5 ms·

So, are you arguing that violence is acceptable in cases like BLM?

cooper12 8y ago
It's funny how you committed the exact trap they were writing about in their comment... They didn't advocate for or against violence, they only stated that historically, a lot of major movements have had violent elements and we're mislead to believe that they were completely peaceful. The fact that your immediate reaction was assuming they're supporting violence shows you're also guilty of this myopism.
- matte_black 8y ago
  To be fair, he didn’t assume anything, he was asking a question to clarify.
  - cooper12 8y ago
    It's a very pointed question, in the vein of "when did you stop beating your wife"? The original comment wasn't taking any stance on violence, just commenting on how it's discussed. Trying to shift the focus from that to a question on personal politics is disingenuous.
    - angersock 8y ago
      It was in fact because of the fact that no stance was taken I sought clarification. I don't really care what the answer was, as personally I think either position is workable. I was just curious what rayiner thought.
rayiner 8y ago
My home country exists as the result of an independence war. One of the first salvos was “my side” killing tens of thousands of people of suspected questionable loyalty, followed by a counter-attack from the other side killing hundreds of thousands of people. Was the violence “acceptable?” To me it’s not a useful question. Violence is one of the ways people interact with each other; any large scale social movement will involve some violence. Was the outcome of self determination worthwhile despite some deaths? Undoubtedly.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  Undoubtedly to you posting to a message board, maybe , but maybe not so undoubtedly were you one of the victims or long line of people directly affected by it. That's a utilitarian argument and it assumes that independence could not or would not have been achieved some other way. Violence is one of the ways that people interact with others, but so is greed, envy, racism and hatred. One of the great things about being humans is we can choose to discard or tempter behaviors that are destructive. Are you for racism and bigotry because that's a part of nature? I know you aren't. Why is violence different? If we've made international laws which we've decided as a species that certain actions are unacceptable, why is violence so sacred?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > That's a utilitarian argument and it assumes that independence could not or would not have been achieved some other way. You cannot have movements involving millions of people fighting for justice and not have some of those people turn to violence. Demanding that such movements be completely non-violent means de facto endorsing the status quo. > Are you for racism and bigotry because that's a part of nature? I know you aren't. Why is violence different? I don't think a larger movement that is otherwise just is discredited just because some subset is driven by racism or bigotry, or engages in violence. E.g. I strongly support British peoples' exercise of their right of self determination through Brexit, even if a lot of people were motivated by xenophobia. Likewise Irish self determination, even though it involved a lot of violence and religious sectarianism. There is a huge difference between discouraging racism/bigotry/violence at an individual level, and discrediting the efforts of groups of people merely because some portion of them cannot overcome those human tendencies. To use an example: Do you think that the Irish should've lived under the thumb of the British until such a time that it could've achieved independence in a way that did not involve violence or Catholic/Protestant animosity?
    - aaron-lebo 8y ago
      > You cannot have movements involving millions of people fighting for justice and not have some of those people turn to violence. Demanding that such movements be completely non-violent means de facto endorsing the status quo. Of course not, but it also doesn't mean that we suggest that violence is a positive thing or necessary for progress. Resorting to violence in many cases minimizes your argument. You turn aggressors into victims and give them a reason to fight back. You deny those abusers the same thing you want (peace and safety), which distorts the argument. And demagogues will distort it. This is ignoring the completely innocent victims that are often harmed in incidents like this. How can humanists support the maiming and death of innocents? To use an example: Do you think that the Irish should've lived under the thumb of the British until such a time that it could've achieved independence in a way that did not involve violence or Catholic/Protestant animosity? I don't know. I do know that progress, though slow, was being made without violence. The Irish were given Home Rule by the British HoC in the 1910s. Surely this kind of progress would have continued. In contrast, violence was avoided at other times (the UVF arming to reject Home Rule). If in any of these incidents you say that violence was a given, necessary, or justified, you are very possibly making it so, and not only that, but starting conflict which may never end. Surely people are capable of progress without our most animal of instincts? Many people have believed that. Violence is cowardly and brute. If you want to be a martyr, be a martyr as you've made that choice for yourself, but don't be a murderer. “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2016/01/ten-great-martin-luther-king-jr-quotes-on-non-violence.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2016/01/ten-g...
trophycase 8y ago
Of course violence is acceptable? Are we honestly at a point in society where we need to ask this question? Do people really believe the state is entitled to a monopoly on violence? Not all problems can be solved by talking it out or by "working within the system" Humans are obsessed with violence and conflict. Though sports, movies, video games, debate, and fighting have somewhat sublimated this obsession.
empath75 8y ago
I think in general that violent resistance should be avoided, and people should work within the system. But if people truly believe that the system is no longer working for them, and that change within the system is impossible, then violent resistance makes sense. After all, what do they have to lose? They’re already the victims of state-sanctioned violence. When the majority have created an unjust system, and leave no option for reforms by minorities within that system, the only alternative is civil unrest, and that civil unrest has brought reform in the us multiple times in history. Honestly, though — considering what they’re protesting, I think BLM has been remarkably NON-violent.
- MichaelGG 8y ago
  I agree with your first 2 paragraphs. The problem is that people can be convinced that there is an issue where there is none, then resort to violence on weak grounds. It is easy to get people riled up on spurious reasons. I was about to bring up BLM but see you did so: >considering what they’re protesting, I think BLM has been remarkably NON-violent Last year only 20 unarmed black people were shot and killed by police vs 30 whites. So far this year the numbers are 8 and 11. Counting all police shootings last year, whites are 457 of them, blacks 223. About twice the number of whites have been shot by police. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shoo... So yes blacks are killed at a higher rate per population. But what about by actual violence? When looking at violence, blacks and whites commit about the same number of homicides despite population differences. Homicide is the most fair stat we have. If we use lesser crimes [like drug possession or other violence], we will see blacks overrepresented due to higher policing and a biased justice system. In fact, as minority areas of cities have a low solve rate, going by homicides may understate the racial difference in crime in favour of blacks. It sort of looks like, if you want to get racial about it, whites are the ones killed too much by police. And if you look at the numbers for Hispanics, it is even worse. (But that might be an artifact of how race/ethnicity/Hispanic is reported.[1]) Yet that does not stop perception. There was an ad on TV a while back with a black mother having "The Talk"[2] with her teenage daughter about getting stopped by cops and not wanting her killed. Well, let's see: in 2017 one unarmed female black person was shot by police, and that was when a SWAT team raided her and her bf's place. Such ads that portray this as an issue are simple fear mongering. 2018, so far that number is 0. An ad about how to hide in case of lightning storms would be more realistic. Or simply more training about driving. Or avoiding pools. Or practically anything else in the world. Try it out: Go ask around and see what your friends and others think the true rate is of unarmed people being killed. Ask them what difference in numbers they think exist for black vs white, and ask them about the flip side of civilian violence. My guess is you'll first get some incredibly high statement about how this is just happening non-stop, then when you reveal the numbers you'll get some other excuse about how it is not about the numbers anyways but some other general racial problem. 1: I'm using https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-... for a quick view of homicide stats. The numbers could be off by 2x and it would not change the point much. 2: Found it: https://youtu.be/3s20ePvTaME?t=21 https://youtu.be/3s20ePvTaME?t=21 "This is not you about getting a ticket, this is about you coming home" to which the girl says "I'm going to be OK....right?" Obviously a dramatization but if you're somehow implying to your teenage girl that cops are going to pull you over and you'll not "come home", you're the problem.

It's funny how you committed the exact trap they were writing about in their comment... They didn't advocate for or against violence, they only stated that historically, a lot of major movements have had violent elements and we're mislead to believe that they were completely peaceful. The fact that your immediate reaction was assuming they're supporting violence shows you're also guilty of this myopism.

matte_black 8y ago
To be fair, he didn’t assume anything, he was asking a question to clarify.
- cooper12 8y ago
  It's a very pointed question, in the vein of "when did you stop beating your wife"? The original comment wasn't taking any stance on violence, just commenting on how it's discussed. Trying to shift the focus from that to a question on personal politics is disingenuous.
  - angersock 8y ago
    It was in fact because of the fact that no stance was taken I sought clarification. I don't really care what the answer was, as personally I think either position is workable. I was just curious what rayiner thought.

rayiner 8y ago

My home country exists as the result of an independence war. One of the first salvos was “my side” killing tens of thousands of people of suspected questionable loyalty, followed by a counter-attack from the other side killing hundreds of thousands of people. Was the violence “acceptable?” To me it’s not a useful question. Violence is one of the ways people interact with each other; any large scale social movement will involve some violence. Was the outcome of self determination worthwhile despite some deaths? Undoubtedly.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
Undoubtedly to you posting to a message board, maybe , but maybe not so undoubtedly were you one of the victims or long line of people directly affected by it. That's a utilitarian argument and it assumes that independence could not or would not have been achieved some other way. Violence is one of the ways that people interact with others, but so is greed, envy, racism and hatred. One of the great things about being humans is we can choose to discard or tempter behaviors that are destructive. Are you for racism and bigotry because that's a part of nature? I know you aren't. Why is violence different? If we've made international laws which we've decided as a species that certain actions are unacceptable, why is violence so sacred?
- rayiner 8y ago
  > That's a utilitarian argument and it assumes that independence could not or would not have been achieved some other way. You cannot have movements involving millions of people fighting for justice and not have some of those people turn to violence. Demanding that such movements be completely non-violent means de facto endorsing the status quo. > Are you for racism and bigotry because that's a part of nature? I know you aren't. Why is violence different? I don't think a larger movement that is otherwise just is discredited just because some subset is driven by racism or bigotry, or engages in violence. E.g. I strongly support British peoples' exercise of their right of self determination through Brexit, even if a lot of people were motivated by xenophobia. Likewise Irish self determination, even though it involved a lot of violence and religious sectarianism. There is a huge difference between discouraging racism/bigotry/violence at an individual level, and discrediting the efforts of groups of people merely because some portion of them cannot overcome those human tendencies. To use an example: Do you think that the Irish should've lived under the thumb of the British until such a time that it could've achieved independence in a way that did not involve violence or Catholic/Protestant animosity?
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    > You cannot have movements involving millions of people fighting for justice and not have some of those people turn to violence. Demanding that such movements be completely non-violent means de facto endorsing the status quo. Of course not, but it also doesn't mean that we suggest that violence is a positive thing or necessary for progress. Resorting to violence in many cases minimizes your argument. You turn aggressors into victims and give them a reason to fight back. You deny those abusers the same thing you want (peace and safety), which distorts the argument. And demagogues will distort it. This is ignoring the completely innocent victims that are often harmed in incidents like this. How can humanists support the maiming and death of innocents? To use an example: Do you think that the Irish should've lived under the thumb of the British until such a time that it could've achieved independence in a way that did not involve violence or Catholic/Protestant animosity? I don't know. I do know that progress, though slow, was being made without violence. The Irish were given Home Rule by the British HoC in the 1910s. Surely this kind of progress would have continued. In contrast, violence was avoided at other times (the UVF arming to reject Home Rule). If in any of these incidents you say that violence was a given, necessary, or justified, you are very possibly making it so, and not only that, but starting conflict which may never end. Surely people are capable of progress without our most animal of instincts? Many people have believed that. Violence is cowardly and brute. If you want to be a martyr, be a martyr as you've made that choice for yourself, but don't be a murderer. “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2016/01/ten-great-martin-luther-king-jr-quotes-on-non-violence.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2016/01/ten-g...

trophycase 8y ago

Of course violence is acceptable? Are we honestly at a point in society where we need to ask this question? Do people really believe the state is entitled to a monopoly on violence? Not all problems can be solved by talking it out or by "working within the system" Humans are obsessed with violence and conflict. Though sports, movies, video games, debate, and fighting have somewhat sublimated this obsession.

empath75 8y ago

I think in general that violent resistance should be avoided, and people should work within the system. But if people truly believe that the system is no longer working for them, and that change within the system is impossible, then violent resistance makes sense. After all, what do they have to lose? They’re already the victims of state-sanctioned violence. When the majority have created an unjust system, and leave no option for reforms by minorities within that system, the only alternative is civil unrest, and that civil unrest has brought reform in the us multiple times in history. Honestly, though — considering what they’re protesting, I think BLM has been remarkably NON-violent.

MichaelGG 8y ago
I agree with your first 2 paragraphs. The problem is that people can be convinced that there is an issue where there is none, then resort to violence on weak grounds. It is easy to get people riled up on spurious reasons. I was about to bring up BLM but see you did so: >considering what they’re protesting, I think BLM has been remarkably NON-violent Last year only 20 unarmed black people were shot and killed by police vs 30 whites. So far this year the numbers are 8 and 11. Counting all police shootings last year, whites are 457 of them, blacks 223. About twice the number of whites have been shot by police. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shoo... So yes blacks are killed at a higher rate per population. But what about by actual violence? When looking at violence, blacks and whites commit about the same number of homicides despite population differences. Homicide is the most fair stat we have. If we use lesser crimes [like drug possession or other violence], we will see blacks overrepresented due to higher policing and a biased justice system. In fact, as minority areas of cities have a low solve rate, going by homicides may understate the racial difference in crime in favour of blacks. It sort of looks like, if you want to get racial about it, whites are the ones killed too much by police. And if you look at the numbers for Hispanics, it is even worse. (But that might be an artifact of how race/ethnicity/Hispanic is reported.[1]) Yet that does not stop perception. There was an ad on TV a while back with a black mother having "The Talk"[2] with her teenage daughter about getting stopped by cops and not wanting her killed. Well, let's see: in 2017 one unarmed female black person was shot by police, and that was when a SWAT team raided her and her bf's place. Such ads that portray this as an issue are simple fear mongering. 2018, so far that number is 0. An ad about how to hide in case of lightning storms would be more realistic. Or simply more training about driving. Or avoiding pools. Or practically anything else in the world. Try it out: Go ask around and see what your friends and others think the true rate is of unarmed people being killed. Ask them what difference in numbers they think exist for black vs white, and ask them about the flip side of civilian violence. My guess is you'll first get some incredibly high statement about how this is just happening non-stop, then when you reveal the numbers you'll get some other excuse about how it is not about the numbers anyways but some other general racial problem. 1: I'm using https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-... for a quick view of homicide stats. The numbers could be off by 2x and it would not change the point much. 2: Found it: https://youtu.be/3s20ePvTaME?t=21 https://youtu.be/3s20ePvTaME?t=21 "This is not you about getting a ticket, this is about you coming home" to which the girl says "I'm going to be OK....right?" Obviously a dramatization but if you're somehow implying to your teenage girl that cops are going to pull you over and you'll not "come home", you're the problem.