Rule isn't the answer, it's the question, the answer is "Yes"

I'm like 99% sure that "Violence is never the answer" is just yet ever more rich fuck propaganda.

It’s also very Liberal propaganda.

Martin Luther King Jr. protested and he won so peaceful protest works!

While of course barely mentioning the Black Panthers and how MLK was suddenly a reasonable alternative to their violent resistance.
- And his "peace" was met with an extreme act of violence. Certainly was an answer for someone(s).
- Exactly this. The "carrot and stick" strategy doesn't work without the stick. Every time a nonviolent movement achieves something, it's because they were seen as the preferable alternative to a more militant contemporary.
- The only reason MLK didn't do more was because what they were already doing was illegal, and anything more could get them jail time. And this is still what they thought of him and his "peaceful" protests:
- Tulsa.
It's a good motto to not get into a petty fight for petty shit because of emotion. It did not mean all violence because you also need violence as a defence against violence.

On the other hand, if the next 4 years we(as in us who isn't from the US) didn't see a civil war or violence protest, then people like oop that love to repeat this stuff should totally go outside and touch grass. These teasing is getting tiring.
I’m like 99% sure that “Violence is never the answer” is just yet ever more rich fuck propaganda.

"Violence (against the rich) is never the answer!" is what they really mean.
Adventure time explained it pretty well imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2xakGZvLjI
I thought it was just something we taught children
- But it's bad to lie to children! Santa is practice God, "violence is never the answer" is practice "vote harder".

A rich jackass with no actual government position took the podium at the presidential inauguration, did the nazi salute, and wasn't promptly shot or arrested. That says a lot about the state of this country.

There have been times where real Americans shot at Nazis instead of voting them into the White House.
Yeah, he did a nazi salute, not admitted to being a communist. Being a nazi has never not been accepted and normal in America.
- Saying "kill all landlords and ceos " doesnt violate any of the "calls to violence" on any social media and is very faschist commie thing to say.

Soap box

Ballot box

Ammo box <-- we are here not by choice, but we must answer

You missed jury box! Free Luigi!
After Ballot and Before Ammo is Street. It's an important stage because if you can't get enough people in the street then the ammo box isn't going to help you.
- In the frame of the four boxes, it's actually the jury box. But seeing how the judiciary is getting stacked against us, it's not a big stretch to say we're at box four
Where does the beat box fit in?
- You know, in the civil war, when they had the guys drumming to keep the march in time?
- You mean boombox?

Violence is the answer when less universal languages stop being an option

When two sides are fighting, and one uses violence and the other doesn't, side using violence almost always wins.

It's not the answer, it's the question. The answer is "yes"

I think the Geneva conventions were also something rather new because biological warfare, civilian hostages including women and children, massacres, and destruction of vital resources like food and water were pretty standard for thousands of years of war and combat.

Of course as history has shown, no one actually bothers to follow the Geneva conventions when they face zero consequences but will totally complain if anyone else doesn't (cough Israel cough).

Biological weapons, for the time being, are mutually banned because disease is hard to control in a warzone where anything has the chance to mutate or evolve. Gas attacks are used exclusively against civilians because every army has gas masks. Although iirc Iraq used it to create a massive untraversable barrier against Iran. Otherwise everything is apparently still the same.

I think there needs to be a bit of differentiation.

There always have been particularly ruthless and brutal armys, who would pillage, rape and murder civillians, just as there have been disciplined armys and leaders who made a point of only fighting the enemies army.

However the extent to which people could go about slaughter with swords, pikes and muskets is very different than the extent of machine guns, artillery, and carpet bombing.

Also it is psychologically researched that the further someone is to another human, the less empathy they feel. It takes much more decisiveness to slay someone with a sword than to shoot at him from a hundred meters than to press a button in your drone control room while having your coffee and the breakfast you got on the way driving to work.

War always has been brutal, but modern technologies have enabled the scaled and speed of destruction to go far beyond what was historically imaginable. So the need to create some sort of rules to limit the effects also has increased tremendously.
- While I'm sure there's some that are worse than others I'm pretty sure every conflict has involved widespread rape.
  
  Someone please correct me if you can. It would help me like humanity a little bit more.
- just as there have been disciplined armys and leaders who made a point of only fighting the enemies army.
  
  Any examples?
Geneva convention only applies to losers. Winners write history.
I would also add that weaponizing rape is not a typical (though not totally absent) characteristic of peasant revolution whereas it is an extremely widespread (but not totally ubiquitous) characteristic of conquest/colonialism and political control of minorities by state projects.

Edit: Meant to respond to @drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone

re reads 2nd amendment Huh. Now it makes sense.

#VITA

No dwarf is shitty fam, gotta love yourself. Rock and stone <3