littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sorry, but I think that really is nonsense. The evidence of history shows that changes from absolutist systems of government did not evolve peacefully. They came about through violent ruptures.
football violence vs political violence
- Thread starter bluestreak
- Start date
You're talking about non-democratic governments, in general, aren't you?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'Democratic' governments can do some pretty nasty, violent things. Just ask a Palestinian...
...or an Iraqi.
You're not palestinian, though. So why should their example be relevant to you?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You're right. I'm not Palestinian, so fuck 'em, why should I care.
You're right. I'm not Palestinian, so fuck 'em, why should I care.
We're not talking about whether you should care, though.
We're talking about whether you can justify mob violence in general.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'Mob violence' by Palestinians against the effectively apartheid state that they live in, caged into their homelands by the Israeli government, can be justified very specifically. You ask for some general abstract justification, but all I can give you is concrete examples.
And whether it is mob violence or collective community action depends on your perspective - it is similar to the distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist.
The justification for violence is pretty easy. The question is whether it is effective and whether it is 'worth it'.
In some extreme situation it may prove to be so.. but we do not live in those extreme situations.. and therefore I can't see how it can be effective or worth it for us.
No it doesn't. That's the point of having the popular cause on your side. Because then you are a freedom fighter. Otherwise you are a terrorist.
biff curtains
Fred West or Fred Housego
Who gives a fuck about small businesses?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
OK. Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. They have a great deal of support in the occupied territories - terrorists or freedom fighters?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Kurdish independence fighters in Turkey. Lots of popular support among ethnic Kurds in Turkey. But take Turkey as a whole and the majority are against them.
Neither. Or both. Only time will tell.
But they're not mob rioters, are they? And most importantly their situation is not like our situation.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You mean, if they win they are freedom fighters, if they lose they are terrorists?
To put it harshly.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Oddly, I reserve for myself the right to make my own judgements as to the rightness of a cause, independent of its success or failure.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I prefer "people who justifiably have the right arse".
Everyone has that right. The point is that it's just an opinion.
And as I said.. Every fucker think that their cause is right.
The palestinians, the swp, the Bnp... until they win or lose they are all just people with a cause that you may or may not believe in.
It's only once they've won or lost that they really become either.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I cannot abide that kind of relativistic nonsense. That you can lump the plight of the Palestinians alongside the BNP shows how wrong your thinking is.
We're not discussing the rightness of their causes, lbj. That's the point I'm trying to make to you.
You only seem to think in terms of causes that you believe are right.. however once you start to legitimise violence as a method of getting what you want you allow people whose causes you don't believe in that same justification. Like the BNP for example.
This is the reality of the history of violence.. we tend only to remember the ones that succeeded. Little mention is made of the many many others that spilled blood for an unjust cause.
This may not affect you personally.. it won't, for example, affect a middleclass white male living in a nice house and nice area as much as, say, a black man living in Tower Hamlets.
That's a very obvious example.. but I hope you can appreciate what I mean.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
In the case of the Palestinians, I would say that they are responding to violence that has been inflicted on them. It would be hard for the BNP to make the case that violence has been used to suppress them and that this has provoked their violence. The blackshirts of the 1930s were not spurred into action in the East End by violent acts by the Jews living there.
There is a legitimate distinction to be made between the oppressed and the oppressors, I think. As TopCat says, the oppressed are those who justifiably have the arse.
They would use another justification. Whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant. It's whether enough people agree with it to cause trouble for others.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Er what about twenty years of AFA battering them?
I'm not really disagreeing with that.
We're really only talking about methods. Because whether you agree with a cause or not.. if you use violence - they will use violence.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
poll tax
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
perhaps you meant to ask the question
Besides which, rioting doesn't need a result any more than any other political action. The act of rioting is participating in a political action that sends a message of anger and reminds those in power that there is only so long they can push their sick agendas.
No, I didn't. Whether I agree with a result or not isn't what we're talking about.
We're talking about justifying violence for any political reason.
Said the BNP representative to the skinheads....
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Strawman, mate. Each of us are moral agents. Just because some people can justify a riot for reasons I don't believe in, doesn't mean that I abdicate my moral responsibilities to take actions that I believe are correct. I reserve the right to send a message using violence if the democratic process fails peaceful negotiation.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
At the moment political violence can't really be justified in the uk.
go ahead and ruck with the police chances are you will go to jail. no sympathy for football hooligans just a bunch of drunk tossers who have made it difficult for fans
and were responsible for the fences going up
go ahead and ruck with the police chances are you will go to jail. no sympathy for football hooligans just a bunch of drunk tossers who have made it difficult for fans
and were responsible for the fences going up
Not even slightly.
It absolutely does. Remember you're the guy who said that it is the sign of a civilised society that we cause no physical harm to convicted childkillers.
.. and yet here you are saying you reserve the right to use violence against any random target because of your own personal beliefs. No matter how wrong they are. And no matter what they have done.
The two don't go together.
If you are relatively safe from the prospect of riot violence ie you don't work for the police, the government, small business or you're not of an ethinc minority.. it's easy to feel safe and secure in prescribing violence.
However that just shows a blindness to the effect that justifying violence has on those in less secure positions.
Remember when you reserve the right to use violence.. you give that right to those that disagree with you.
Similar threads
