4 ms·
Sure, if you're the loser. Obviously such violent efforts need to destroy the current state and create a new one, or they're completely pointless. Perhaps not,
by rabite 11y ago
Sure, if you're the loser. Obviously such violent efforts need to destroy the current state and create a new one, or they're completely pointless.
Perhaps not, though. Bill Ayers still ended up in a position of powerful political influence and mainstream academic acceptance even after he and his associates in the Weather Underground committed a number of terrorist bombings. If your ideological clique ends up in a position of significant state influence, you'll be forgiven your crimes, even if the state is not replaced in its totality.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoOK, free clue: You're the loser. So be careful about starting violence thinking that you're going to win and change everything. In a bit more detail: You're the loser with 99% probability. The only way you're going to win is by having an amazing plan, or getting amazingly lucky, or most likely some of both. That leaves two options: You lose and get crushed, or you don't make any change and it's irrelevant. For the rest of the world, it's better that you be in the second category, because you cause less damage that way. And, in fact, I think you are in the second category. You're talking big about "destroy[ing] the current state and creat[ing] a new one", about how "only violence will [work]." And what's your violence? You're publicizing the Ashley Madison info of people who you're mad at. Pathetic. But, in fact, I prefer pathetic big-talker do-nothings in this area, because they cause a smaller body count.
- rabite 11y agoNow is the time for rhetoric. The future may perhaps become time for other strategies.