4 ms·

> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to

> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to resolve a conflict have either been exhausted or taken off the table. This is admirable and works in a lot of situations. But exhausting nonviolent options can foreclose success and be abused by an opponent.

krapp 1y ago
Yes, this was a constant refrain by white moderates during the Civil Rights era, that black people should absolutely and under all circumstances refrain from violence and remain civil and respect the law.. all while they were being beaten, shot and lynched with regularity. MLK Jr. said such people were worse than the klan. The the feds shot him in the head. It is an understandable argument but like "think of the children" it can also be used to normalize the violence of the state and de-legitimize dissent. The entire country is flying flags flags at half staff in honor of Charlie Kirk. His murder is filling headlines across the country. It's being declared an act of domestic terrorism, and right-wingers are calling for civil war. Meanwhile the explicitly politically motivated murders of Melissa and Mark Holtman, the attacks on Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer go utterly unremarked upon. We notice when the rhetoric about nonviolence implies that only one side should stand down.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  A civil war? They run all three branches.
  - krapp 1y ago
    Well, war against Democrats, leftists, liberals, gay and transgender people, black and brown people and everyone else they consider the perfidious enemies of God and who they've been threatening to put up against the wall for years now. I don't know if it technically counts as "civil war" if the government declares war on its own citizens, and one half of the population declares war against the other half. It's not as though "declaring war" actually means anything in the US. Maybe it's just sparkling fascism.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      I suppose if there is large scale armed conflict it would be a civil war regardless of the power balance.

krapp 1y ago

Yes, this was a constant refrain by white moderates during the Civil Rights era, that black people should absolutely and under all circumstances refrain from violence and remain civil and respect the law.. all while they were being beaten, shot and lynched with regularity. MLK Jr. said such people were worse than the klan. The the feds shot him in the head. It is an understandable argument but like "think of the children" it can also be used to normalize the violence of the state and de-legitimize dissent. The entire country is flying flags flags at half staff in honor of Charlie Kirk. His murder is filling headlines across the country. It's being declared an act of domestic terrorism, and right-wingers are calling for civil war. Meanwhile the explicitly politically motivated murders of Melissa and Mark Holtman, the attacks on Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer go utterly unremarked upon. We notice when the rhetoric about nonviolence implies that only one side should stand down.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
A civil war? They run all three branches.
- krapp 1y ago
  Well, war against Democrats, leftists, liberals, gay and transgender people, black and brown people and everyone else they consider the perfidious enemies of God and who they've been threatening to put up against the wall for years now. I don't know if it technically counts as "civil war" if the government declares war on its own citizens, and one half of the population declares war against the other half. It's not as though "declaring war" actually means anything in the US. Maybe it's just sparkling fascism.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    I suppose if there is large scale armed conflict it would be a civil war regardless of the power balance.