• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah no one is clearly seeing this. You go far enough to either side and both are using violence and force to get what they want.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Unfortunately, systemic change always takes violence, or at least the threat of violence. Every case where peaceful protest ever worked there was always a parallel violent movement. Any non-violent movement that gets anywhere close to real victory can also count on violence from the other side.

      • Lulu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        the truly only way of no-violence is to just simply have no enemies

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        'Course, it is more effective the more directed the violence or threat thereof is. Just killing anyone who disagrees with you will only serve to make you enemies, target it at specific people that are a problem and you’re more likely to gain supporters, as it’s easier to justify than the wide-net method.

        That is to say nothing about whether political violence itself is moral or not, I’m generally on the side of “until it’s for anarchism forever, it’s kinda amoral. I’d rather convince the people through words like a human, and then use violence as an absolute last resort against those unwilling to relinquish their positions of power, or those who attempt to ‘fill the new power vacuum’ they don’t know has been filled by ‘the people.’”