lmao libs are gonna get us all killed.
The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberal’s initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.
Today power is defined by the amount of violence one can bring against one’s enemy — that is how you decide how powerful a country is; power is defined not by the number of people living in a country, it is not based on the amount of resources to be found in that country, it is not based upon the good will of the leaders or the majority of that people. When one talks about a powerful country, one is talking precisely about the amount of violence that that country can heap upon its enemy. We must be clear in our minds about that. Russia is a powerful country, not because there are so many millions of Russians but because Russia has great atomic strength, great atomic power, which of course is violence. America can unleash an infinite amount of violence, and that is the only way one considers America powerful. No one considers Vietnam powerful, because Vietnam cannot unleash the same amount of violence. Yet if one wanted to define power as the ability to do, it seems to me that Vietnam is much more powerful than the United States. But because we have been conditioned by Western thoughts today to equate power with violence, we tend to do that at all times, except when the oppressed begin to equate power with violence — then it becomes an “incorrect” equation.
From “The Pitfalls of Liberalism” by Kwame Ture
No. We may all be Americans, but MAGA is an alt-right hateful term, and I will never align myself with that.
We can align as Americans and condemn violence, but that means condemning all violence.
Genuinely, if Trump is a genuine risk to democracy and risks increasing support to Israel, why must he be defeated in a vote? Like, if he becomes Hitler 2 and erases democracy and ups the genocide, is that okay with you because he won the vote?
So what happens if Trump wins and goes full hitler? You just gonna line up to get carted off to a camp? Because this seems to be something you libs also think. So if that is the stakes then when does violence become acceptable?
I am genuinely curious how far your absolute pacifism goes.
Or what about the violence being funded by our government being inflicted on Palestinians and still being perpetrated against Native people here?
That violence is okay with you right?
Don’t lie to yourself you people fucking love violence when it benefits you.
No. We may all be Americans, but MAGA is an alt-right hateful term, and I will never align myself with that.
We can align as Americans and condemn violence, but that means condemning all violence.
/ seriously Well, have ye heard of the term “chickens coming home to roost”? I think that’s what Trump had coming for him, I guess…
I condemn such political violence, but I wouldn’t have shed a single tear for Trump.
Fuck MAGA. Fuck Trump.
Why condemn it? Violence is an unfortunate tool, but a tool nontheless, and abandoning it when oppressors use it without care just means you aren’t taking things seriously. Hitler should have been assassinated.
By weighing all violence as immoral you are not ruling it out completely. You make it a last-resort, where you avoid one great injustice with a lesser injustice - a lesser injustice which you still face consequences for.
The alternative is morally sanctifying some murders, which leads to ‘morally justified’ murders being done by all political sides (since they each view themselves as ‘the moral ones’), and which eventually gets twisted into the party in power murdering their opponents with impunity because it’s ‘morally justified’.
Moralism itself is just a tool to justify the status quo. Nothing is inherently good by maintaining “civility,” especially if violence is the status quo.
Shooting Nazis is good. Shooting Gazans is bad. Violence is a tool, but not always the correct one, nor is it never correct.
No.
