When is political violence appropriate? When is it necessary?

Great Debates
21

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.

22

How well did that line of thinking work out for Secretary Clinton?

23

That quote in context is:

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.

24

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.

25

There are probably millions who feel the same but just don’t verbalize it.

26

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.

27

About as well as it’s working out for the 20%.

28

Surely you agree that there are unpleasant facts that may be bad politics to state openly.

29

What civil rights did the black panthers win?

30

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.

31

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.

32

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 started.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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.

36

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

37

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.

38

Please educate us as to when violence has ever accomplished anything in The West other than get Richard Nixon elected?

39

What about black voter suppression in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida? Assuming it continues, is violence a reasonable response?

40

Settled, sure, but improved, that’s an open question.

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.

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.

As a tyrant, absolutely. As a participant in a civilization, not so much.