So like, the complete opposite of what we need?
So like, the complete opposite of what we need?
Cant imagine making 30 k a year and having to pay even 1600 in taxes. This is saying it will increase that much.
You're viewing a single thread.
These people have to live somewhere. Why is nobody killing them?
Americans are brainwashed with an ideology of nonviolence
The population has been made isolated at the community level. There are very few local groups doing any reaction at all to this.
And violent reactions which are successful are a group action; it’s very seldom an individual, in any era of history, changed the politics by themselves.
And as long as there are no impromptu gatherings of significant frequency, there will be very little violence.
The internet is not a replacement for community driven change which powers all social and political movements, peaceful or not.
The turning point, if there is one, will be lots of local meetings by the thousands , and not until then. No matter how violent or passive the individuals be
Americans won't form violent groups because they're trapped in the mind prison of nonviolence. They think violence is wrong.
What are you smoking?
The only country in the whole world with thousands of school shootings annually thinks violence is wrong? The country where the police force is trained to view themselves as an occupying force and civilians are enemy combatants is averse to violence? The country who's leader is currently cheerleading multiple genocides is peaceful?!?!1?
Can you even define "violence?" Because this country personifies it.
The country's political classes are violent. The people are trained to be nonviolent. This gives the state a monopoly on violence, which cements their control. Americans will be free when they stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence.
You're right. Right after we stop driving our cars though protestors and shooting people through closed and locked doors we can "stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence."
"America's is nonviolent" is probably gonna go down as the singular stupidest thing i read all year. 'grats.
it's more nuanced than that.
certain kinds of violence are glorified, because that which is forbidden is coveted.
Certain kinds of violence are acceptable, because it targets groups that are considered lesser.
Ask anyone if "is violence sometimes ok?" and you'll always get a loud and resounding "no", and it's so obviously a lie. You can even get them tripped up in the lie if you ask "what if someone is breaking into your home?" or other questions in which someone else is committing violence first. They'll begrudgingly admit that sometimes violence is ok, but that's different! If the person is open minded enough, you might even get to more nuanced scenarios than that, but good luck.
We have the largest military spending in the world, and we call it "defense".
Superman and Batman are two of the most iconic characters in fiction, and they Do Not Kill. It's a big deal if they break that rule, or that piece of media is kinda trash, that happens too. I like to call them "defenders of the status quo", because the companies that own them (not just them but also other characters that serve the same purpose) won't ever let them make things better. If they ever try, that's portrayed as a bad thing. We're told through these media that the real world as it is, is as good as it gets. The real world sucks ass, the bad guys won, and they're not even cool bad guys.
I think I lost the plot somewhere in there. Time for another drink!
There is still a lot of violent potential in all this population, it just needs to be nurtured by a working grassroots movement. And that is broken. Just like you can drive a car with a working motor, that has a busted axle; you cannot lead violent people to do things if there is no place to hook up or meet in person.
This applies to the people who oppose you as much as you, and I mean anyone. So, the current situation is sort of a stabilizing force at the moment
It’s because it IS wrong. Animals resort to violence when they don’t get their way.
Don't kid yourself, you're pro-violence if you're okay with how the system is now.
Where in what I said did you interpret that I was okay with how the system is?
You just claimed all violence is wrong, in reply to why people are choosing "nonviolence" which is a liberal propagandized view because the entire system is predicated on very active violence, just not in front of the consumers.
Also odd to call all animals wrong for "choosing" violence, I'm not certain how you define it, but colloquially violence is either inherently part of how nature works or a choice that is within some human defined morality that cannot be blanket applied to other animals.
“LiBruL pROpAgAnDa!”
For fucks sake. It’s not propaganda to think violence isn’t the answer to political problems. Have you never heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right?” If not, learn it, if so, them tire being willfully obtuse.
And you know damn well I didn’t mean “animals” to imply actual animals. It’s a term. How about you replace “animals” with “losers,” or “assholes” instead.
Lastly, I tend to avoid arguing with smug and arrogant people that try and rub pseudo-intellectual bullshit all over everything. So…
Have a day.
It's propaganda to think that violence isnt a last resort. I hope you never in a position to need self-defense because you seem to not believe in it.
Why would I assume otherwise? I would never call another group of people "animals," that's dehumanizing. Why would I assume someone who is nonviolence is okay with equating other people to animals, is kindness and respect not a core belief of nonviolence?
Quick to call others smug and arrogant because you can't have a dialogue.
I hope you break out of your cognitive dissonance chamber one day.
If one thinks violence is the only way to solve your problems. They are no more than an animal. This is my belief. I won’t apologize because you disagree. Evolution has allowed us to solve our problems without the need to kill people.
Oh and…
This isn’t cognitive dissonance. I know it’s a nice sounding big word that makes you sound smart, but it doesn’t apply here. My actions and my belief are perfectly aligned, so… Maybe learn what it means before you toss that one around, mmmkay?
The allied soldiers who killed the nazi soldiers are... doing something wrong?
🤔
Nice whatabout. Not entertaining it.
That's not what a whatabout is.
“Animals resort to violence”
“Whatabout allies soldiers?”
Yes it is.
Here, I know it's confusing if you haven't read about what the "whatabout" logical fallacy means, so I'll post it for you here.
"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
Unfortunately, you are objectively wrong about this. Feel free to try and change the meaning, if you want, but currently that is not what a "whatabout" is. In this case, calling it a "whatabout" is being used to deflect from facts that you cannot reckon with because they challenge your beliefs.
I hope you're able to take this information in and accept it. Good luck. Pacifism is virtuous.
You know, in a way, depending on perspective, you’re right. However the way I see it is-
Instead of actually arguing against my point, you’re using another completely unrelated point to prove it wrong. Meaning that allied wartime forces were not engaging in acts of violence because they couldn’t solve their disputes. They were doing their job.
One could argue that the military commanders were guilty of this- and I’d see the logic in that argument, but…
In my opinion, ALL things can be resolved without violence. Only, the problem with that is, people generally don’t like the option to solve things peacefully because it usually requires either compromise or hard work. And since we’re an all-or-nothing society now, peaceful compromise is just too much effort.
So yeah. Maybe your right that it’s not what whataboutism, but it’s definitely a false eloquence-
A false equivalence fallacy involves treating multiple situations or viewpoints as equivalent despite their significant differences. This sometimes results from faulty reasoning, but it is often used deliberately to lead an audience to a desired conclusion.
…which in my perspective, is far worse. Because in your example, you’re insulting the men and women who served to protect us by using them to illustrate the idea that they’re incapable of solving their issues without violence.
I hope you’re able to take this information and accept it. Good luck. Violence is animalistic.
BULLSHIT
Profound! As was the last time you said the exact same thing.
This is so funny because it is 100% the opposite. Violence is everywhere in america and people are completely desensitized to it and is completely fine if it is directed at the poor. Violence on the streets, violence against homeless, shooting your neighbors for pulling up in your driveway to turn, shooting people for not driving how you want, shooting up schools, mass shootings, all completely fine and absolutely no steps are taken against it.
They are brainwashed into nonviolence against the rich and corporate power and encouraged to use tons of violence against the poor and people that look slightly different than them.
Perfectly exemplified by fox (most popular "news" station in america, legally can't call themselves news since they lied too much):
-
Luigi in an inhumane terrorist traitor who should be killed
-
the guy who killed homeless people in the same week: "some say that he is a hero" and praising him for the full news cycle
-
Maybe it’s because we’re not animals. Had half of this country been educated enough to see what was coming- we wouldn’t be in this mess. Violence will only make it worse.
strange though that rich educated billionaires are fine using violence through the state to oppress citizens
Did I say that was fine?
In a game theory situation, One actor that obeys laws vs. another that doesn't tends to eliminate the one that does obeys laws.
so even hypothetically, we can't take the high road as it leads to a cliff.
and don't be so naive to think the world peace and order we enjoy wasn't paid for with blood of our ancestors. The rules you hold dearly now didn't protect your ancestors when they sought to do what's right.
Violence is the hallmark of peace.
Have fun storming the castle when people can’t even organize protests of any significance.
That is a completely different problem.
Naaah. It really isn’t.
Yeah, I forgot how this country became liberated in the first place.
Yeah… it’s not 1775 anymore. Did you not know this?
Oh, so that's why I can vote. I was so confused. Doesn't change the fact that fascists need pitchforks.
Who’s not an animal? Because humans are definitely classified as animals. We’re definitely not plants.
Animals as in- barbaric knuckle-dragging cavemen than can’t handle negativity and adversity without harming others.
You’re virtue signaling and need to do some deep searching and a review of human history. Be better.
Yeah… being nonviolent absolutely is a virtue. A pretty simple one at that. So I’m hoping the signal is loud and clear. And human history? Really? We used to use the practice of trepanning to release evil spirits from one’s head. Doctors once prescribed cigarettes to patients. History is a bad example to use to justify the present.
And lastly, you have the nerve to tell me to be better while you try and justify acts of violence?
Be better indeed- and evolve while you’re at it.
What acts of violence have they committed?
BULLSHIT
Such an astute point! Care to elaborate?
Sure! NOTHING has been achieved in repelling tyranny or gaining human rights without violence. All of the rights that the Fascist Pedophiles are taking away now were all won through acts of violence or very serious threats thereof. There is NO SITUATION in which tyranny abdicated itself because you begged it to. Not only is violence a legitimate answer to a problem, in political situations it is often the only reasonable response available.
Also, we are, in fact, animals in a very real and literal sense: "a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli." And animals often fight to survive.
Gated communities.
Also, killing doesn't solve the problem. You have to force transfer of weath/power and that can't happen if someone is dead.
How can we know it won't solve the problem until it's been thoroughly tested?
we've tried nothing and we're out of ideas
People have been killed for 200 years trying.
What world are you living in? Only slightly more 1\4 of the US voting population tried to stop fascists from taking over even after the fascists said, "Hey, we're fascists, and we plan on getting super fascisty up in dis removed!". Slightly less than 1\4 of the voting population actively worked to put the fascist in power and the remaining half gave the fascists 2 thumbs up and cheered them on. You are talking like this is some coup, but the US fucking invited them in and handed them the keys to the place. Even with all their tricks and lies and downright illegal activities, it wouldn't have meant shit if just a small percentage of the rest of the voting population had bothered to vote. So, even if we pretend that we are all Rambo and go on some single-handed "cleansing" of Washington, and we just murder the shit out of them without them lifting a finger to stop us. WTF is that going to do for us? They'll just be replaced by more monsters because that's what we chose.
Backslash fractions!?
For some reason, the Google keyboard has \ on the main keys, but I have to dig for / and I just can't find the ability to give a shit some days.