3 ms·
It states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope
by realce 2y ago
It states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope repeated countless times in history, and it will occur again.
Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?
- hot_gril 2y agoThe comment above literally says "only."
- realce 2y agoAnd conditions it as "historically". It does not state "revolution and violence is the only way forward"
- squigz 2y ago> Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous? This is a really unfair reading of my stance, and I'm fairly confident you knew what I meant - especially since I spelled it out in my last comment. Acknowledgement of history is fine. Implications that the way things have always went is the only way it can go is silly at best and dangerous at worst.
- realce 2y ago> Implications that the way things have always went is the only way it can go is silly at best and dangerous at worst. I apologize if I was unfair, I'm just trying to have a provocative conversation, no offense intended. Calling an acknowledgement of history either dangerous, rhetoric, or weighed with the burden of intangible implication seems like a way to shame the observer for observing what is obvious. Just mentioning historical violence is not an endorsement of it or a suggestion that it's the only tool available to the slighted. I find that reaction itself to be the actual danger.
- squigz 2y agoIf we're being (constructively) provocative, let's not pretend that the implication is all that intangible. Is it an endorsement? No. Is it an explicit statement that violence is the only way forward? No. But simply pointing it out, without expanding on it with, as you say, constructive alternative viewpoints, is very clearly implying that it's the only solution. If it's not, I ask GP: What is their point in what they said? As for my position being dangerous... I don't see how that's the case. Again, as I've clarified, I do not find it dangerous to acknowledge history (of course that would be dangerous itself) just using history to imply dangerous things.