A Pakistani business owner accused of trying to hire hit men to kill a U.S. politician has been convicted in a trial that showcased allegations of Iran-backed plotting on American soil.
Violence is very often the answer chosen by our state, whether that be ICE’s ongoing rounding up of minorities to throw them in camps, or the bombing of schools in Iran, or the funding of an ongoing genocide in Gaza. Police in the US repeatedly murder racial minorities. George Floyd, Sonia Massey, Breonna Taylor. Homeless people, the most vulnerable of us, are regularly forced to move via violence or are incarcerated. Which leaves them in a systemic loop of violence that makes it difficult to ever recover. The progress made in this country was never made without violence, the civil rights movement was filled with it.
When you claim that it’s unacceptable for regular people to ever resort to violence, you legitimise the state’s monopoly on it as a method. Very few of us, including those on lemmy, desire a civil war, and violence as a method of creating change is not without it’s merits, nor does it mean we have a civil war.
Voting can only go so far in a rigged political system, and it is important to remember that we learned how to deal with fascism during WW2.
I don’t believe in violence. And I will never advocate violence.
Lemmy is comprised mostly of keyboard warriors who don’t even leave their houses to vote, much less start a revolution. No revolution or civil war will be happening in the US. lol
I don’t necessarily desire a revolution or civil war, But if you want to make claims about the voting status of Lemmy users, you can’t just pull that one out of your ass, my dude. This platform is definitely left leaning, and it’s definitely comprised of a lot of geeks.
I would question, do you think that the Holocaust could have been stopped without the use of force?
If someone broke into your home and threatened your life, do you think that the appropriate response would be to let them do whatever they want? Most people in that situation would call the police, which is a form of violence.
You’re not really answering the question. If what you say is true, then that means you would not defend yourself or a loved one against violence? Simple yes, or no. Saying no simply confirms your stated stance.
I’m not going to advocate for violence, no matter what you say or ask. Feel free to keep trying all you want, but I’m not going to change my mind or change my answer. :)
So yes, or no? A no simply means that indeed, you do not “advocate for violence”. It’s just a clarification confirming that, no matter what possible scenario happens, you still won’t support the use of violence.
Not clarifying that, while stating “no matter what you say or ask” is non-committal, as if you’re trying to give an answer that excludes the possibility of self defense but don’t want to admit it simply so that you appear pacifista absoluto.
Violence is very often the answer chosen by our state, whether that be ICE’s ongoing rounding up of minorities to throw them in camps, or the bombing of schools in Iran, or the funding of an ongoing genocide in Gaza. Police in the US repeatedly murder racial minorities. George Floyd, Sonia Massey, Breonna Taylor. Homeless people, the most vulnerable of us, are regularly forced to move via violence or are incarcerated. Which leaves them in a systemic loop of violence that makes it difficult to ever recover. The progress made in this country was never made without violence, the civil rights movement was filled with it. When you claim that it’s unacceptable for regular people to ever resort to violence, you legitimise the state’s monopoly on it as a method. Very few of us, including those on lemmy, desire a civil war, and violence as a method of creating change is not without it’s merits, nor does it mean we have a civil war. Voting can only go so far in a rigged political system, and it is important to remember that we learned how to deal with fascism during WW2.
I don’t believe in violence. And I will never advocate violence.
Lemmy is comprised mostly of keyboard warriors who don’t even leave their houses to vote, much less start a revolution. No revolution or civil war will be happening in the US. lol
I don’t necessarily desire a revolution or civil war, But if you want to make claims about the voting status of Lemmy users, you can’t just pull that one out of your ass, my dude. This platform is definitely left leaning, and it’s definitely comprised of a lot of geeks. I would question, do you think that the Holocaust could have been stopped without the use of force? If someone broke into your home and threatened your life, do you think that the appropriate response would be to let them do whatever they want? Most people in that situation would call the police, which is a form of violence.
I don’t advocate violence, and I never will. Let’s agree to disagree.
Why don’t you answer the questions? Let’s agree to disagree is just a deflection technique.
I answered the questions. I said I will never advocate violence. No matter how many whataboutisms you have, there is no “gotcha!” here.
I don’t, and will never, advocate violence. Let it go.
You’re not really answering the question. If what you say is true, then that means you would not defend yourself or a loved one against violence? Simple yes, or no. Saying no simply confirms your stated stance.
I’m not going to advocate for violence, no matter what you say or ask. Feel free to keep trying all you want, but I’m not going to change my mind or change my answer. :)
So yes, or no? A no simply means that indeed, you do not “advocate for violence”. It’s just a clarification confirming that, no matter what possible scenario happens, you still won’t support the use of violence.
Not clarifying that, while stating “no matter what you say or ask” is non-committal, as if you’re trying to give an answer that excludes the possibility of self defense but don’t want to admit it simply so that you appear pacifista absoluto.