3 ms·

> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failin

> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. TL;DR sometimes violence is ok, if I am not satisfied with our democracy. If people use political violence it must be our fault that they are doing it, not the fault of those committing violence. I often see this trotted out when groups like BLM are committing armed insurrection, burning down court houses, police stations, etc. BLM might very well burn down the MN state capital building if Derek Chouvin gets acquitted, at which point people people who were so upset about the Trump supporters protesting in the capital building will then cheer for another capital building to be burned to the ground by mostly peaceful protesters, because that is violence that they have decided is good violence. The problem with this argument, is that you have lost the high ground. ANYONE who is unsatisfied with the government or society has the green light now to be violent. They can trot out the same definition you gave, word for word. Indeed, if White nationalists don't feel represented in government, and feel all peaceful means of expressing themselves have been exhausted, why is violence wrong for them? Would you say that in those cases we are the ones to blame, for marginalizing their voices?

simonh 6y ago
Yes you’re right, many of these people on Jan 6th believe that they had been denied their democratic rights. That’s why they were willing to directly attack and attempt to overturn the electoral process. In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. It’s not a core belief of the movement that reform is impossible. If it were true that democracy had been subverted, that the election had been stolen and that Trump had actually won then such action might even be justified. So then the question is, why are these claims being made and are they valid? That’s the fundamental issue the right needs to decide. Do you believe the electoral process accurately reflects the will of the people as the constitution intended, or do you not, and if not what is to be done about it. Also why wasn’t something done since 2016 when Trump made exactly the same claims of massive fraud. Why wasn't this tackled then? The division between Republicans on whether the election was fair or not is the core issue. One of these sides is correct and the other therefore are reckless, irresponsible and enemies of democracy. Is it the ones negligently and corruptly handing over power to electoral cheats that have stolen an election through massive vote fraud right under their noses; or is it the ones making baseless, unsubstantiated claims with the express goal of undermining and subverting the electoral process. Or does factional unity take precedence, and whichever of these you believe, loyalty to the side is what ultimately matters. Personally I'm a lifelong conservative, but democracy comes first and I know which side I'm on now.
- apostacy 6y ago
  The problem with defending violence, is that you have to defend the underlying grievances that led to violence. Can you blame people who engage in violence if they had a sincere belief that they were justified? What if it turns out that actually the election WAS stolen? Would you retroactively excuse them? > In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. I don't know how you can say that. There's absolutely no shortage of violence in BLM. I would assert that it easily eclipses anything by Trump supporters. Most of the Trump supporters were also peaceful. The reason they rushed the capital without masks is because they spent all summer watching BLM doing it, and they thought it was normal. They didn't understand that they will be held to different standards. I think for every act of violence by someone on the right, you can find something worse by BLM. Where is the outrage about a high ranking BLM organizer engaging in vehicular terrorism? [1] It is dismissed as just another lone wolf, in a cascade of lone wolves. 1: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917523942/woman-charged-with-attempted-murder-after-driving-into-pro-trump-protesters https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917523942/woman-charged-with-...
  - simonh 6y ago
    Oh I'm not backing BLM, or Antifa particularly, there are those among them who are very far beyond the pale. I'm not even particularly going to pick sides as to which is more violent. I think it's 9 people that have been killed in BLM protests, although several of them were BLM protesters themselves. There's blood on people's hands on all sides, and I don't think there are even just 2 sides here. The question is really about objectives. The BLM movement isn't fundamentally anti-democratic or revolutionary, it's reformist. Whether Trump explicitly incited violence I think is questionable for example, his incitement was reckless but personally I don't think it was criminal (Giuliani on the other hand...). The core issue IMHO is the democratic process. Trump launched a deliberate, pre-meditated all out attack on the democratic process in America, and overturning that process was the explicit goal of the Capitol attack. He has made zero credible effort at electoral reform, if he can't win democratically he is entirely comfortably with winning undemocratically and so are a very, very large swathe of his supporters. This is the fact that cannot be dismissed withwhataboutist finger pointing.

simonh 6y ago

Yes you’re right, many of these people on Jan 6th believe that they had been denied their democratic rights. That’s why they were willing to directly attack and attempt to overturn the electoral process. In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. It’s not a core belief of the movement that reform is impossible. If it were true that democracy had been subverted, that the election had been stolen and that Trump had actually won then such action might even be justified. So then the question is, why are these claims being made and are they valid? That’s the fundamental issue the right needs to decide. Do you believe the electoral process accurately reflects the will of the people as the constitution intended, or do you not, and if not what is to be done about it. Also why wasn’t something done since 2016 when Trump made exactly the same claims of massive fraud. Why wasn't this tackled then? The division between Republicans on whether the election was fair or not is the core issue. One of these sides is correct and the other therefore are reckless, irresponsible and enemies of democracy. Is it the ones negligently and corruptly handing over power to electoral cheats that have stolen an election through massive vote fraud right under their noses; or is it the ones making baseless, unsubstantiated claims with the express goal of undermining and subverting the electoral process. Or does factional unity take precedence, and whichever of these you believe, loyalty to the side is what ultimately matters. Personally I'm a lifelong conservative, but democracy comes first and I know which side I'm on now.

apostacy 6y ago
The problem with defending violence, is that you have to defend the underlying grievances that led to violence. Can you blame people who engage in violence if they had a sincere belief that they were justified? What if it turns out that actually the election WAS stolen? Would you retroactively excuse them? > In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. I don't know how you can say that. There's absolutely no shortage of violence in BLM. I would assert that it easily eclipses anything by Trump supporters. Most of the Trump supporters were also peaceful. The reason they rushed the capital without masks is because they spent all summer watching BLM doing it, and they thought it was normal. They didn't understand that they will be held to different standards. I think for every act of violence by someone on the right, you can find something worse by BLM. Where is the outrage about a high ranking BLM organizer engaging in vehicular terrorism? [1] It is dismissed as just another lone wolf, in a cascade of lone wolves. 1: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917523942/woman-charged-with-attempted-murder-after-driving-into-pro-trump-protesters https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917523942/woman-charged-with-...
- simonh 6y ago
  Oh I'm not backing BLM, or Antifa particularly, there are those among them who are very far beyond the pale. I'm not even particularly going to pick sides as to which is more violent. I think it's 9 people that have been killed in BLM protests, although several of them were BLM protesters themselves. There's blood on people's hands on all sides, and I don't think there are even just 2 sides here. The question is really about objectives. The BLM movement isn't fundamentally anti-democratic or revolutionary, it's reformist. Whether Trump explicitly incited violence I think is questionable for example, his incitement was reckless but personally I don't think it was criminal (Giuliani on the other hand...). The core issue IMHO is the democratic process. Trump launched a deliberate, pre-meditated all out attack on the democratic process in America, and overturning that process was the explicit goal of the Capitol attack. He has made zero credible effort at electoral reform, if he can't win democratically he is entirely comfortably with winning undemocratically and so are a very, very large swathe of his supporters. This is the fact that cannot be dismissed withwhataboutist finger pointing.