5 ms·

I’m not sure that logically tracks. You (likely) act in a non-violent way every day. If you want some kind of change in your life, you achieve it non-violently

by Gagarin1917 9mo ago

I’m not sure that logically tracks. You (likely) act in a non-violent way every day. If you want some kind of change in your life, you achieve it non-violently. Does that imply you are are actually a violent person that is choosing not to be violent? Are you implying “something violent” every day you act like a good person? MLK didn’t have support because people were afraid of the alternative. They supported him because they agreed with him message. I feel like you are just trying to justify violence to some degree.

XorNot 9mo ago
Everyday you're not trying to achieve political change. And a lot of those interactions are backed by implied violence: people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  > people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price. ... I genuinely can't fathom what it's like to live in a developed country and yet have such little social trust. You really imagine that when others are in line at a checkout, they have the intrusive thought "I could just bolt and not pay, but I see a security guard so I better stay in line"? You really have that thought yourself? Of course people have agreed on the price. That's why you don't see anyone trying to negotiate the price, even though they would be perfectly within their rights to try. And it's why you do see people comparison-shop.
  - XorNot 9mo ago
    If you break the law, what happens to you? What does the state do to you? Like say you persistently just refuse to pay a parking ticket after court orders to do so?
    - wrs 9mo ago
      You're missing the point -- I don't refuse to pay a parking ticket after the court orders me to do so. I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying. I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.
      - XorNot 9mo ago
        > I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. What do you think happens to people who do that though? You keep telling me what you don't do and how it proves you're implicitly non violent but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach. Implying violence is never necessary while repeatedly describing not doing violence even if the state's violence distributing apparatus isn't currently present rather undermines the case.
        zahlman 9mo ago
        > but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach. This is not an accurate representation of GP: > I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying.... I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.
        XorNot 9mo ago
        The OP is presenting a stupidly simplistic model of the problem, as though their regular middle class life ably answers the question of the role or threat of violence when demanding political change. In a world they note of police, military and security guards, they're acting like whether this might have a reason is determined solely by whether people are planning to steal from a supermarket or not...while they're not poverty stricken or hungry, to boot. Arguing "I simply obey all the laws" is real easy to do from a position of privilege. Violence is never the answer is easy to say when it's not happening to you. Its also easy to say while you stand by as violence is done to others.
- 9JollyOtter 9mo ago
  > people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price. Yes it is. If a normal commodity item such as bottle of milk was outrageous overpriced in a particular store. I would just go to another store. As for whether I would pay for something without the threat of violence. I do so everyday. I've walked out of stores by mistake with an item I haven't paid for and gone back into the store and paid for it. I don't like my things being stolen, and thus I don't steal other people's things. I pay for my eggs from a farm and it is a honour system.
bnlxbnlx 9mo ago
I think the specific condition here is "change that someone else is willing to prevent using violence". I guess that is not present too often during everyday life.
Rperry2174 9mo ago
Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were for those fighting for civil rights. You may still personally choose non-violence in this case, but I'd bet you would understand/sympathize/maybe-even-join those who decided to break into their apartments by force and grab the things that are rightfully theirs. nobody is secretly violent ... just normal peaceful channels stoped working. Recognizing that distinction isn't justifying violence its just explaining why nonviolence provides leverage in the first place
- Lord-Jobo 9mo ago
  And those mechanisms, the military, the police, and the legal system, rely on violence as the ultimate fallback when other options fail. So you may not be relying on violence to solve your problems, or the threat of violence, or the insinuation of it, but instead relying on the threat of someone ELSE’S violence. That is the social contract pretty fundamentally. And when people can no longer rely on those figures who are supposed to use violence on their behalf, we shouldn’t be surprised that they attempt to reclaim the ability to use force. The social contract has been voided, in their eyes. The premise and promise broken.
- lukan 9mo ago
  "Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were for those fighting for civil rights. You may still personally choose non-violence in this case, but I'd bet you would understand/sympathize/maybe-even-join those who decided to break into their apartments by force and grab the things that are rightfully theirs." I would say it depends. Are there depts of rent involved in that scenario? Did the locking out just happened out of the blue, or was it communicated before, that it would happen? Apart from that, I surely see more easy examples of justifying violence - for example to stop other violence.
9JollyOtter 9mo ago
I've listened to a lot of Malcolm X. He was a better speaker IMO, his rhetoric was better. I believe he had a more accurate understanding of the reality of how power really works. It has nothing to do with wanting to justifying violence, Malcolm X made a number of matter of fact observations.
judahmeek 9mo ago
> MLK didn’t have support because people were afraid of the alternative. They supported him because they agreed with him message. You sound like you've never heard of political triangulation before.
- Gagarin1917 9mo ago
  You sound like you think everyone in the world is a political science major… they’re not. They don’t think like this.
  - judahmeek 9mo ago
    I'm pretty sure Dr. King & Malcolm X did.

XorNot 9mo ago

Everyday you're not trying to achieve political change. And a lot of those interactions are backed by implied violence: people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

zahlman 9mo ago
> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price. ... I genuinely can't fathom what it's like to live in a developed country and yet have such little social trust. You really imagine that when others are in line at a checkout, they have the intrusive thought "I could just bolt and not pay, but I see a security guard so I better stay in line"? You really have that thought yourself? Of course people have agreed on the price. That's why you don't see anyone trying to negotiate the price, even though they would be perfectly within their rights to try. And it's why you do see people comparison-shop.
- XorNot 9mo ago
  If you break the law, what happens to you? What does the state do to you? Like say you persistently just refuse to pay a parking ticket after court orders to do so?
  - wrs 9mo ago
    You're missing the point -- I don't refuse to pay a parking ticket after the court orders me to do so. I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying. I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.
    - XorNot 9mo ago
      > I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. What do you think happens to people who do that though? You keep telling me what you don't do and how it proves you're implicitly non violent but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach. Implying violence is never necessary while repeatedly describing not doing violence even if the state's violence distributing apparatus isn't currently present rather undermines the case.
      - zahlman 9mo ago
        > but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach. This is not an accurate representation of GP: > I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying.... I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.
        XorNot 9mo ago
        The OP is presenting a stupidly simplistic model of the problem, as though their regular middle class life ably answers the question of the role or threat of violence when demanding political change. In a world they note of police, military and security guards, they're acting like whether this might have a reason is determined solely by whether people are planning to steal from a supermarket or not...while they're not poverty stricken or hungry, to boot. Arguing "I simply obey all the laws" is real easy to do from a position of privilege. Violence is never the answer is easy to say when it's not happening to you. Its also easy to say while you stand by as violence is done to others.
9JollyOtter 9mo ago
> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price. Yes it is. If a normal commodity item such as bottle of milk was outrageous overpriced in a particular store. I would just go to another store. As for whether I would pay for something without the threat of violence. I do so everyday. I've walked out of stores by mistake with an item I haven't paid for and gone back into the store and paid for it. I don't like my things being stolen, and thus I don't steal other people's things. I pay for my eggs from a farm and it is a honour system.

bnlxbnlx 9mo ago

I think the specific condition here is "change that someone else is willing to prevent using violence". I guess that is not present too often during everyday life.

Rperry2174 9mo ago

Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were for those fighting for civil rights. You may still personally choose non-violence in this case, but I'd bet you would understand/sympathize/maybe-even-join those who decided to break into their apartments by force and grab the things that are rightfully theirs. nobody is secretly violent ... just normal peaceful channels stoped working. Recognizing that distinction isn't justifying violence its just explaining why nonviolence provides leverage in the first place

Lord-Jobo 9mo ago
And those mechanisms, the military, the police, and the legal system, rely on violence as the ultimate fallback when other options fail. So you may not be relying on violence to solve your problems, or the threat of violence, or the insinuation of it, but instead relying on the threat of someone ELSE’S violence. That is the social contract pretty fundamentally. And when people can no longer rely on those figures who are supposed to use violence on their behalf, we shouldn’t be surprised that they attempt to reclaim the ability to use force. The social contract has been voided, in their eyes. The premise and promise broken.
lukan 9mo ago
"Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to. In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were for those fighting for civil rights. You may still personally choose non-violence in this case, but I'd bet you would understand/sympathize/maybe-even-join those who decided to break into their apartments by force and grab the things that are rightfully theirs." I would say it depends. Are there depts of rent involved in that scenario? Did the locking out just happened out of the blue, or was it communicated before, that it would happen? Apart from that, I surely see more easy examples of justifying violence - for example to stop other violence.

9JollyOtter 9mo ago

I've listened to a lot of Malcolm X. He was a better speaker IMO, his rhetoric was better. I believe he had a more accurate understanding of the reality of how power really works. It has nothing to do with wanting to justifying violence, Malcolm X made a number of matter of fact observations.

judahmeek 9mo ago

> MLK didn’t have support because people were afraid of the alternative. They supported him because they agreed with him message. You sound like you've never heard of political triangulation before.

Gagarin1917 9mo ago
You sound like you think everyone in the world is a political science major… they’re not. They don’t think like this.
- judahmeek 9mo ago
  I'm pretty sure Dr. King & Malcolm X did.