemable–at least, by any practical means. And I do think we have to treat them differently than we treat the people who actually are good. That doesn’t mean violence, but it doesn’t mean sitting down to dinner and having a nice conversation, either. And, before you ask what I’ve done on this front, I admit I’ve not done much, but that’s because I find it extremely emotionally difficult to deal with most of the time. I mostly just have those conversations online, and stick with the people I know who I know are good people and present ideas they haven’t thought of. But I have a temper, and it’s really hard to even do that right. And, well, sometimes, I don’t want to even if I could. Because the world sucks, and I can’t keep everything inside, either. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/22 "2017-06-16T02:26:05Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I do think there is a significant minority (perhaps at 20% of Americans) that is irredeemable–at least, by any practical means. How well did that line of thinking work out for Secretary Clinton? ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/23 "2017-06-16T05:11:19Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” > > - Thomas Jefferson That quote [in context](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm) is: > [@](#): > > They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. I don’t think he was so much advocating violent insurrection, as much as accepting that it does happen from time to time and as long as it wasn’t too often, might as well take a measured, tempered response to it instead of freaking the fuck out. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/24 "2017-06-16T05:23:31Z")
On one hand, I agree firmly with those saying violence is a last resort. On the other, my first reaction to that senator getting shot was, “Huh, pick off a few more and we can seriously delay the repeal of Obamacare.” I guess that reflects poorly on me. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/25 "2017-06-16T15:25:02Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > On one hand, I agree firmly with those saying violence is a last resort. > > On the other, my first reaction to that senator getting shot was, “Huh, pick off a few more and we can seriously delay the repeal of Obamacare.” I guess that reflects poorly on me. There are probably millions who feel the same but just don’t verbalize it. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/26 "2017-06-16T16:00:12Z")
Political violence is not legitimate if you have lost a political argument. It is morally permissible only when you are not allowed to engage in the nonviolent political process. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/27 "2017-06-16T16:19:42Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > How well did that line of thinking work out for Secretary Clinton? About as well as it’s working out for the 20%. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/28 "2017-06-16T16:23:56Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > How well did that line of thinking work out for Secretary Clinton? Surely you agree that there are unpleasant facts that may be bad politics to state openly. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/29 "2017-06-16T16:54:41Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The point where violence is acceptable for a cause is the point where it no longer does more harm than good. It is in the best interest of peaceful democracy to push the idea that violence actually hurts your cause. That way neither side will jump to violence as a way to win a debate. > > And, let me be clear, that doesn’t work. Violence doesn’t help you win a debate. It can be used to fight injustice, but it will cause you to lose a debate, so, if debate is still a possible way to deal with things, it’s not a good idea to jump to violence. That’s why a guy shooting a bunch of Republican Congresspeople is a fucking idiot, and actually harms the cause. > > But I also know that the Black Panthers did help with the Civil Rights movement. Because of what I said above, that’s not the story we want to tell people. But they did help. And so I do have to wonder if Antifa is setting themselves up in a similar way. The threat of violence can help level a playing field. I hope not, but I can see some parallels. What civil rights did the black panthers win? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/30 "2017-06-16T17:05:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Surely you agree that there are unpleasant facts that may be bad politics to state openly. I can agree with this statement in a general sense, but the 20%-of-Americans-are-irredeemable, isn’t a fact. It’s an opinion, one that I find as wildly unhinged as HRC’s deplorable opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/31 "2017-06-16T17:15:37Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What civil rights did the black panthers win? I just finished the new Martin Luther King biography. He was the indispensable man, pushing, always provoking, always pushing. But he also was reasonable and open to talks. This ticked off the SNCC and others. But the threat “Deal with King or deal with the violent ones” had some usefulness. I came away from the book convinced that each and every person in the story had a place, a role to play. Of course we only see that now, in hindsight. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/32 "2017-06-16T17:39:20Z")
I find it hard to think of instances were political violence hasn’t worsened or impeded progress in a given situation; people that would bash political opponent’s heads in are not exactly the building block of a peaceful society, and of that there are plenty of examples to look at. Even toying with the idea of legitimizing violence is enough to get a [Hobbesian Trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbesian_trap) started. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/33 "2017-06-16T19:06:27Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > On the other, my first reaction to that senator getting shot was, “Huh, pick off a few more and we can seriously delay the repeal of Obamacare.” I guess that reflects poorly on me. No–it’s exactly what I’d have guessed you’d have said (without the Obamacare specific part). It hasn’t changed my opinion of you at all. It’s very much in line with your other posts. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/34 "2017-06-16T19:11:31Z")
What we can say with certainty is when people feel their government is not responsive or accountable, then political violence is more likely. That doesn’t make political violence ok. In every case of US political violence I see, I understand the feelings that animate it, but I feel like nonviolent democratic venues were not adequately pursued. I feel all of that anger, but violence isn’t justified until we have made all serious nonviolent efforts to effect change. Changing your Facebook avatar to Princess Leia Resistance doesn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/35 "2017-06-16T19:34:24Z")
Violence is only the answer when the question is how to throw off the yoke of oppression. Violence is the only answer when the question is how to throw off the yoke of oppression. We are so far from that point right now, that any violence perpetuated only makes your own side look bad, and I hope it stays that way. ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/36 "2017-06-16T19:50:44Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” > -Robert A. Heinlein One of the better lines from Starship Troopers. He’s not wrong. > [@BigT](#): > > It is in the best interest of peaceful democracy to push the idea that violence actually hurts your cause. That way neither side will jump to violence as a way to win a debate. From my PoV, it’s in the best interests of the moneyed elite to push the idea that violence hurts your cause. They are the ones who have the most to lose in the case of a violent insurrection, and they are the ones with the most to gain from propping up and enabling the current system. They are also the least likely to be suffering from the violence inherent in the system, so it is in their best interests to keep a good thing going. > [@BigT](#): > > And, let me be clear, that doesn’t work. Violence doesn’t help you win a debate. Horse puckey. If I (HYPOTHETICALLY) use violence to kill you, you will lose the debate. Once you are dead, how will you argue with me? I am free to lie, slander, and ad hominem your arguments into the ground, and all that will come from your side of the table is silence. If you want to argue that someone else will step up to take your place, then I will (HYPOTHETICALLY AGAIN) use violence to kill them as well. How many people do you think I’ll have to kill before no one steps up to speak anymore? I’m betting it’s a far smaller number than you think. I’ve personally seen a drug cartel use this method with brutal effectiveness, and it fucking works. “Better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/37 "2017-06-16T19:52:28Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > On one hand, I agree firmly with those saying violence is a last resort. > > On the other, my first reaction to that senator getting shot was, “Huh, pick off a few more and we can seriously delay the repeal of Obamacare.” I guess that reflects poorly on me. Until the opposition starts killing your politicians. The IQs on this board arent as high as we think. Thinking that 1930s solutions will solve anything. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/38 "2017-06-16T19:59:32Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > One of the better lines from Starship Troopers. He’s not wrong. > > From my PoV, it’s in the best interests of the moneyed elite to push the idea that violence hurts your cause. They are the ones who have the most to lose in the case of a violent insurrection, and they are the ones with the most to gain from propping up and enabling the current system. They are also the least likely to be suffering from the violence inherent in the system, so it is in their best interests to keep a good thing going. > > Horse puckey. If I (HYPOTHETICALLY) use violence to kill you, you will lose the debate. Once you are dead, how will you argue with me? I am free to lie, slander, and ad hominem your arguments into the ground, and all that will come from your side of the table is silence. > > If you want to argue that someone else will step up to take your place, then I will (HYPOTHETICALLY AGAIN) use violence to kill them as well. How many people do you think I’ll have to kill before no one steps up to speak anymore? I’m betting it’s a far smaller number than you think. I’ve personally seen a drug cartel use this method with brutal effectiveness, and it fucking works. > > “Better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli Please educate us as to when violence has ever accomplished anything in The West other than get Richard Nixon elected? ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/39 "2017-06-16T20:04:56Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Violence is a last resort when all peaceful and democratic means have been extinguished. We aren’t even close to being there yet. What about black voter suppression in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida? Assuming it continues, is violence a reasonable response? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038/40 "2017-06-16T20:05:29Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > One of the better lines from Starship Troopers. He’s not wrong. Settled, sure, but improved, that’s an open question. > [@](#): > > From my PoV, it’s in the best interests of the moneyed elite to push the idea that violence hurts your cause. They are the ones who have the most to lose in the case of a violent insurrection, and they are the ones with the most to gain from propping up and enabling the current system. They are also the least likely to be suffering from the violence inherent in the system, so it is in their best interests to keep a good thing going. The monied elite can sit back in their gated suburban communities while the riots happen in the cities. They may be the ones with the most to lose, but they are also the ones in the best position to hold onto what they have. > [@](#): > > Horse puckey. If I (HYPOTHETICALLY) use violence to kill you, you will lose the debate. Once you are dead, how will you argue with me? I am free to lie, slander, and ad hominem your arguments into the ground, and all that will come from your side of the table is silence. > > If you want to argue that someone else will step up to take your place, then I will (HYPOTHETICALLY AGAIN) use violence to kill them as well. How many people do you think I’ll have to kill before no one steps up to speak anymore? I’m betting it’s a far smaller number than you think. I’ve personally seen a drug cartel use this method with brutal effectiveness, and it fucking works. It’s not just one person or a few, it’s an entire portion of the population. You are most certainly outnumbered in a civilized country as to whether or not violence is acceptable, so you might kill me, but you will go to jail, and there will be hundreds, if not thousands or even millions to take my place. > [@](#): > > “Better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli As a tyrant, absolutely. As a participant in a civilization, not so much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-political-violence-appropriate-when-is-it-necessary/789038.md?page=3)