5 ms·

No it isn't. There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader. Doesn't matter how "free" (whatever your defi

No it isn't. There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader. Doesn't matter how "free" (whatever your definition of that is) the country is.

s_kilk 9y ago
Or there could be legitimate discontent with how horribly things are going.
- Treegarden 9y ago
  Like what? In Germany? Like beeing an economic power house? Or our universal healthcare? Free Education/Universities? Our extremely low level corruption? The functioning bureaucracy? Our social net of Hartz4? Or do you mean that the world leaders talk?? Should Merkel not talk to Putin and Erdogan?
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    We in Germany do enjoy a quite nice life, but look over the border (e.g. Greece, or if that's too far away, Italy) and the situation looks way different. Germany has massively risen in power, both political and economical. This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe), but a huge part of the growth of Germany results out of the loss that has been paid in poorer Europe. And, surprise, both foreign countries and the German left do not like this.
    - Diederich 9y ago
      Interesting; can you expand on this or perhaps cite a link if you have a moment? Thank you.
    - Ralfp 9y ago
      > This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe) That, and conflict in which aggressor aimed to physically destroy our population followed by half of century of being colony for USSR also had its part in our economies. When 90's finally came we had few people that remembered democracy and even less businesses that could kickstart our economies, only massive debts inherited from communist goverments.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    Should Merkel not talk to Putin and Erdogan? I suspect that on a certain animalistic level, the "message" that the protestors want to get across (to Merkel and people at her level) is, basically: "Do what you have to do. But don't pretend to feel that there's anything dignified and civilized about it."
- tptacek 9y ago
  Category error. People can have "legitimate discontent" that is expressed illegitimately, and that's what the parent commenter is referring to.
- currysausage 9y ago
  No matter how legitimate the message may be, violence is certainly not a legitimate means of getting your voice heard.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Violence is an incredibly legitimate way to get your voice heard. It's why the heads of state meeting at the summit will be employing it, in order to speak. How else would they be able to expel people from large portions of the city, if not through application of violence? It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      1. There is a difference between "application of violence" and "threat of violence". When police asks people to stay away, 90-99% are going to comply politely. 2. You make it sound like there wasn't overwhelming support for delegitimizing use of violence by any unsanctioned actor. That implicit agreement is what enables society in the first place.
    - krapp 9y ago
      >It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate. They're correct. That is the entire premise of the "monopoly on violence" which defines a state. You can possibly argue that violence is effective, but by definition it's not legitimate, unless you choose to simply disregard the framework by which that legitimacy is conferred and substitute your own, in which case your criteria become relevant to no one but yourself.
      - fghtr 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
      - vkou 9y ago
        It's certainly a consistent position. I am inclined to agree with it, even. However, it does not follow that the state is not using violence to enable speech. State violence is still violence. The army of riot police descending on the city is there for a reason - to suppress the rights to freedom of speech and assembly for the many.
kafkaesq 9y ago
There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader. Who are tired of being expected to keep their heads down while the violent nutjobs at the top commit global mayhem on a much, much broader scale than a few rioters could ever hope to accomplish, you mean? No, I don't support violence, or cheer on those who do. I've also been observing the European-style "antifa" crowd and their tactics long enough to just how ironic that label can be. But I would pretend for a nanosecond that when it comes to "nutjob violence", this is anything like a one-sided contest.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  If they care so much you'd think they'd care about being effective. When was the last time the assassination of a leader of a functioning democracy changed anything for the better? And in this case, guess what? You take out Trump and you get President Mike Pence! He's mostly been off to the side so far, so I wonder if many outside of the US have heard his name much, but he's arguably worse than Trump. Definitely a lot more religious zeal. Whatever the crimes those at the top have committed, if they lead a functioning democracy then violent action is about the least effective option you have at removing their policies. If some people are that pissed off then they should dedicate themselves to the cause, start or volunteer for political movements, even perhaps run for office themselves. Be a political force on whatever scale they can mange for years as opposed to a violent flash in the pan for a few minutes. Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us. I get it, OK? As I think I've made it abundantly clear, I don't advocate (and and certainly not the least bit romantic about) the "revolutionary violence" route. It's that this pigeonholing of street-level malefactors as "violent nutjobs", while pretending that those at the top (especially the likes of Erdogan and Putin) who stand patiently at the sidelines† while others enact "nutjob violence" on their behalf -- are to be considered as somehow in a different category than their street-level counterparts -- that I don't buy either. † Quite literally, as we all saw in Erdogan's case a just a few weeks ago in the U.S. capitol.

No it isn't. There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader. Doesn't matter how "free" (whatever your definition of that is) the country is.

s_kilk 9y ago

Or there could be legitimate discontent with how horribly things are going.

Treegarden 9y ago
Like what? In Germany? Like beeing an economic power house? Or our universal healthcare? Free Education/Universities? Our extremely low level corruption? The functioning bureaucracy? Our social net of Hartz4? Or do you mean that the world leaders talk?? Should Merkel not talk to Putin and Erdogan?
- mschuster91 9y ago
  We in Germany do enjoy a quite nice life, but look over the border (e.g. Greece, or if that's too far away, Italy) and the situation looks way different. Germany has massively risen in power, both political and economical. This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe), but a huge part of the growth of Germany results out of the loss that has been paid in poorer Europe. And, surprise, both foreign countries and the German left do not like this.
  - Diederich 9y ago
    Interesting; can you expand on this or perhaps cite a link if you have a moment? Thank you.
  - Ralfp 9y ago
    > This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe) That, and conflict in which aggressor aimed to physically destroy our population followed by half of century of being colony for USSR also had its part in our economies. When 90's finally came we had few people that remembered democracy and even less businesses that could kickstart our economies, only massive debts inherited from communist goverments.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  Should Merkel not talk to Putin and Erdogan? I suspect that on a certain animalistic level, the "message" that the protestors want to get across (to Merkel and people at her level) is, basically: "Do what you have to do. But don't pretend to feel that there's anything dignified and civilized about it."
tptacek 9y ago
Category error. People can have "legitimate discontent" that is expressed illegitimately, and that's what the parent commenter is referring to.
currysausage 9y ago
No matter how legitimate the message may be, violence is certainly not a legitimate means of getting your voice heard.
- vkou 9y ago
  Violence is an incredibly legitimate way to get your voice heard. It's why the heads of state meeting at the summit will be employing it, in order to speak. How else would they be able to expel people from large portions of the city, if not through application of violence? It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    1. There is a difference between "application of violence" and "threat of violence". When police asks people to stay away, 90-99% are going to comply politely. 2. You make it sound like there wasn't overwhelming support for delegitimizing use of violence by any unsanctioned actor. That implicit agreement is what enables society in the first place.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate. They're correct. That is the entire premise of the "monopoly on violence" which defines a state. You can possibly argue that violence is effective, but by definition it's not legitimate, unless you choose to simply disregard the framework by which that legitimacy is conferred and substitute your own, in which case your criteria become relevant to no one but yourself.
    - fghtr 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
    - vkou 9y ago
      It's certainly a consistent position. I am inclined to agree with it, even. However, it does not follow that the state is not using violence to enable speech. State violence is still violence. The army of riot police descending on the city is there for a reason - to suppress the rights to freedom of speech and assembly for the many.

kafkaesq 9y ago

There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader. Who are tired of being expected to keep their heads down while the violent nutjobs at the top commit global mayhem on a much, much broader scale than a few rioters could ever hope to accomplish, you mean? No, I don't support violence, or cheer on those who do. I've also been observing the European-style "antifa" crowd and their tactics long enough to just how ironic that label can be. But I would pretend for a nanosecond that when it comes to "nutjob violence", this is anything like a one-sided contest.

scottLobster 9y ago
If they care so much you'd think they'd care about being effective. When was the last time the assassination of a leader of a functioning democracy changed anything for the better? And in this case, guess what? You take out Trump and you get President Mike Pence! He's mostly been off to the side so far, so I wonder if many outside of the US have heard his name much, but he's arguably worse than Trump. Definitely a lot more religious zeal. Whatever the crimes those at the top have committed, if they lead a functioning democracy then violent action is about the least effective option you have at removing their policies. If some people are that pissed off then they should dedicate themselves to the cause, start or volunteer for political movements, even perhaps run for office themselves. Be a political force on whatever scale they can mange for years as opposed to a violent flash in the pan for a few minutes. Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us. I get it, OK? As I think I've made it abundantly clear, I don't advocate (and and certainly not the least bit romantic about) the "revolutionary violence" route. It's that this pigeonholing of street-level malefactors as "violent nutjobs", while pretending that those at the top (especially the likes of Erdogan and Putin) who stand patiently at the sidelines† while others enact "nutjob violence" on their behalf -- are to be considered as somehow in a different category than their street-level counterparts -- that I don't buy either. † Quite literally, as we all saw in Erdogan's case a just a few weeks ago in the U.S. capitol.