5 ms·

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

by s_kilk 9y ago

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.

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

by s_kilk 9y ago

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

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.