I beat my dick into submission daily.
I have long believed violence is the language of those who’s voices have been stolen. Take that however you will.
Violence is stupid. In some situations, it’s just an output for one’s rage. In other situations, it’s a battle of who is best equipped (hardware + intelligence). Neither of these address the core of the disagreement. Violence only beats the loser into submission. It does not change their stance on the matter.
Negotiation, on the other hand, ideally, at least gives all parties some gains and losses. It may not be the end of the matter but it’s generally a positive step and should promote some degree of respect.
Maybe we never had it, but I think we’ve largely lost the ability to be respectful and empathetic to others. Even though we find to be of the greatest evil, I think, should be given some initial respect to try to understand the emotional reality of their intent.
I won’t write it out, but imagine the worse crime an adult male could do to someone. Something so revolting that the only “logical” recourse is violence. This is an emotional response that does not address the problems that brought this person to such an evil act. By ignoring the problem and beating the person down, we are not able to understand how they got to this place or how we can recognize this path in others. This is a brief example for the sake of time. If you look at something like genocide, I think the process does scale up but too complex to write out for now.
I condone empathy for all because we all as a species benefit from it.
Edit: on second thought - violence used to preserve life may generally be acceptable.
I primarily agree - it’s not right for an adult male to rope someone into an experience they don’t consent to, whether they believe the time is ripe to reap the results of a neglectful society or not. Learning of the lived experiences of said individual instead of blindly deciding to wrap a rap sheet round their existence and call it a day will help understand why men rape children.
P.s. Don’t forget that people of almost any age and sex can rape too, regardless of legal definition. The only discerning factor here is that the male (from as young as 8) can inseminate and possibly impregnate the victim if said victim is a human female.
Only against the ruling class.
i don’t condone violence, officer.
I don’t have an answer to the question but here’s an unrelated set of emojis 🍊🔫
No.
Violence is always a bad option. Sometimes however, it’s the least bad of the bad options. And knowing when that point has been reached is incredibly hard, and often misjudged.
I’m opposed to violence, however I define it differently to how the state does. One example of violence that wouldn’t be considered by the state to be violence is calling the cops.
Violence is a hierarchy and as soon as you understand that, the more you understand it as a meaningless term.
I think that violence can be adequately defined as “the instigation of aggression/harm against peaceful beings.” Hierarchy is not strictly required for this.
“I have watched them all day and they are the same men that we are. I believe that I could walk up to the mill and knock on the door and I would be welcome except that they have orders to challenge all travelers and ask to see their papers. It is only orders that come between us. Those men are not fascists. I call them so, but they are not. They are poor men as we are. They should never be fighting against us and I do not like to think of the killing.”
“I hope I am not for the killing, Anselmo was thinking. I think that after the war there will have to be some great penance done for the killing. If we no longer have religion after the war then I think there must be some form of civic penance organized that all may be cleansed from the killing or else we will never have a true and human basis for living. The killing is necessary, I know, but still the doing of it is very bad for a man and I think that, after all this is over and we have won the war, there must be a penance of some kind for the cleansing of us all.”
The question reminded me of “For whom the bell tolls”. It’s rather strange that during all these months whenever I get bored and grab a book it’s about one of the various wars of last century. I can’t help but read all of them with an eerie feeling of anticipation. Remarque’s “The Night of Lisbon” hit especially hard, but this one is a tower of a book as well and I had totally forgotten how deep it is. If Hemingway was alive today, would he get involved in some conflict elsewhere? Should more of us be on the way to Gaza, or at least involved in a general strike to force them to stop this nonsensical warmongering? Even not being in the US settling into business as usual makes me feel like a fascist, every day the feeling gets a little stronger. Non-violent protest would be my weapon of choice and always has been, but if I’m ever forced into hiding for who I am? Might just get really creative out of pure spite.
Nice try FBI
Right… This sort of thread is how we make it on boomer teevee with headline
Decentralized social media is a hot bed of extremism targeting hard working people like UnitedHealth CEO
I try to avoid it myself, but that’s not always possible. How could I hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself?
What I cannot condone is lethal force by the state. I discourage it from individuals as well.
Violence is a tool, like fire. Be careful and thoughtful about when and how to use it, otherwise you can burn yourself and your city.
the law requires I say no
