3 ms·
You're absolutely right, I was just pointing out in your post you believe that governance via violent extremists is good, but governance via land-owners (wealth
by jquery 7y ago
You're absolutely right, I was just pointing out in your post you believe that governance via violent extremists is good, but governance via land-owners (wealth) is bad. How do you reconcile that: is there any underlying principle behind your belief? Should we enshrine violent tactics into law as a Good Thing or should we, as a society, oppose you and your kind with all our might?
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoI very clearly don't advocate violent resistance, but civil disobedience. An entirely non-violent resistance, such as seen in the school strikes and XR protests, or the well known historic examples. The anti-poll tax riots were as counter productive as they were productive due to their violence. A reasonable police response is necessarily very different to a reaction to polite society women chaining themselves to railings seeking suffrage, or the entirely non violent blocking of bridges of XR. Yet they are an example of law breaking achieving change. So no, using it as a for-instance of change is no indicator whatsoever I believe in violent extremism. I don't. Violent tactics can entirely reasonably provoke a draconian response. A draconian or violent response to entirely peaceful protest, such as XR or civil rights protests is counter productive for government, and may actually incite riot.