Forum Post: Too much violent talk
Posted 13 years ago on Sept. 14, 2011, 10:06 p.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What's the deal with everybody talking in terms of violence? Does nonviolent mean "nonviolent only for the first five minutes but all bets are off as long as somebody else starts it"?
"They started it" is not going to convince the sheeple to join the cause or believe in unjust government oppression. They'll just say we had it coming.
Toleration of violent speech is only inviting trouble for everyone. We should be self-policing so the police will stay out of it.
Is it nonviolent to stand by and allow (through ineffectiveness) violence to be done?
[Removed]
If anybody starts violence they should be arrested whether that be a cop or a protester.
You really think we should be arrested for this? What side are you on?
For violence. Any use of violence will be used against the cause, and that ruins the whole thing.
so every bad apple is an "agent provocateur" plant of the regime? your ability to deny reality is astounding! let me know how that nonviolent protest works out for you. Every single protest ends in chaos and destruction and fails to make any change on the political scene
[Removed]
But Rick Astley would never be violent, and he's never gonna give you up.
the problem with nonviolence is that it only works if EVERYBODY obeys it. One bad apple and it all falls apart. You can't argue with the idiots who come with the intention of causing chaos, so nonviolence only works if you enforce it violently... you see?
This is not entirely true. The bad apples will get arrested early on. Then its a good peaceful demonstration again. This will be recognized. If there's only one bad apple then he looks like an idiot and the rest of us remain with a sound message. The media aren't that unforgiving. This will be given recognition if that is the case.
Can you give an example of any protest that actually happened this way?
Your right, the cops will pull out the bad guys and let the rest of us stay.
[Removed]
In fact, nonviolence is entirely democratic - you resist to whatever degree YOU are passionate enough to do so to. You aren't counting on any kind of critical mass with nonviolence and love. Love is love no matter what. I would say actually that violence hinges on everyone being into it. If there aren't enough numbers, it simply won't work. And even then, it might not. At the end of the day they have tanks, machine guns, marines, seals, you name it. What they lack, however, is love, peace, compassion, connectedness. If you give them a taste of it they will become hooked.
you are delusional. I have love... and I also own a gun. I have compassion and community, but that doesn't make me want to disrupt businesses and attack the system that enables my freedom.
(me again, same person as before. Actually I'm behind all three of these replies...)
Just look at tiananmen square. What we honor in awe today is the tank man's courage. And to boot, the government lost alot of ground in its international and domestic reputations. It had worked hard to build up progress in others' perceptions of it but they lost all that because they resorted to bringing in tanks and quelling it violently. They will never be forgiven or trusted again due to that. Tank man similarly will never be forgotten for his bravery and courage.
um... the US does not face Chinese-style oppression. some people were actually run over by tanks in China. remember that? The police you oppose in new york actually value human life, as do the leaders who would not order such a thing in this country. Why don't you occupy Beijing instead?
[Removed]