Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

They also weren't stopped by people calling them mean names. Like, call Trump "The cheeto-in-chief" all you want, I don't give a fuck, but don't pretend it s actually doing something.

Insults actually seem to be pretty effective against Trump, he is so thin-skinned. I just never have gotten a chance to insult him to his face.

Wolf insulted him and now he is having his snowflake ball soon because of it.

What policy changes has insulting trump resulted in?

The reversal of the immigrant families separation policy.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/donald-trump-sign-executive-order-ending-family-separation/9892042

Hello everyone.

OP; if you don't realise why civility is desirable, it's because at least part of the reason for expressing an opinion is to communicate ideas to people who don't share your view. If you limit yourself to polemicising to a partisan echo-chamber this may not be an issue, but apparently this site isn't an entirely homogeneous left-wing hivemind (yet!) so surely you anticipate some scrutiny of what can only be described as wilfully polarising speech.

So my first point is; are you genuinely interested in advancing your position? Not just preaching to the converted but also winning the hearts and minds of the undecided, or perhaps swaying a few of those on the other side of the fence? Well, protip, you seldom get people to agree with you by insulting them off the bat.

Secondly, I would ask in all seriousness, would you be in favour of your counterparts on the political right engaging in the same lack of civility? Because that is surely what an egalitarian would logically have to advocate. If you think it's fine and dandy to drop all respect for your opponent, if it's A-OK to jettison all decorum as long as you've convinced yourself your adversary is on the wrong side of history, then please try to explain why the Westboro Baptist Church is wrong for turning up at funerals of LGBT people and screaming "God hates fags" over a megaphone. Is picketing abortion clinics OK, as long as the protestors have sufficiently vehement belief in their own correctness? Let's take this to its logical extreme, were the 9/11 attacks justified assuming the hijackers were true believers in their cause?

I'm not sure I would say all challenges to the status quo need to be civil (as you rightly point out, respectability politics is used by both the left and right to stifle discussion that would harm their position), but certainly there should be a measure of decorum. If you're on the right side of history, it stands to reason you will be in a history book one day. And at that point a reputation for magnanimity will pay better dividends than your ability to teabag your foes.

Thaluikhain:

Gethsemani:
Morally, arguably not. But in that they are both acts that break the law and can cause legal repercussions, definitely. Which makes them different from MLK and Ghandi, who both tried their best to stay within the confines of the laws.

Erm...what? The whole point of the Salt March was to get lots of people overtly breaking a (minor) law, MLK similarly adopted a strategy of getting volunteers to be mass arrested for breaking the law in both Albany and Birmingham, rather more successfully in the latter.

Also the fact that he was all for making it ostensibly impossible for authorities to gaol every Indian. Literally shackle yourself to buildings. Lie down in factory floors even when technically trespassing. Resist arrest by going limp. Make it so the police have to carry you to a lock up while you're forgiving them for their sins against their fellow person.

That and Gandhi spoke vehemently against cowardice. He told his followers that every protestor must accept violence and self-sacrifice. Such is the path of heroism. Suffering violence and self-sacrifice. But that does not excuse cowardice not to act, that it was cowardice not to spill blood when conceivably all that can be achieved is only by spilling blood.

Gandhi's non-violence was as much pragmatic as based on spiritual tenets taken from Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism ... but the last thing he was is simply a coward in his terms. The truest heroism was the person that accepts violence and self-sacrifice unto themselves so that it may spar another, whether then or in time (a successful non-violent revolution) ... but that did not excuse a person not acting where there could be no question that violence was necessary (the war against fascism, for example).

Gandhi wasn't as if 'wait 'til the Japanese potentially occupy us, then just lie down in the street.'

Gandhi was not as if some stereotypical, olive branched carrying hippie. To make that assumption is to brazenlyignore the fact that non-violence was particularly useful in its time and place... but that did not just mean being an idle spectator to a world at war with itself. Peace is not some abstracted concept of simplybeing withut conflict. But rather in Gandhi's eyes, the active sacrifice to attain it and make it a spirit of the age. And in that, violence may very well be necessary.

Batou667:

Secondly, I would ask in all seriousness, would you be in favour of your counterparts on the political right engaging in the same lack of civility?

"Same"? Reporting leftist tweets as hatespeech, DDoSing leftist websites, trying to shut down leftist's Patreons, reporting leftists and minorities to the police as terrorists, beating and murdering minorities on the street... is all that more civil than Saelune's attitude? Oh, boy!

If Saelune ever approached the level of incivility as the side she is fighting against, she'd be right now on the run from the police as suspect for physical assault and cyberterrorism.

Speaking for myself, I'd love the other side to be just as uncivil as Saelune; because they'd be way less harmful to other people.

CaitSeith:

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:
Insults actually seem to be pretty effective against Trump, he is so thin-skinned. I just never have gotten a chance to insult him to his face.

Wolf insulted him and now he is having his snowflake ball soon because of it.

What policy changes has insulting trump resulted in?

The reversal of the immigrant families separation policy.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/donald-trump-sign-executive-order-ending-family-separation/9892042

Was that reversal really gained by insulting trump? That is the claim that Saelune is making.

I'm late to the party it seems.

Gethsemani:

That however, should not be conflated with civility when in an informal setting, where change can not reasonably be affected. When talking to people that just have a different opinion, you should always be civil. Doesn't matter how right you think you are, or how wrong you think they are, because the moment you stop being civil in a casual discussion is the moment you make yourself and your position look bad. In the informal or casual discussion civility is what makes it possible to exchange ideas. You might think you're right, but calling the other person names, ridiculing their position or refusing to engage their arguments cheapens the entire discussion. It isn't some brave political stance or act of civil disobedience, it is just you being an asshole because you think you have the morally superior stance and it is unbecoming as fuck for anyone.

This is essentially the point I was making when I said that. There's a difference between getting heated up over someone treating you poorly and doing that when no one is treating you poorly. You would come into a thread, make a one sentence antagonistic quip, and then say nothing else. This is not a bad thing to do all the time (I do it myself) but that was what the majority of your posts were. I have not seen for myself anyone on these boards antagonizing you or making fun of you or what have unless just the mere act of someone having a different opinion from yourself is something you consider disrespectful (In which case I'll open up full season on being disrespectful to you, because I have a different opinion).

These forums are not congress, they are not a political rally, they are a place for strangers, acquaintances and friends to discuss topics, and while we can certainly get heated over them, that doesn't mean we should degenerate into a contest of who can be more snide than the other.

BreakfastMan:

CaitSeith:

BreakfastMan:

What policy changes has insulting trump resulted in?

The reversal of the immigrant families separation policy.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/donald-trump-sign-executive-order-ending-family-separation/9892042

Was that reversal really gained by insulting trump? That is the claim that Saelune is making.

Not merely Trump, but also the Homeland Security Secretary among others.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I

I totally advocate for civil unrest. Yes, even car bombs and targeted assassination of politicians, their families, their friends, their magnate industrial personalities backing them, the police that no longer serve protecting the people, and commiting as much violence as possible (against actors of the state inthe name of your assurances) when all other means have failed.

Also... can we all back up here and point out that Addendum just advocated for killing the families and friends of people? I don't care if this is meant to be done, "when all other means have failed". If the only way of fighting monsters is to become just as much a monster then what is in fact the point of being on either side at all?

I assume I'm misunderstanding something here and I hope you correct me because if this is in fact your stance Addendum then you just one upped Saelune by a large margin.

I think we're brushing "civility" with broad strokes here. Saying "Fuck off" to someone's face is uncivil, so is throwing a molotov into a gathering of people, but you can see there's a wiiiiiiiide diference between those two(or atleast i hope people can see that).

So no, Saelune being understandably bitter, aggresive verbally and sometimes unfair, on an internet forum(especially this size) isn't really having that much of an impact. Positive or negative.

Specter Von Baren:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I

I totally advocate for civil unrest. Yes, even car bombs and targeted assassination of politicians, their families, their friends, their magnate industrial personalities backing them, the police that no longer serve protecting the people, and commiting as much violence as possible (against actors of the state inthe name of your assurances) when all other means have failed.

Also... can we all back up here and point out that Addendum just advocated for killing the families and friends of people? I don't care if this is meant to be done, "when all other means have failed". If the only way of fighting monsters is to become just as much a monster then what is in fact the point of being on either side at all?

I assume I'm misunderstanding something here and I hope you correct me because if this is in fact your stance Addendum then you just one upped Saelune by a large margin.

No kidding. "Yikes" and "OOF" and all that...
But that actually begs for a question. If, for WHATEVER reason, you go as far as killing policy makers and enactors... why take an extra step and go for their families and friends as well? What does that achieve?
I mean, i guess it makes a statement[1]. But i still can't excuse that.

[1] That you're a cunt.

Gethsemani:

Khellendrosiic:
Not to mention comparing Rosa Parks with Malcolm X. Is civil disobedience equivalent to violence?

Morally, arguably not. But in that they are both acts that break the law and can cause legal repercussions, definitely. Which makes them different from MLK and Ghandi, who both tried their best to stay within the confines of the laws.

One of those is a misdemeanor and the other is a felony. I shouldn't need to explain how those are treated as related, but quite different things under the law. Simply saying "Those are crimes" to something as bad as littering and something like inciting violence is the same as saying "That's uncivil" when comparing shouting at people in a public space and beating people in the streets.

Oh wait. That's kind of the major contention in this whole thread, isn't it? People making mountains out of molehills because a molehill isn't something to get that excited about but OH GOSH DARN THAT MOUNTAIN SURE IS A TALL ONE EH?

Please excuse my sarcasm, I found I had a lot of excess after realizing that Addendum did a great job answering all your other points for me in his own posts. Though I'm not going to touch that attenuation or violent revolution stuff, that's whack.

Batou667:
-Standard "Democrats have to take the high road and be complicit or else they're just as bad as those evil Republicans" right-wing argument-

...used up all my sarcasm with those all caps, damn. Let's just say that your point is the one Saelune is explicitly fighting against; ie letting the other side define how we can fight for us. Or so I've interpreted her stance to be, I'm not so hot at remembering specific quotes.

Specter Von Baren:

Also... can we all back up here and point out that Addendum just advocated for killing the families and friends of people? I don't care if this is meant to be done, "when all other means have failed". If the only way of fighting monsters is to become just as much a monster then what is in fact the point of being on either side at all?

I assume I'm misunderstanding something here and I hope you correct me because if this is in fact your stance Addendum then you just one upped Saelune by a large margin.

That's how you get rid of monarchies. No point killing a king or queen if someone else likely just as awful is just going to inherit the throne. Also works with a whole lot of despotic governments in history or currently existing that aren't necessarily monarchical. You know, nepotism. Where friends and family end up just sliding into government or industrial positions of power simply because they're friends of the ruling family or party.

When it getsto the point when revolution is necessary, then nepotism is more than likely already rife... so yeah, targeting friends and family is about as effective as anything else you could do. Especially if you want to sell the legitimacy of your capabilities of overthrowing a government. Manage to execute some favoured niece or nephew of the government on tv... that will drive a revolution into an all new gear.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Specter Von Baren:

Also... can we all back up here and point out that Addendum just advocated for killing the families and friends of people? I don't care if this is meant to be done, "when all other means have failed". If the only way of fighting monsters is to become just as much a monster then what is in fact the point of being on either side at all?

I assume I'm misunderstanding something here and I hope you correct me because if this is in fact your stance Addendum then you just one upped Saelune by a large margin.

That's how you get rid of monarchies. No point killing a king or queen if someone else likely just as awful is just going to inherit the throne.

We're not talking about monarchies here. And even in the case of monarchies, killing a monarch and their family doesn't really do much to stop bloodshed.

Specter Von Baren:

We're not talking about monarchies here. And even in the case of monarchies, killing a monarch and their family doesn't really do much to stop bloodshed.

Who wants to stop the bloodshed? The whole point of a revolution is a changing of the government in the most expedient and efficient means as possible that cannot be achieved any other way. That's going to require alot of bodies if direct violence is actually required.

Saelune:
I think that is just another way to let them control you. It wont matter, so I think we should just not worry about it and respond how we feel is best for ourselves. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Well yes. We live in a society which is incredibly unfair, and where the voices of those with privilege are able to dominate without even trying, and where no matter what we do other people are going to control the conversation. Just living in that situation is psychologically devastating, even when one leaves aside the very real, physical consequences of being marginalized. If you weren't angry about that, I would worry for you. Heck, I am angry too. But another part of living in such a society is realising that noone cares if you're angry and hurting, either they're incapable of understanding or they're unwilling to do anything about it.

But it won't always be this way. Things will change, and they will change because individual people run out of ways to hide from the humanity of people like us. The people who wonder why you're so angry today will be pretending they were your allies tomorrow, and part of that will be caused by people encountering situations which challenge them in ways they can't ignore, and maybe letting those thoughts and doubts fester in a changing political climate for years or decades. What I'm saying, ultimately, is that you're not as powerless as you think you are, and letting yourself believe that you are powerless really is letting them control you. The right, at this point, increasingly resembles a cult, and while it my be pointless to engage with the hardcore believers, there are plenty of people on the edges who can be, if not full on deprogrammed, then at least challenged on particular issues and points, and that is progress.

And yes, I believe there is an inherent value in doing what feels good, and that as a marginalized person the act of doing what feels good to you can be downright revolutionary. So sure, if what feels good is calling people the same insults over and over then more power to you. However, I don't get why that would feel good. It's very easy for them to dismiss. To use a gaming analogy, I think it's more fun when you're playing to win, even if the game itself is unfair.

evilthecat:
SNIP

Except there's a difference between doing what Saelune does when even talking to those people in the context of challenging their views... and doing it in threads that are not even talking about politics.

These forums are meant to be akin to handing out with some friends on the weekend or entering into a debate on a subject with fellow students in philosophy class. You don't bring a petulant attitude into those situations the situation does not call for a fighting attitude.

evilthecat:

Saelune:
I think that is just another way to let them control you. It wont matter, so I think we should just not worry about it and respond how we feel is best for ourselves. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Well yes. We live in a society which is incredibly unfair, and where the voices of those with privilege are able to dominate without even trying, and where no matter what we do other people are going to control the conversation. Just living in that situation is psychologically devastating, even when one leaves aside the very real, physical consequences of being marginalized. If you weren't angry about that, I would worry for you. Heck, I am angry too. But another part of living in such a society is realising that noone cares if you're angry and hurting, either they're incapable of understanding or they're unwilling to do anything about it.

But it won't always be this way. Things will change, and they will change because individual people run out of ways to hide from the humanity of people like us. The people who wonder why you're so angry today will be pretending they were your allies tomorrow, and part of that will be caused by people encountering situations which challenge them in ways they can't ignore, and maybe letting those thoughts and doubts fester in a changing political climate for years or decades. What I'm saying, ultimately, is that you're not as powerless as you think you are, and letting them believe that you are powerless really is letting them control you. The right, at this point, increasingly resembles a cult, and while it my be pointless to engage with the hardcore believers, there are plenty of people on the edges who can be, if not full on deprogrammed, then at least challenged on particular issues and points, and that is progress.

And yes, I believe there is an inherent value in doing what feels good, and that as a marginalized person the act of doing what feels good to you can be downright revolutionary. So sure, if what feels good is calling people the same insults over and over then more power to you. However, I don't get why that would feel good. It's very easy for them to dismiss. To use a gaming analogy, I think it's more fun when you're playing to win, even if the game itself is unfair.

If Trump becomes President again in 2020, I am going to kill myself, so excuse me if I am a bit impatient. Sure, slavery in the US eventually ended, but it ended after centuries of slavery and centuries of abuse and rape and murder. Likely a majority of slaves never knew a reality of hope. The little girl who died in Trump's internment camps, her entire reality was the same as 16 million killed in Hitler's camps. She never knew the hope of Obama and will never know hope, because she is dead before she was even 10. Donald Trump murdered that little girl and he should pay for it in ways he will never be able to afford.

Too many people live and die without even smelling hope. And fucking hell, as miserable as I am, as bitter as I am, I am still privilaged with far more hope than that little girl Trump murdered, or those Honduran refugees, and every slave ever, and every victim of the Holocaust, particularly those hundreds if not thousands of children who Hitler killed, whos entire lives were slave work at internment camps followed by a gas chamber.

Time is not on everyones side, hope is not something everyone gets to taste.

JamesStone:

I hope you realize that you've been arguing with yourself all this time. No one ever said you were alone in your views. Only that you have a completely oversimplified, wrongly analyzed and self-important interpretation of what those views actually are.
In essence, you're going at it the wrong way. Many other posters who you have much greated consideration for than me told you so already, directly or indirectly. I hope this thread will cause you to reflect about this sometime in the future, but knowing your arrogant attitude and self-importance complex I won't hold my breath.

Hate to break it to ya, but this topic has only justified my actions to me. People who have disagreed with me here have been mostly people who always disagree with me. Others, like Gethsemani and erttheking I find to not be committed enough and mostly what they say translates to me as 'You're right, but I hate loud noises'.

Specter Von Baren:

evilthecat:
SNIP

Except there's a difference between doing what Saelune does when even talking to those people in the context of challenging their views... and doing it in threads that are not even talking about politics.

These forums are meant to be akin to handing out with some friends on the weekend or entering into a debate on a subject with fellow students in philosophy class. You don't bring a petulant attitude into those situations the situation does not call for a fighting attitude.

Citation needed. You don't want politics, then stay out of R&P. Especially now that any Off-Topic thread that gets any sort of political now gets moved here.

I think anyone who 'doesnt care about politics' is doing themselves a disservice. But fine, dont care, but dont come here and 'not care' as if I am wrong for caring.

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

They also weren't stopped by people calling them mean names. Like, call Trump "The cheeto-in-chief" all you want, I don't give a fuck, but don't pretend it s actually doing something.

Insults actually seem to be pretty effective against Trump, he is so thin-skinned. I just never have gotten a chance to insult him to his face.

Wolf insulted him and now he is having his snowflake ball soon because of it.

What policy changes has insulting trump resulted in?

Much of why Trump is not Grand Emperor of the US is because he is too inept to assert full control, and I do not doubt it is inability to take criticism that helps maintain his ineptness. Though I think too many left-wing politicians do not get uncivil enough to take full advantage of this. I think if Hillary didn't bother trying to debate Trump like a reasonable person and instead just insulted him, she would have fared better.

Edit: My 15000th post

trunkage:
Alright. So one thing I've noticed is that most people here think Saalune isn't being civil. Your (as in everyone) assumption is that Saelune also has the same understanding of civility. I think this is a bad assumption.

Two, if recent events haven't proven it to you, I don't know what will. Being civil make you sidelined. You are not part of the discussion. Everyone can easily ignore you. And you will lose.

Three, the current most effective way of changing society is to influence governments. I really don't like this. Like a lot. But unfortunately, that's how it is. You don't change governments through civility. You take it by manipulation or force. That's what MLK did. Manipulate people's emotions. Trump did the same. So did Ghandi and Hitler. You don't win arguments through reason.

Lastly .... has anyone read the "I Have a Dream Speech"? MLK calls white people racists. He calls, what white people thought as justice, police brutality (you know, exactly like the discussion today). He also threatens the nation with revolts until Rights are given. He calls for it to happen everyone in the States. In fact, he sounds much more like Saelune than anyone else here.

Looking at that speech and comparing it to the conversation and reality today... Nothing much has changed

I was curious of your thoughts on this topic. I am actually a bit surprised you seem to agree with me here as much as you do.

Saelune:
Much of why Trump is not Grand Emperor of the US is because he is too inept to assert full control

I think we are dealing far, far outside the realms of possibility with this.

If Trump becomes President again in 2020, I am going to kill myself, so excuse me if I am a bit impatient.

100% serious here: Don't do that. Please.

Specter Von Baren:
Also... can we all back up here and point out that Addendum just advocated for killing the families and friends of people? I don't care if this is meant to be done, "when all other means have failed". If the only way of fighting monsters is to become just as much a monster then what is in fact the point of being on either side at all?

What happens afterward, maybe?

Specter Von Baren:
These forums are meant to be akin to handing out with some friends on the weekend or entering into a debate on a subject with fellow students in philosophy class. You don't bring a petulant attitude into those situations the situation does not call for a fighting attitude.

Sometimes, you can't be friends with people.

These are not abstract philosophical questions or debates, they are issues with real life or death consequences. Expecting us all to come out and still be able to function as friends is symptomatic of a worrying lack of empathy.

Saelune:
If Trump becomes President again in 2020, I am going to kill myself, so excuse me if I am a bit impatient.

Sure, I understand that feeling. But, while I have no idea what's going on in your life and can hardly ask you to stay alive "for the cause" or on the vague promise that things might get better one day for someone who probably isn't you, it strikes me as delivering in a very ultimate sense on what the absolute scum on the other side actually want. Let's not fantasize that our deaths aren't going to move or convince anyone our lives couldn't, if that was the case things would be very different already, and they aren't.

People survive worse political situations than the Trump presidency, and they don't do so because of some abstract hope, but because they build resilience, and sure, sometimes that isn't enough. We're a community in which too many people have had to bury their friends, but even in that we aren't alone. If you choose to live, it's not always going to be easy, but you will carve moments of joy from it as people have always done. Again, we aren't powerless, no matter what anyone says.

Also, never forget that Obama's administration killed nearly 4000 people in drone strikes. More than 300 of those people were confirmed civilian casualties. The cruelty of the world is not limited to a single person, or a single party. Trump losing in 2020 would not magically make the world a better place, it would not make the injustices of the world go away. To a certain extent, injustices are just something we have to survive any way we can, the political situation doesn't ultimately change that.

Saelune:

Specter Von Baren:

evilthecat:
SNIP

Except there's a difference between doing what Saelune does when even talking to those people in the context of challenging their views... and doing it in threads that are not even talking about politics.

These forums are meant to be akin to handing out with some friends on the weekend or entering into a debate on a subject with fellow students in philosophy class. You don't bring a petulant attitude into those situations the situation does not call for a fighting attitude.

Citation needed. You don't want politics, then stay out of R&P. Especially now that any Off-Topic thread that gets any sort of political now gets moved here.

I think anyone who 'doesnt care about politics' is doing themselves a disservice. But fine, dont care, but dont come here and 'not care' as if I am wrong for caring.

Except you would do it in Off Topic and Gaming... In threads that had nothing to do with politics.

evilthecat:

Sometimes, you can't be friends with people.

These are not abstract philosophical questions or debates, they are issues with real life or death consequences. Expecting us all to come out and still be able to function as friends is symptomatic of a worrying lack of empathy.

In which case you kill the forum. It already almost died because of people arguing about something.

And don't talk to ME about empathy, it's people that lash out at others when they know very little about them that are lacking the empathy. I've spent my whole life with a big wall between my brain and understanding what other people mean because of my autism. I've been bullied, insulted, and frightened by other people but I do not take that as an excuse to be an ass to others and I still care about other people even if and when they hurt me.

You are making a big assumption about myself based on nothing because from where I sit, wanting everyone to get along and understanding their pain and wanting to try and be kind and civil to them because I know they are another person is exactly what empathy is.

Saelune:
If Trump becomes President again in 2020, I am going to kill myself, so excuse me if I am a bit impatient.

I don't agree with you in this thread.

But just don't do that. Suicide is never an option and won't improve anything. If you really are thinking about it in earnest, please seek out help.

And if (independend of your feelings) your situation is really that shitty and you are discriminated against all the time, consider to move. Maybe you could emigrate to a more sensible country. If you are qualified, e.g. most of Europe would take you. It is not perfect here but it is probably better than on your side of the ocean.

Specter Von Baren:
Also... can we all back up here and point out that Addendum just advocated for killing the families and friends of people? I don't care if this is meant to be done, "when all other means have failed". If the only way of fighting monsters is to become just as much a monster then what is in fact the point of being on either side at all?

If the job is important and it gets the job done, then get on and do it.

We think killing people is incredibly bad because we live in a generally very peaceful and ordered society; so removed from trauma that people in a country of 300 million could somehow present a caravan of a few thousand migrants as an existential crisis. We have in many ways a completely unbalanced and unrealistic comprehension of the occasional need to do things like water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. People can die today so others live better in the future.

It's not just a general societal thing, it's that many of us as individuals lead extremely comfortable lives where the necessity of violence - or indeed much lesser crimes - is almost mystifying. But anyone who takes some time out to look beyond their suburb must realise that's really not how it is for a lot of other people in the same society. We have to accept that some of them may have very different perceptions about use of violence, and these are explainable - sometimes even justified - by their experiences.

Haha, this thread is really something. Tell me, all you would be revolutionaries and Che Guevarras, how would you go about your great uprising when your side is actively trying to restrict access to all the guns? You don't have weapons, the other side has.

Taishakuten:
Haha, this thread is really something. Tell me, all you would be revolutionaries and Che Guevarras, how would you go about your great uprising when your side is actively trying to restrict access to all the guns? You don't have weapons, the other side has.

Having lived through and participated in a successful peaceful revolution, i am proud to say that it sometimes is possible.

If you are living in a less violent society, then people have qualms using violence. And that extends to police, army and whatever else could be used to suppress you. Those people might want to protect the state but they sure don't want to actually hurt nonviolent protesters. And sometimes that is enough.

But as soon as shots are fired, people in uniform have an excuse to escalate. In a police state that is a very present risk when you are participating in an illegal demonstration.

And that is why the whole history is full of instances of inserting provocateurs into protest movement to get a justification to resort to violence. Escalation is usually not a good thing for protesters.

Taishakuten:
actively trying to restrict access to all the guns?

Liar.

Agema:

Specter Von Baren:
Also... can we all back up here and point out that Addendum just advocated for killing the families and friends of people? I don't care if this is meant to be done, "when all other means have failed". If the only way of fighting monsters is to become just as much a monster then what is in fact the point of being on either side at all?

If the job is important and it gets the job done, then get on and do it.

We think killing people is incredibly bad because we live in a generally very peaceful and ordered society; so removed from trauma that people in a country of 300 million could somehow present a caravan of a few thousand migrants as an existential crisis. We have in many ways a completely unbalanced and unrealistic comprehension of the occasional need to do things like water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. People can die today so others live better in the future.

It's not just a general societal thing, it's that many of us as individuals lead extremely comfortable lives where the necessity of violence - or indeed much lesser crimes - is almost mystifying. But anyone who takes some time out to look beyond their suburb must realise that's really not how it is for a lot of other people in the same society. We have to accept that some of them may have very different perceptions about use of violence, and these are explainable - sometimes even justified - by their experiences.

I am well aware of the history of the world and the violence that was used during it and why people use violent means at times. Doesn't mean I like it, nor does it remove the logic that...

A. The rhetoric of some left leaning people here is that Trump is a madman with too much power that is going to get everyone killed because he's either going to start a nuclear war or create a nazi state.

B. The rhetoric of some left leaning people here is that the right holds too much power in industries and the government and are monitoring people all the time and are violent.

C. What does such a group DO when you start advocating violent actions against them that break the laws of our country? What does this group DO when the law no longer binds them? If they are what they say they are then why on God's green earth would you EVER post about it on a forum where they can see your post?

Satinavian:

Having lived through and participated in a successful peaceful revolution, i am proud to say that it sometimes is possible.

If you are living in a less violent society, then people have qualms using violence. And that extends to police, army and whatever else could be used to suppress you. Those people might want to protect the state but they sure don't want to actually hurt nonviolent protesters. And sometimes that is enough.

But as soon as shots are fired, people in uniform have an excuse to escalate. In a police state that is a very present risk when you are participating in an illegal demonstration.

And that is why the whole history is full of instances of inserting provocateurs into protest movement to get a justification to resort to violence. Escalation is usually not a good thing for protesters.

Except what's being suggested in this thread isn't peaceful revolution but violent and nasty revolution.

Specter Von Baren:
Except what's being suggested in this thread isn't peaceful revolution but violent and nasty revolution.

Yes.

And people talk about this being sometimes necessary to achieve change.

This is why i point out that change, even revolutionary change does not always need violence. And that violence is often a bad thing when you are upset/ want to protest and force change.

I can be even more clear, if you want. In none of the current western capitalist systems a violent revolution is a good idea at the moment. Yes, leftwingers have a lot of justified grievances atm. But the Red Army Faction were utter idiots and did not really help anyone. They are not a role model to be followed now.

CM156:

Saelune:

[quote]If Trump becomes President again in 2020, I am going to kill myself, so excuse me if I am a bit impatient.

100% serious here: Don't do that. Please.

Why? Honestly, I don't think you care what I do to myself. You are telling me not to do it simply because you are 'supposed' to advocate against suicide automatically. But it is just 'thoughts and prayers'. As in worthless BS people say out of enforced civility that never actually helps anyone or does anything.

If you actually cared at all about my well being, you would vote against Trump.

evilthecat:

Saelune:
If Trump becomes President again in 2020, I am going to kill myself, so excuse me if I am a bit impatient.

Sure, I understand that feeling. But, while I have no idea what's going on in your life and can hardly ask you to stay alive "for the cause" or on the vague promise that things might get better one day for someone who probably isn't you, it strikes me as delivering in a very ultimate sense on what the absolute scum on the other side actually want. Let's not fantasize that our deaths aren't going to move or convince anyone our lives couldn't, if that was the case things would be very different already, and they aren't.

People survive worse political situations than the Trump presidency, and they don't do so because of some abstract hope, but because they build resilience, and sure, sometimes that isn't enough. We're a community in which too many people have had to bury their friends, but even in that we aren't alone. If you choose to live, it's not always going to be easy, but you will carve moments of joy from it as people have always done. Again, we aren't powerless, no matter what anyone says.

Also, never forget that Obama's administration killed nearly 4000 people in drone strikes. More than 300 of those people were confirmed civilian casualties. The cruelty of the world is not limited to a single person, or a single party. Trump losing in 2020 would not magically make the world a better place, it would not make the injustices of the world go away. To a certain extent, injustices are just something we have to survive any way we can, the political situation doesn't ultimately change that.

I assure you it would purely be for the selfish intent of not being in pain anymore. I have no fantasies of it changing anyone for the better or being a martyr. It is just me quitting on hope.

War sucks, and every world leader ever probably deserves to go to Hell if it exists, but atleast Obama was trying to reduce casualties on his own side. Lesser evils. Trump does literally everything worse than Obama and Hillary. Literally everything. I wish Obama was the worst of it.

Specter Von Baren:

Saelune:

Specter Von Baren:

Except there's a difference between doing what Saelune does when even talking to those people in the context of challenging their views... and doing it in threads that are not even talking about politics.

These forums are meant to be akin to handing out with some friends on the weekend or entering into a debate on a subject with fellow students in philosophy class. You don't bring a petulant attitude into those situations the situation does not call for a fighting attitude.

Citation needed. You don't want politics, then stay out of R&P. Especially now that any Off-Topic thread that gets any sort of political now gets moved here.

I think anyone who 'doesnt care about politics' is doing themselves a disservice. But fine, dont care, but dont come here and 'not care' as if I am wrong for caring.

Except you would do it in Off Topic and Gaming... In threads that had nothing to do with politics.

Examples?

Specter Von Baren:

evilthecat:

Sometimes, you can't be friends with people.

These are not abstract philosophical questions or debates, they are issues with real life or death consequences. Expecting us all to come out and still be able to function as friends is symptomatic of a worrying lack of empathy.

In which case you kill the forum. It already almost died because of people arguing about something.

And don't talk to ME about empathy, it's people that lash out at others when they know very little about them that are lacking the empathy. I've spent my whole life with a big wall between my brain and understanding what other people mean because of my autism. I've been bullied, insulted, and frightened by other people but I do not take that as an excuse to be an ass to others and I still care about other people even if and when they hurt me.

You are making a big assumption about myself based on nothing because from where I sit, wanting everyone to get along and understanding their pain and wanting to try and be kind and civil to them because I know they are another person is exactly what empathy is.

And yet you condemn me for wanting the same thing. I just stopped wasting my empathy on those who deny it to people just cause they are a little bit different. To protect the victims of bullies, sometimes you have to punch the bully in the face. The bully is less deserving of empathy than their victims, but if that bully is willing to change, I am willing to give them empathy too. So few bullies ever do want to change though.

'Civility' is letting the bully continue to hurt people cause you refuse to stop them.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here