Is political violence inherently wrong?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:34:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Is political violence inherently wrong?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Wording deliberately vague
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 56

Author Topic: Is political violence inherently wrong?  (Read 1666 times)
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:44:03 PM »

No
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2014, 09:48:38 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJQqA906Ht4
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2014, 10:15:23 PM »

Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2014, 10:24:07 PM »

No, not inherently.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2014, 10:47:20 PM »

You mean terrorism?
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2014, 11:03:01 PM »

With this statement we're saying that all the wars and disruptions in the world are wrong, so no.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2014, 12:42:58 AM »

No, but just calling something political does not make it political, and even when the situation is political, violence is only justified when all other measures have failed and violence has a chance of success.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2014, 01:34:47 AM »

No but its only acceptable in extreme circumstances when all other methods have been exhausted (ie American Revolution or the July 20 plot).
Logged
Arturo Belano
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,471


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2014, 02:40:59 AM »

From an intranational context, it is wrong if democratic or peaceful means of achieving political change exist.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2014, 03:34:45 AM »

Snowstalker's position always seems to be that violence towards his end is legitimate, but other violence isn't. Once you open the door for condoning violence for political objectives, you're at least recognizing the right of the oppressors to use violence to keep their own power from the oppressed. If violence from the workers to seize the means of production is legitimate, is violence by the owners against the workers to preserve their ownership of the means of production also legitimate?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2014, 06:00:04 AM »

Snowstalker's position always seems to be that violence towards his end is legitimate, but other violence isn't. Once you open the door for condoning violence for political objectives, you're at least recognizing the right of the oppressors to use violence to keep their own power from the oppressed. If violence from the workers to seize the means of production is legitimate, is violence by the owners against the workers to preserve their ownership of the means of production also legitimate?

Not to defend Snowstalker, but any fundamental change of ownership to the wealth in society (a "social revolution") requires violence, so if you believe such a transition is necessary and moral then you have to condone violence - you can to a certain extent redistribure through taxation, but you need force to fundamentally redistribute property (you can do it through democratic control of the state apparatus, but if the wealthy are in any position to retaliate (by setting up a rebel army, attempting a coup, seeking foreign intervention etc.) such a confiscation of property will still require armed force.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2014, 06:37:01 AM »

The sort of question that is so vague, abstract and disconnected from reality as to have no practical bearing whatsoever.
Logged
Murica!
whyshouldigiveyoumyname?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,295
Angola


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2014, 10:30:25 AM »

As JFK said, Those who make peaceful revolution impossible(modern America) will make violent revolution inevitable. So no.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2014, 10:34:01 AM »

It's only wrong if you can't achieve your desired end with it in a given context, i.e. when violence is counterproductive or sets back the cause you're trying to advance in a given moment.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,188
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2014, 11:11:09 AM »

The trouble with violence is it tends to increase the amount of disorder. Disorder leads to a power vacuums, which are far likelier to be filled by counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries, strongmen and other such nasties than anything remotely nice.

Look at state-sanctioned violence like, say, the Terror - despite having a "worthy" aim, it quickly spiralled beyond control and completely crippled the radical aspects of the revolution, allowing counter-revolutionaries to take over.

I'm not saying violence doesn't have its place. Some regimes and movements simply must be taken down under moral grounds. The Nazis. The Falangist rebelllion. The KKK. All of them are appropriate targets for violence, simply because they themselves have no respect for non-violent avenues of change. But violence should be approached with caution.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2014, 12:51:01 PM »

Snowstalker's position always seems to be that violence towards his end is legitimate, but other violence isn't. Once you open the door for condoning violence for political objectives, you're at least recognizing the right of the oppressors to use violence to keep their own power from the oppressed. If violence from the workers to seize the means of production is legitimate, is violence by the owners against the workers to preserve their ownership of the means of production also legitimate?

Not to defend Snowstalker, but any fundamental change of ownership to the wealth in society (a "social revolution") requires violence, so if you believe such a transition is necessary and moral then you have to condone violence - you can to a certain extent redistribure through taxation, but you need force to fundamentally redistribute property (you can do it through democratic control of the state apparatus, but if the wealthy are in any position to retaliate (by setting up a rebel army, attempting a coup, seeking foreign intervention etc.) such a confiscation of property will still require armed force.

My question is if it's acceptable for "workers" to try to "seize" factories etc, why is it not also acceptable for the owner of said factory to hire mercenaries to mow down said workers? If class war is to exist, saying that the bourgeoisie fighting back is illegitimate is rather dirty pool.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2014, 01:16:18 PM »

Not inherently (lives in a country that exists because of political violence.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2014, 01:17:22 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww-88rwt4ms
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2014, 01:27:58 PM »

In the context of Snowstalker trolling the deaths of two police officers, yes. Yes it absolutely is.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2014, 03:04:01 PM »

Only in extreme circumstances is it not wrong.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2014, 03:12:50 PM »

Actions are not inherently right or wrong so the same applies to political violence. If you want to rephrase this question so as to allow for subjective interpretations the answers posted would be more interesting, I imagine.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2014, 05:26:36 PM »

Of course it's fine in limited circumstances. If you're in group X and the state is going around killing X, by all means blow some stuff up and assassinate the relevant officials.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2014, 07:19:12 PM »

Actions are not inherently right or wrong so the same applies to political violence. If you want to rephrase this question so as to allow for subjective interpretations the answers posted would be more interesting, I imagine.

What a load of pseudointellectual bollocks. 'Actions are not inherently right or wrong' my foot. Murder is inherently wrong. Rape is inherently wrong. Robbing someone at gunpoint is inherently wrong. Giving a four year old a pack of razorblades to play with is inherently wrong. If you genuinely think otherwise you aren't a great intellect, but a sociopath (and also an insufferable windbag, but we knew that anyway).
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2014, 07:41:33 PM »

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize it's impossible to be a constructivist and have a moral compass at the same time?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2014, 07:48:04 PM »

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize it's impossible to be a constructivist and have a moral compass at the same time?

You're a Soviet artist from the 1920s?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.